MC

Didn't he say once that he wouldn't even think of getting married until he's 28? I think he turns 28 in June. Besides, Kate needs time to live as royalty before her husband takes the throne. I wonder what happened to Edward and Sophie. They sure keep a low profile!

In December, right? The NE is pretty good at breaking true stories (OJ, John Edwards). They must have something to put that out there. I mean surely, he's not going to "confess" that he doesn't have male lovers or use drugs. Right?

:4biggrin: :4biggrin: :4biggrin: :jumping1: :lol: :lol:

Exactly! Look We agree sometimes! The problem is that Congress voted against it so Obama gave the powers to the EPA. Congress knows that if they don't pass something, Obama will order the EPA to issue the guidelines he wants. I really wish someone would start an environmental movement that is based on being environmentally-friendly, without the gloom and doom, "save the planet or die" kind of motivator. It seems that we can't be trusted to do the "right thing" (clean air, clean water), so it will be done for us (even if the reasons are bogus). I'm so pissed that the scientific community was complicit in this! We used to be able to trust scientists. Now we can't.

At first, women just stopped eating and became rail-thin (to fit in those sample sized 0's). But you can't maintain that thinness, even if you eat very little. Your body goes into starvation mode. In order to eat anything, you must put on muscle to burn the fat. That's why we now see women who are very muscular. It's easy for them to maintain once they've done it, and then they can eat a little. The problem is that they get too muscular, but can't stop because they're afraid that if they do, they'll gain weight. Therein lies the problem - society's fixation on thin. You know that these women get tagged as "fat" if they are a normal weight, and that's a "bad" thing according to the naysayers. So they don't have a choice but to do everything they can to remain thin. I just wish they'd cover up those arms! Michelle Obama's arms are beautiful. These, not so much.

Cap and Tax is back! So this obviously isn't about climate change caused by C02 emissions, as anyone who reads knows that that myth has been debunked. So now it's about control and how the Feds can make money off of us, and control what we drive, how we light, how we heat, and when. This is the first step. I hope it goes down in flames, but after how the Chicago thugs got the votes for healthcare... anything is possible. Source. US Senate climate bill to be unveiled April 26 15 Apr 2010 22:04:19 GMT Source: Reuters * Backers hope for Senate vote in June or July * Measure could affect states' climate control activities (Adds reaction from American Petroleum Institute) By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday. The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats. Republican Senator Judd Gregg told Reuters he was "committed to getting something that addresses our energy needs in a constructive and comprehensive way." He added he did not know yet whether he would support the bill being developed. President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities and took steps recently to show Republicans he was serious, including expanding federal aid for building nuclear power facilities and allowing more domestic offshore oil drilling -- initiatives to be included in the Senate compromise. The White House is also eager to show the rest of the world the United States is ready to take a leadership role on global warming, including to help kick-start stalled international efforts to tackle the problem. Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record. Once the senators formally sketch out their bill, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will decide the next steps in a year crowded with competing legislative priorities and congressional elections in November. The bill could face stiff opposition from lawmakers in states with economies heavily dependent on oil and coal. Lou Hayden, a policy expert at the American Petroleum Institute, said his group would not support the bill unless it went through an economic analysis by the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Energy Department. The bill is already slated to be analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office, which could take more than a month. BILL MIGHT END STATE/REGIONAL CARBON TRADE PROGRAMS Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have been working for months on a global warming compromise significantly different from a measure passed last year by the House of Representatives and a bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It also takes many elements from those bills. Like the House-passed bill and Obama administration policy, it would set a target of 17 percent reductions in smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide by 2020, from 2005 levels. Point Carbon, an energy markets consulting service, estimated the anticipated Senate bill would result in U.S. gasoline prices rising an average of 27 cents a gallon from 2013 to 2020. The bill is expected to contain a fee on motor fuels. On Wednesday, a Senate source told Reuters the legislation would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. It would also end state and regional carbon-trading programs, such as the one several Northeastern states participate in, to be replaced by a national carbon reduction policy. [N14150360] The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with 10 participating states from Vermont to Maryland, has raised over $582 million for state efficiency and climate programs, said Environment Northeast, a Boston research group. Peter Shattuck, a carbon markets policy analyst there, said shutting the program could create concerns among the states over lost revenues. A group of nine senators, mostly from Midwestern manufacturing states, urged Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in a letter on Thursday to take into account jobs in their states. "Without such a plan, we are concerned that the legislation will ultimately be unsuccessful," Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and others wrote. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Ros Krasny in Boston; Editing by Peter Cooney)

I like Nicole and I hope she wins. She has no more dance experience than Evan. So two ringers to make it look interesting. I wonder why they instituted the new scoring method. I suspect it's because Kate has overwhelming votes from fans and they need a way to get rid of her. Jake's 15 minutes are up. He needs to pay some attention to the woman he proposed to. You know... they have to go through the "trying to live together" phase and will probably say that his time dancing hurt their chances (when they break up). Then, let's hope that the only time we see him is if he's doing charity work. And something may be going on with Pamela and Maks. When she went up to get her scores, Maks tossed a heart pillow to her. Then, while being interviewed, and while getting her scores, she kept looking back at him. I think Erin has promise and I hope she says around for a while.

