MC

Source. April 24, 2009 Global Warmists' Sly Polar Disorder By Marc Sheppard If there’s one thing climate alarmists have become quite good at, it’s retrofitting both their computer models and the climate phenomena those models predict whenever they fail to do so correctly. And whether projecting increases in temperature, sea levels or atmospheric carbon dioxide – that means often. But some of the most brazen intellectual corruption warmists have committed under fire concerns the sometimes polar opposite trends of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Back in 2005, NASA attempted to excuse the failure of their climate models to predict continued southern ice expansion as an omission of the “snow-to-ice conversion” process in their programming. Once that algorithm was incorporated, they insisted, their models properly recognized the phenomena as completely consistent with warming predictions, and they offered this assurance: “A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.” Two years later, alarmists everywhere were screaming about what horrors the opening of the Northwest Passage would portend. It seems the lowest level of Arctic ice since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago had actually created the fabled Arctic Ocean shipping lane that had eluded explorers from John Cabot in 1497 to Henry Hudson in 1609 and beyond. That could only mean one thing --- frightened pundits warned -- global warming of unprecedented magnitude was unquestionably upon us. But as I pointed out then, while it was true that satellite photos had found an ice-free corridor along Canada, Alaska and Greenland and Northern Hemisphere ice at its lowest level since such images were taken in 1978, it was also true that Antarctic ice levels (Southern Hemisphere) were at record highs for that same period. And that fact was being completely ignored in the headlines. Consequently -- all eyes were directed to the catastrophe looming in our northern waters. Fortunately for realists, since the Northwest Passage hysteria of 2007, Arctic ice has made a rapid comeback, as you can see from this DMI Centre for Ocean and Ice graph, constructed from Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility data. In fact, the 2009 Arctic ice extent appears to be well on track to exceed the previous four years. So why do we continue to hear warnings about receding Arctic ice? How is that possible when the extent is quickly approaching its 1979-2000 mean? Simple -- the rules have changed again. It’s no longer the area of the ice that counts, but rather the volume. You see, thicker winter ice is better able to survive the summer and in turn help cool the planet while reflecting sunlight back into space. And, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), “This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February.” So there’s a new metric in town -- The ice that has been forming at a record pace since the 2007 record low simply doesn’t count because it’s not yet as thick and “effective” as older ice. And that nonsense somehow gives cover to a mainstream media (MSM) that, despite continually expanding ice, dutifully repeat the retrofitted analysis in headlines the likes of Arctic ice is thinner than ever according to new evidence from explorers and Arctic ice continues to shrink and thin and of course Arctic will be ice-free within a decade. Pretty slick, huh? Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, ice area is nearly 30% above normal and last year managed to set another record maximum. Sounds like great news. But for some strange reason, the MSM have again all but ignored all that southern in favor of the northern ice. Perhaps that’s about to change. You see, just as in 2005, the greenhouse gas crowd have come up with an explanation for global warming’s polar opposition. But this time, they’re not compelled to blame “snow-to-ice conversion” or any similar modeling oversight. And no perilous expeditions await intrepid green explorers in order to challenge the quality of the growing ice. No, this time warmists can blame the disparity entirely on their favorite villain -- mankind. Now, you’re probably wondering just how even alarmist logic might reconcile mankind’s accountability for shrinking (even though it isn’t) ice in the North and simultaneous expanding ice in the South. Here’s how: A study published Wednesday by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) confirms that Antarctic ice is indeed continuing to expand. But does that suggest there’s no global warming taking place? Quite the contrary, insists lead author John Turner. Actually, there’s another phenomenon that’s temporarily canceling out warming’s effects -- the hole in the ozone layer. That’s right, the “depletion of the protective ozone layer has altered wind patterns and caused temperatures in most of the southern continent to fall so that more cold air flows over the Southern Ocean, freezing the water.” And according to the report, that accounts for every bit of southern hemisphere ocean ice cover increase over the past 30 years. Strangely, the report puts that growth at about 1% per decade, while the NSIDC calculates that rate at nearly 5%. But why quibble? I’m sure it must have been an honest mistake. Anyway, here’s the real beauty of this new study. As Dr. Turner explains: "While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic, human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice.” Outstanding play, that. Point One -- Our gas-guzzling SUVs and coal-fired power stations release CO2 into the atmosphere. Point Two -- According to more than a few scientists those additional molecules are wholly or partially to blame for the late 20th century warming period. Point Three -- Our air-conditioners, hairsprays and deodorants once released chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere. Point Four -- Most scientists blame their stratospheric decomposition for depletion of the planet’s vital Ozone Layer and the Ozone hole in the polar vortex over Antarctica. Conclusion -- The selfish actions that melt northern sea ice would do the same to southern sea ice were it not for yet another group of our selfish actions. What exquisite eco-perfection. Mind you, BAS’s is not an entirely new theory. In April of last year, a joint study by the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA also predicted that “Ozone Hole recovery may reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change and amplify Antarctic warming.” But it would appear that somehow, the political potential of the ice extent correlation took a while to sink in. Of course, as with all things which dare stall the symptoms of the impending global warming doom predicted by their infallible climate models, this one too will be conveniently short-lived and therefore depicted to in no way preclude immediate and extreme action. In 1987, CFCs were banned under an international treaty called the Montreal Protocol. As CFCs have rather long atmospheric lifetimes, scientists predict another 50 years before all those previously released fully dissipate from the stratosphere, allowing ozone concentrations, and the Ozone layer, to stabilize. Says Turner: "We expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the century, and by then there is likely to be around one-third less Antarctic sea ice." Of course there is, Doc. And as soon as the already 9-year-old Modern Solar Minimum we’re evidently experiencing ends, normal sunspot activity will resume. And when the current 20-30 year cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ends, Pacific Ocean surface temperature reduction will end with it. And all that natural cooling will leave more substance frozen at both poles, and significantly less substance to the already gossamer anthropogenic global warming theory. But in the meantime, I doubt we'll wait much longer for the MSM to suddenly discover Antarctica. Marc Sheppard is the editor of AT’s forthcoming Environment Thinker.

Source. Energy Secretary Offers Dire Global Warming Prediction Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change. By Major Garrett FOXNews.com Sunday, April 19, 2009 PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- Caribbean nations face "very, very scary" rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Saturday. Chu's comments followed meetings with environmental ministers attending the fifth Summit of the Americas. He did not shy away from the most perilous predictions about the potential effects of global warming. He said global temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree Centigrade, that another 1 degree increase was certain to occur and "there's a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more." Chu painted a dire picture of the implications. "So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It's not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It's not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out," Chu said. "I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear," he added. Chu said the United States would not be spared, either. "Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that," Chu said. He said a rise in levels of one meter, coastal areas around Florida around Louisiana would move much farther inland. "Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous," he said. Conservative climate change skeptics immediately denounced Chu's assessment of the threat and potential consequences of global warming. "Secretary Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of 'evidence' of a looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "Secretary Chu's assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12, 2008: There is 'no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.'" Morano said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at 30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT's Kerry Emanuel and Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "are now backing off their previous dire predictions." He said Chu is out of date on the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary.

Source. April 14, 2009 Al Gore Really is Stupid Richard Baehr Yesterday I attended the Cubs home opener, as I do most seasons. At scheduled game time of 1: 20, the temperature was in the mid 30s, windy, with a steady rain. The game start was delayed an hour, and the rain lasted through the first 3 or 4 innings. All in all, a perfect day for baseball in Chicago (the Cubs won 4-0, on a combined one hitter by starter Ted Lilly and three relievers). This late home opener -- April 13th, and the late start to the season on Sunday, April 5th, was a result of the World Baseball Classic, which pushed back the start of the Major League baseball season by a week. If you were cold at Wrigley Field yesterday (so far the new owners have not renamed the park Ameritrade Stadium), there are warmer days ahead. Al Gore, speaking to a near empty theatre in Chicago a few weeks back, on a bitterly cold day of course (he seems to bring this weather with him everywhere he speaks) assured the few true believers willing to pony up to hear him that by mid century, as a result of global warming, the Cubs could be playing baseball in February. Really? There are many people who have overrated Al Gore, but this level of stupidity needs to be examined. The February average temperature in Chicago is 33 high, 17 low. Even Al Gore's most hysterical model for temperature change by the year 2100, is for a 6 degrees centigrade shift, or 10 degrees Fahreneheit. So by mid century, take half of that increase, or 5 degrees fahrenheit. Would baseball be routinely played in an environment where the average high temperature was 38,and the average low was 22? These average temperatures, of course require swallowing Gore's whopper of a 6 degree centigrade increase in global temperatures by 2100. In the last 150 years, all that global warming we have been hearing about, has raised world temperatures by 0.44 degrees centigrade. Al Gore grew up in Tennessee and Washington DC. His northern exposure was due to his "child of a famous person affirmative action" admission to Harvard (Gore's father was a US Senator). I doubt that Al Gore ever sat through an opening day at Wrigley Field or Fenway Park, when the weather was as it was in Chicago yesterday. And I will wager that neither his heirs nor anybody else will get to sit through baseball in Chicago in February 2050.

Source. April 11, 2009 A simpler solution? Mark Roth An Obama administration scientist thinks it is desirable to shoot pollutants into the earth's upper atmosphere in order to reduce the supposed effects of the sun's rays on global temperatures. It occured to me that a simpler solution was available. You might say it is Occam's Razor in action. I can't believe that these genius scientists have so completely missed the obvious solution--remove pollution controls from automobiles. This will accomplish a few things all at once: 1) put sulphur in the atmosphere; 2) reduce the cost of manufacture of cars; 3) reduce the sales price of cars; 4) increase the gas mileage and improve efficiency; thereby 5) reducing operating costs; not to mention, 6) reducing national oil and gas consumption; which, in turn, 7) reduces the costs of production and delivery of goods and services; which, among other things, 8) reduces the cost of food and electricity; which 9) allows for increased spending for travel and dining out, which.... We would save the costs of fueling and replacement of the ICBMs slated to launch debris into the atmosphere, thereby avoiding an increase in the defense budget for necessary replacements, although it could be argued that Obama, seeing no need for missile defense, would not regard replacement as necessary, so that saving would have to be deferred to a future administration. I could go on, but you get the point.

Source. AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering Apr 8 10:55 AM US/Eastern By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer CNN Meteorologist: Man-made Global Warming Theory "Arrogant"CNN Meteorologist: Man-made Global Warming Theory ‘Arrogant’ 'Not Evil Just Wrong': Documentary Says 'Propaganda Fueling Global Warming Hysteria' WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said. Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions. Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea. The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment." Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically. But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air—making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested—could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said. Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added. Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide—the chief human-caused greenhouse gas—out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Gisele didn't get any publicity for dating Leo until around 2002 or 2003. She had already established herself as an icon in the industry by that time. In 1999, she won the "Vogue Model of the Year" award and was on the cover of Rolling Stones magazine in 2000 as "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World". Prior to dating Leo, she had already landed literally dozens of VOGUE covers and every major campaign a model could have. She was famous for starting the "Brazilian explosion" trend and for bringing back the Sexy-Bombshell look, as opposed to the understated, odd beauty that had pervaded the fashion industry since Kate Moss' rise in popularity. Obviously, dating a moviestar did wonders for her tabloid fame and general name recognition, I'd be an idiot and a liar to deny that. But, to say Gisele was "nothing" prior to dating Leo is entirely inaccurate. http://stockerblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/gi...dex-update.html Yes, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "nothing." When Leo was filming Gangs of New York in Rome in 2001, Gisele was with him - they were already an item. She signed her first Victoria's Secret contract when she was 21 - in 2001. I think that made her a household "name" so to speak. I remember that his fans didn't think much of her as far as looks were concerned, and couldn't understand why she was always referred to as "curvy." I personally don't understand her appeal, but I thought she did a good job in her small role in Devil Wears Prada, and I don't think she takes herself too seriously. Edited to add... regarding the wisdom part of this discussion.... There's a big difference between wisdom and education. Wise people are often not formally educated, and formally educated people are often not wise.

I used to follow Leo's career and I remember that Gisele was nothing until she started dating Leo. THEN she got the Victoria's Secret deal. Over time her popularity grew.They broke up. It was a while later when Leo started up with Bar. He didn't cheat on Gisele with her so I don't see how she'd be jealous. Gisele is hugely famous and Bar is just starting out. Yes, she's pretty and she's hot, but the only reason you're jealous of someone is if you want what that person has, and I don't see Gisele wanting Leo OR wanting Bar's career. I think Gisele truly has feelings for the child and just didn't realize how insensitive the comment may have sounded to people who default to taking offense at anything coming from her. JMO.

Source. April 01, 2009 Our planet is no Arcadia By Peter B. Martin It wasn't long ago that anyone suggesting that climate warming was questionable didn't register a pulse with the public majority, but now that has changed. More and more people are challenging the dogma of the so-called climate Gurus, and for good reason. With regard to climate warming, politicians are being misled, ecologists are being misled, scientists are being misled and the public is being misled. It is a chain reaction created by spurious science that is fostering unnecessary anxiety and wasting money that could well be spent on more critical matters. For instance, in the current issue of the French magazine "Geo", a questionnaire asked its readers what they thought the most threatening menace over the last 30 years was. The leading answer was global warming; second, with merely 30% of the readers, was terrorism. As a further example of the hysteria generated by global warming alarmists, here is an article that recently appeared in London's Telegraph: "Global warming could cause the West Antarctic ice sheet to collapse, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels, scientists claim.... This could cause sea levels to rise by up to seven meters (23ft) within one to three thousand years, wiping out wildlife, flooding low-lying island and coastal areas and changing weather patterns by releasing fresh water into the sea." The article is written in such a way as to suggest that wildlife will be wiped out and lowlands flooded by a some sudden cataclysmic inundation, where animals wouldn't have a chance to move inland to higher ground; when in fact, if it at all did happen, it would be a slow, gradual phenomenon over thousands of years giving plenty of time to make adjustments. Furthermore, sediment studies from the Antarctic floor show that the ice sheet did periodically collapse over a period of a million years yet the world endured. Global warming would be a far more positive occurrence than global cooling would ever be. With the Artic ice pack shrinking it is a windfall for oil exploration and navigation just when it may be most required. The use of a northwest passage for transport would save incalculable amounts of energy in shipping and new oil fields would be an additional supply for ones further south that are nearing exhaustion. In an era when weather forecasting can't even tell with any reliability what the weather will be in a weeks time, much less a month from now, how can people believe we will know the weather in the coming decades, or hundreds of years from now? Reliance on computer-generated estimations is as unreliable as the weather reports are today. All though the ages human history has been affected by major weather changes that lasted centuries and the human race ultimately survived. We know that between the years 450 AD and 1000 the weather was far drier and warmer than it is today, allowing Vikings to navigate the generally calm seas all the way to Greenland and on to Canada. Should the present warming trend continue and amplify, Greenland could be green again and Canada would have a much longer growing season allowing more people to be fed. With no ice to threaten shipping great ports could be opened on Hudson Bay, Labrador and Baffin Island to handle the export of grain. Extreme weather changes, which would have been disastrous to earlier civilizations, can now be tolerated by today's urban civilization with central heating, effective insulation and modern means of transport. And if another ice age were to occur, it would happen over a span of thousands of years giving mankind plenty of time to adjust. Civilizations would slowly retreat southward; as generations succeeded one another, they would slowly make their way north again when the glaciers and ice sheets melted to repopulate the land their ancestors had to abandon. Carbon dioxide has been flagged as a destructive substance, while in fact it is not only essential for life but is also very beneficial to mankind. It is a fact that evolutionary advances increased during warmer and higher CO2 levels than today. Climate-change alarmists and doom mongers proclaim that the present warming trend is due to CO2, while in fact there isn't a worldwide warming trend at all only local warming and the climate overall is actually cooling down. Besides, there isn't necessarily a correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide, during the last century, when mean temperatures decreased, carbon dioxide actually increased. And what's more, if there were less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants would be fewer and grow less quickly, making it harder to feed the growing populations. Therefore, if anything, carbon dioxide - rather than be maligned, should be extolled and recognized as evidence of an advantageous climatic evolution for mankind. Our planet is no Arcadia, it is constantly evolving for the better and sometimes for the worse, without man's input; it is presumptuous to imagine man can alter this ever-changing state. And it is ecological vanity to consider spending millions of dollars on trying to control global warming - a futile exercise, particularly during the present financial debacle and deep recession. It would be far more ethical to give it to developing countries in need of aid, medication and food. It is futile for man to fight climate change; pollution yes, but not the climate. It makes a lot more sense to invest in adapting to it. Legend has it that the magpie was the only bird not to embark on Noah's ark, choosing to "jabber over the drowning world." This wily, intelligent species with its adaptability and survival instinct has flourished for ages through many climate changes without any help from man. It might be a good idea to take a lesson from the magpie and not be panicked by the masses over a non-existent crisis.

Source. Actor Bruce Willis weds for the 2nd time LOS ANGELES (AP) — Bruce Willis has tied the knot for the second time. The actor's publicity agency, Rogers & Cowan, says in a statement Sunday that the 54-year-old Willis married Emma Heming in a small, private ceremony at his home in Parrot Cay in the Turks & Caicos Islands. The couple met through mutual friends more than a year ago. This is the first marriage for Heming, a 30-year-old model/actress. Guests included Willis' three daughters from his first marriage to actress Demi Moore: Rumor, 20, Scout, 17, and Tallulah Belle, 14, as well as Moore, and her husband, actor Ashton Kutcher. The couple plan a civil ceremony when they return to California.

You're welcome. I think what people know depends on which news sources they seek out. That's one of the reasons I post so many things in the political forum. You won't hear any of that stuff on most television news programs. That doesn't mean it's not true or not relevant - it means that the mainstream media doesn't think it's important for you to know, and we all know what their agenda is. Or most of us do anyway. I like to make those decisions for myself.

Source. Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather Wednesday, March 18, 2009 PrintShareThis Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies. The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported. “We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.” Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported. With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported. "It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on." The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

You don't know what their thermostat is set at. There are (many) days when I run around in a short sleeve shirt & boxers at home--in the winter, and our thermostat is set at 64. And no, they're not hot flashes, I'm only 35. I'm just saying--you don't know Source. Obama Cranks Up White House Thermostat: "You Could Grow Orchids In There" Uh oh. Hey, remember all that fuss about how Obama was bucking tradition by not wearing his suit jacket in the Oval Office? And how it was going to be much more casual in there? Well, there's this other side to it: energy waste. The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. "He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there." Sure, but didn't he spend some time in Chicago? And don't they make their politicians go through some kind of rigorous acclimation training to get used to the cold? Why, just look at these Chicago politician stock photos I've found: In any case, I think Obama wears a suit better than most politicians. Keep the jacket on, I say, and the thermostat down around 68. Another source. Shared sacrifice for Thee but not for He. New York Times. ...to name a few who carried the story.

The government wants to control your thermostat.

Thanks. Last night, before I posted the Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson news (and started a new thread for them), I had done a search (that wasn't titles only) and got 40 pages of results! There's no way that Liam Neeson was mentioned in all 40 pages, but I did find that when I did a search of the page for "Liam", every "William or Williams" came up in the search. I'll try the "search titles" next time!

She's had work done--can see it in her eyes. She had something. Her face just looks "off" to me. Her eyeshadow is strange and definitely applied to make her eyes look lifted. However, her nose and around her chin are showing age, as does her neck. I don't think she's been cut anymore. Perhaps some Botox (but that's pretty standard these days). Add a fake tan and that's how she looks.

They took a baby to a concert?

Source. Publicist: Robin Williams needs heart surgery AP, 18 minutes ago. MIAMI (AP) - Robin Williams' publicist says the comedian needs heart surgery and must cancel the remainder of his one-man show, "Weapons of Self-Destruction." Diane Rosen said in a news release Thursday that Williams needs an aortic valve replacement. The 57-year-old Williams says he is "touched by everyone's support and well wishes." The comedian and actor had canceled four shows in Florida this week after experiencing shortness of breath. The 80-city tour is expected to resume in the fall.

Um.... I have nothing against trying to find alternative power sources, but I do have a problem with the Federal Government overriding states and dictating who pays for what. Remember, the whole global climate change farce is about POWER. Senate leader offers plan for `green' power grid Mar 5 03:57 PM US/Eastern By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's top Democrat is proposing special power lines to carry renewable energy—like solar and wind power—from remote places. The Federal government would be able override states and direct where the lines would go and who would pay for them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada unveiled his proposal Thursday. It is expected to become part of a broader energy bill the Senate plans to take up in the coming weeks. The green power lines would boost development of solar, wind and geothermal energy projects otherwise cut off from the nation's electric grid. It's also a proposal that Reid acknowledged in a news release would give "an enormous boost" to his own state of Nevada where companies are eyeing large solar projects. Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source. March 02, 2009 The Farce of Global Warming By Janet Levy With the Obama administration calling for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and the nation in the grip of the most severe economic downturn since 1929, it would seem prudent to re-examine the debate on the causes of global warming before tossing aside entire industries and technologies in favor of untried, and possibly infeasible and unprofitable, "green" technologies. Wholesale acceptance of human-caused global warming does not, in fact, exist. Indeed, many scientists believe that the highly politicized global warming scare is one of the greatest scams inflicted on the planet. They hold it responsible for enforced political restrictions on legitimate scientific inquiry and dissent and feel that a deliberate attempt has been made to silence prominent atmospheric and climate scientists who offer legitimate criticism. The Politicization of Global Warming The politicization of global warming was at play in February 2007, when in response to a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) citing human activity as the primary cause of global warming, syndicated columnist, Ellen Goodman, proclaimed global warming an unequivocal, alarming fact. Ms. Goodman, who holds no scientific credentials, exclaimed that global warming deniers were on par with Holocaust deniers. A meteorologist with the Weather Channel, Heidi Cullen, subsequently recommended that the Meteorologist Seal of Approval be revoked for any meteorologists skeptical of the human causation of global warming. And although scientists are far from unanimous in their opinions of human responsibility for climate change, Oregon governor, Tel Kulongoski, went so far as to consider firing the state's climatologist for disagreeing with the U.N. conclusions. Dr. James Hanson, a NASA climate scientist who pioneered the research on global warming and politicized the issue with Al Gore's widely debunked Academy Award-winning movie The Inconvenient Truth, has referred to skeptics as being guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature." He has called for mass civil disobedience at the coal-fired capital power plant in Washington, D.C. Voices of Dissent Yet, much doubt exists over the IPPC climate change theory. Hanson's own supervisor at NASA claims that Hanson has "gone off the deep end" with insufficient evidence and has violated NASA policies by arguing against the agency's official position on climate. Recently, a group of Japanese scientists from a government advisory panel publicly announced their disagreement with the IPCC report and declared that climate change is driven by natural cycles related to solar activity and has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. The climate modeling used to support claims of man-made global warming was dubbed "ancient astrology" by a program director for the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology. Skepticism over human-caused global warming was also raised as recently as February 25th at a U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing hosted by Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe. There, Dr. William Harper, Princeton University professor and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (1990-1993), presented some of his key findings on climate change. One of just four scientists invited to address the forum, Dr. Harper, who supervised all DOE work on climate change, is a climate crisis skeptic. In his presentation, he noted that 650 prominent international scientists, including both former and current IPCC participants, have challenged the claims made by the 52 scientists who authorized the U.N. panel's report. He also called CO2, a compound singled out by the IPCC as a major contributor to global warming, as, in fact, a beneficial compound essential for life on earth. CO2 Levels In his analysis of CO2 as a factor in climate change, Dr. Harper affirmed that CO2 is not a cause for alarm, as it is neither a pollutant nor a poison. Indeed, Harper argued that CO2 limitations, such as the 450 ppm (parts per million) standard recommended by the IPCC to "stabilize" CO2 in the atmosphere, will actually damage the environment. According to Dr. Harper, the current warming period (which actually ended 10 years ago) began in 1800 following the close of the little ice age (1300-1650 AD), which was preceded by a Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD). Harper noted that the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were curiously omitted from the IPCC report and that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today. Clearly at that point in time, global warming had nothing to do with the burning of fossils fuels. Also, Dr. Harper explained that several warmings have existed over the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, thus confirming that climate change has occurred multiple times absent mankind's actions. Furthermore, plants and our primitive ancestors evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 1000 ppm. This compares to our current level of 380 ppm. Dr. Harper reported that higher levels of CO2 benefit the environment because they result in higher crop yield and more drought-tolerant plants. He cited a modern day example: greenhouse operations that are typically maintained at 1000 ppm. In truth, Harper said we are actually in a CO2 famine as most of the earth's CO2 levels throughout the planet's history have been at least 1000 ppm or higher. At these points in time, "the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it's baffling to me that we're so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started," he said. Dr. Harper also cited examinations of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as further evidence of his claims. From that data, past temperatures and concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined. The findings indicate that first temperatures rose and about 800 years later, CO2 levels rose from the CO2 released from warmer oceans. This finding is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of global warming advocates who believe that higher levels of CO2 cause warmer temperatures. The Fallacy of Scientific Consensus Dr. Harper, who ironically was fired by Al Gore for disagreeing with his views on climate issues, cautioned the Senate committee members about the dangers of creating a crisis mentality and of demanding or aiming for consensus among scientists on climate theory. He observed that scientific breakthroughs and discoveries have never been determined by consensus, quite the contrary. As an example, he cited the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia when the majority of physicians wrongly believed in a bleeding cure for the disease. A few contrarians noticed that yellow fever victims were more likely to survive by foregoing these ministrations but were summarily ignored. Today, global warming proponents point to the rise in the incidence of malaria and yellow fever as evidence of the ill effects of rising temperatures. However, according to Dr. Harper and other scientists, this phenomenon has more to do with controlling mosquitoes than controlling temperatures. The late Michael Crichton had this to say about scientific consensus, "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The great scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus." Dr. Harper maintains that the current climate crisis is a political creation that does not enjoy consensus but has the backing of the media, influential politicians, certain scientific societies and well-funded non-profit organizations. He cautions that climate warming dogma, absent critical analysis and the presentation of contrary data, is being taught in our schools along with the widespread viewing of the seriously flawed film The Inconvenient Truth. Impact on Our Energy Supplies Contrary to what the media and U.N. have portrayed, no evidence exists that today's climate changes differ qualitatively from in the past. In fact, not global warming but a slight cooling has taken place over the past 10 years which clearly negates the predictions of the IPCC models. As Harper concludes, climate alarmism is unrealistic and more a function of politics than scientific truths. His belief that climate change is driven by natural cycles rather than human activity is gaining currency against the hysteria of global warming doomsayers who want to institute ill-advised energy use and taxation programs that will alter our way of life and harm our economy unnecessarily. Climate change alarmists continue to rail against our use of the conventional sources of energy that have contributed to our economy prosperity. They have amassed significant support in Washington for "cap and trade" taxation schemes and prohibitions on drilling and energy exploration. The United States should not yield to political pressure and penalize energy use in an effort to garner new taxes. Common sense and good science should rule the day and politicians should not let more than 2,340 global warming lobbyists in Washington, clamoring for "cap and trade" regulation, allow us to seriously drag down our already flailing economy. Our economic health and growth should not be sacrificed for an unproven theory that is fast loosing support from the scientific community. Given the present administration's call for legislation to curb greenhouse gas emission allegedly in the service of climate control, the testimony of scientists like Dr. Harper warrants serious consideration.

He DOES look strange, and feminine! I had to stare at it to try to figure out what he has done. I'm pretty sure he's wearing a hairpiece (and not a good one). It gives him a feminine hairline. Here are some older pics for comparison:

Source. February 23, 2009, 12:31 PM Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends By ANDREW C. REVKIN Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation. When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years. The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels. The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. “This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented,” he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.) Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why. Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters Dr. Pielke quoted the Belgian center: “Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one — even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future.” Officials at the disaster center, after reviewing what Mr. Gore showed and said, sent a comment to Dr. Pielke’s blog and to me. You can read their full response below. I sent it to Mr. Gore’s office and asked for his interpretation. Kalee Kreider, Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman on environmental matters, wrote back today: I can confirm that historically, we used Munich Re and Swiss Re data for the slide show. This can be confirmed using a hard copy of An Inconvenient Truth. (It is cited if you cannot recall from the film which is now several years old!). We became aware of the CRED database from its use by Charles Blow in the New York Times (May 31, 2008). So, it’s a very new addition. We have found that Munich Re and other insurers and their science experts have made the attribution. I’m referring you particularly to their floods section/report [link, link] Both of these were published in a series entitled “Weather catastrophes and climate change-Is there still hope for us.” We appreciate that you have pointed out the issues with the CRED database and will make the switch back to the data we used previously to ensure that there is no confusion either with regards to the data or attribution. As to climate change and its impacts on storms and floods, the IPCC and NOAA among many other top scientific groups have indicated that climate change will result in more extreme weather events, including heat waves, wildfires, storms and floods. As the result of briefings from top scientists, Vice President Gore believes that we are beginning to see evidence of that now. CRED is fully aware of the potential for misleading interpretations of EM-DAT figures by various users. This is a risk all public datasets run…. Before interpreting the upward trend in the occurrence of weather-related disasters as “completely unprecedented” and “due to global warming”, one has to take into account the complexities of disaster occurrence, human vulnerabilities and statistical reporting and registering. Over the last 30 years, the development of telecommunications, media and increased international cooperation has played a critical role in the number of disasters that are reported internationally. In addition, increases in humanitarian funds have encouraged reporting of more disasters, especially smaller events. Finally, disasters are the convergence of hazards with vulnerabilities. As such, an increase of physical, social, economic or environmental vulnerabilities can mean an increase in the occurrence of disasters. We believe that the increase seen in the graph until about 1995 is explained partly by better reporting of disasters in general, partly due to active data collection efforts by CRED and partly due to real increases in certain types of disasters. We estimate that the data in the most recent decade present the least bias and reflect a real change in numbers. This is especially true for floods and cyclones. Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say. Once again, we would like to point out that although climate change could affect the severity, frequency and spatial distribution of hydro-meteorological events, we need to be cautious when interpreting disaster data and take into account the inherent complexity of climate and weather related processes — and remain objective scientific observers. [uPDATE: 5:10 p.m.: I've posted on a more measured effort at climate risk communication.] Also on the disaster-climate front, there is an interesting story in the Washington Post today describing a variegated assemblage of efforts to flee in the face of climate-related threats. Matthew Nisbet pondered how a global warming story without a hot political element made it onto a front page. It’s pretty clear it was the climate-disaster link. There were some things missing from the article, however. As the folks in Belgium explained above, the connection between human-driven climate change and recent trends in disasters remains highly uncertain, even as most climate scientists foresee intensification of floods and droughts and, of course, more coastal flooding with rising sea levels. So while the climate hook might have given this story its “front-page thought,” there’s no examination in the article of simultaneous trends in population growth in poor places, urbanization (people are leaving marginal lands for many reasons) and the like. In the absence of that hook, it’s basically a story about people moving out of harm’s way, something that’s been happening throughout human history.

I think it's baloney. I think it's a classic example of cherry picking data, and researchers, to fit your theory. This is the reason why I want to know more about it because I can see how this could apply from both believers and non-believers. What is the truth? I'm not an expert, but from what I've read.... the climate is changing but it doesn't have anything to do with what we do or not do. Scientists are finding that the planet is cyclical. There are written histories of past cold spells and hot spells. The monks kept meticulous records. What got me is when the environmentalists had to further their cause using fear. Gore is chief among those fear mongers. Add guilt and we'll pony up for sure, right? (Well, not all of us). Too bad the satellite crashed this week. It may have helped us disprove the nonsense. Bottom line for me is that we're living on a planet that changes. For perhaps the first time in history, not only is everything meticulously recorded, but we also can communicate instantly with most of the planet. So ideas (or false ideas) spread like wildfire, and all they need is a nugget of truth (like ice disappearing somewhere) to make it sound like everything they say is true. It's a BIG BUSINESS! They have a vested interest in keeping this myth alive. I continue to post articles regarding this topic because I think it's important for us to keep open minds regarding what's real and what's not. Check out this next article.

Source. (Editorial) The Oscars are Important by Rodney Lee Conover While watching the Academy Awards last night, I got to thinking about what an important role the Oscars play in our global community. And of course, there’s no more blatant case in point of Hollywood’s positive impact on society than Al Gore’s 2007 Oscar win for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” What a speech too, huh? Just listen: “My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue…” And solve it he did! Just look at what’s happened since that magical evening: *All the major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA GISS, UAH, RSS) recent data shows that over the past year global temperatures have dropped. *The University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center reports that global sea ice levels are now equal to those of 1979. Polar Bears are back baby! *The US National Climatic Data Center says China had its coldest winter in 100 years and the fact that Hillary went there was pure coincidence. *This year, much of North America was hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s. It snowed in Baghdad (of course, the American Military presence kind of explains that), but it snowed in Las Vegas! What are the odds? *Lastly, well-intentioned, decent people traveling to Global Warming summits are having their flights canceled in droves, due to icy build up on the wings of private jets. People, what I’m saying here is – in a nutshell: Al Gore must be stopped. Now, I’m no Al Gore fan, (In 2000, he got the most votes and still lost – talk about a loser), but let’s give him his due. The reality is that his efforts to stop global warming have not only been an incredible success, but in fact, have been TOO good. Great job, dude, but it’s been really, really cold lately. I mean did you or did you not see the strip-club scenes in “The Wrestler?” … ‘nuff said. But how could Al Gore know he could accomplish the impossible so quick and effectively? Even he must have been a bit shocked when nearly the entire major media fell in line and began parroting his sage-like theory – I mean, hypothesis – I mean, scenario – I mean, presumptions – I mean, ruse – I mean, um facts… Yes, incontrovertible facts. And indeed, Mr. Gore the debate was over, until you and your brave followers over-corrected the fever of the planet and sent us plunging toward frosty Armageddon. The telltale signs are everywhere – from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest… (actually I swiped that from a June 24th, 1974 Time Magazine article, sorry). Sadly, now we must stop you, Al Gore the Good. We must rise up against the forces of accepted wisdom and put an end to your selfless caring before we all freeze our asses off. Because if we don’t act now and decisively, no amount of Leonardo DiCaprio movies, Sheryl Crow rallies, Springsteen concerts, or Barbara Streisand blogs can save us from the impending girth of ice we’ll soon find ourselves covered by. Now, you’ll notice I left Scarlett Johansson off the list there. That was on purpose. Scarlett: You can say anything you want, doesn’t matter. Just be out there. For me. That goes double for you Jennifer Aniston; you can say or do anything your saddened, but virtuous heart desires. Hey, screw those guys who dumped you, anyway — they’re idiots! Bunch of lame douche bags, if you ask me. You need to date a normal guy, Jen. Did I mention I love dogs? … Mmm. Where was I? Oh yeah, thanks to the power of Al Gore, we’re all gonna die from anthropogenic global cooling. So – everyone – start having babies. Breathe out more. Farmers - feed your cows more bean burritos. More drilling! More mining! More smelting! And for god sakes GM – do NOT cancel production of the Hummer. What are you, an anti-earth, terrorist organization or something? I don’t know. Maybe President Obama can stop him… Like Angelina Jolie’s last line in The Changeling: “Now, there’s hope…”

Thanks for the picture. First of all, her teeth are too thick. It's obvious that her veneers weren't done very well. Some doctors do this so that the teeth plump out the lips. This person went too far. Secondly, she's quite thin. Check out her arms. She's lost a lot of weight, but it's hard to tell because of her breasts. Next, either she had a brow lift, or she shaved her natural brows (which sit on the brow bone usually) and painted them in. I suspect a brow lift, but maybe a long time ago. She still does paint (or tattoo?) her eyebrows and they don't look natural. But she has a lot of volume loss in her face because of age and weight loss. She could benefit from an upper eyelid tuck - there's a lot of extra skin there. The eyelashes don't help at all. If she had worn dark eyeshadow, it would have helped. I wonder if she has a makeup artist or if she did it herself.

Can you tell me where I can find a pic? I'm at work right now so I can't surf around...