No surprise that Buzz was let go. Let's hope that Kate is next! Free Tony

On the show, Kate seemed like a bitch compared to Jon. She had to deal with him and 8 kids. I can see how that would gain her sympathy and a fan base. But she doesn't have to deal with any of that right now - only Tony and traveling back and forth. Her true nature is showing and I hope her (apparently large) fanbase sees it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of losers who vote for the worst people so they can see them suffer or be bad every week. That could be one of the reasons too. Kate is truly awful and clearly doesn't give a sh!t.

Sooooo disappointing! I hope that Kate continues to get the edit that shows who she really is. Poor Tony has to fly to Pennsylvania with her every week after the Tuesday show. Must be awful! I wonder if his wife comes down from Connecticut to give him moral support. I'm not really sad about Shannon going (and I don't think she is either), but her leaving did show how much the votes really do matter.

They made remarks during some of the intros that Kate got the highest scores from fans so she's probably not going anywhere. I suspect that showing her fight with Tony was a way to get people to not like her. She can't dance at all! Still loved Nicole. I hope they can keep up the pace. Derek is a wonder choreographer so we'll see. Throwing a contemporary song at them for the jive was wrong, but they still pulled it off. Love Erin and Maks. I think he's met his match. The others are forgettable...

Absolutely! I did see a clip last night on Entertainment Tonight where they showed Evan and Mark on the ice, doing Michael Jackson moves. It was obviously a PR thing for the show, but it was kind of cute. Mmmm... Maks drinks Orangina

Erin Andrews is well known with men and anyone else who watches ESPN. I see Pamela as a "has been". What has she done lately? (Other than land in the tabloids)... And hot off the Olympics, Evan should be pretty well known. ?

I think final 4 will be: Nicole, Erin, Chad and Evan. I wish they'd stop casting icons like Buzz. Let's remember him for greatness, not this. I don't understand why Carrie was all over Pam's performance. Pam was ew. And Kate? Below average. I don't care how many times we hear her say she's insecure - she won't get my sympathy. She has 8 kids and they need her time now. JMO.

In Judaism, the religion stays with the mother. So if she married Leo, her kids would technically be Jewish.

Not worth the telling. Jake chose the one who put out I guess. I did think this was one of the best seasons, only because he was the most polite bachelor, the most considerate. But also a media junkie. He's now going to be on Dancing With The Stars! You'd think that after 3 months of not being able to be with his fiancee publicly, he'd want to start their lives together, not dedicate himself to dancing in LA! I enjoy the show(s), not sure why. I'm looking forward to seeing Ali's season.

Susan Boyle. Click here.

They care. It's someone's idea of "branding" that wasn't really interesting. Nor were their attempts at charity work which looked like big photo-ops, but that's about it. Interestingly, Trista watches the show and she Tweeted that she wanted to get involved in the charity side. I wonder why they didn't include her in the first place. The only bombshell was Rozlyn declaring that Chris Harrison was flirting with the wife of the producer that Rozlyn was accused of being with, in New Zealand. My reaction was... Rozlyn was fooling around with a married man? I have read that the whole thing is bogus, and that the girls were coerced to give specific instances on the show (when in their exit interviews, they didn't mention it.). Makes you wonder. So Ali's going to be the new Bachelorette. Yawn. I thought she was still in love with Jake?

I wonder if Eric Holder will do this? Source. Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. February 23, 2010 - by Charlie MartinPage 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science. This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges: [The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes. As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.” Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General. Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved. The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate Files and the subsequent revelations: The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.” They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity. The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation: It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000). It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in Congressional Proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice. If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties. By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves. Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.” The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here“.

He's desperate to save his reputation. Sad. Source. Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By JONATHAN PETRE Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010 * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing * There has been no global warming since 1995 * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be' The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying. Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change. That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades. According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’. Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted. But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made. Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. ‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’ He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled. Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world. Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. ‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’ Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now. Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’. Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made. But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

DUH! Source. February 14, 2010 World may not be warming, say scientists Jonathan Leake The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.” The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said. Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report. “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.” The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data. Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought. ** Just so you know, the keepers of the raw data (in East Anglia) destroyed the raw data. So nobody has any "thermometer readings" from the past 30 years. Plus, the satellite data was calibrated using the phony data from East Anglia. It's incredible to me that there are some people who just can't let go of the cult of "global warming" aka "global climate change."

Source. Haiti Earthquake Victims Despair as Food, Water and Medical Relief Delayed Growing Unrest by Haitian Earthquake Victims Over Lack of Aid, Death Toll, Attention to Foreigners By KATE SNOW, DAN HARRIS and ROBIN ROBERTS Jan. 15, 2009 Despair among the Haitian people clamoring for food, water and medical care is turning into simmering anger as relief workers struggle to reach earthquake victims. Diane Sawyer says that Haitians are frustrated over the delayed relief efforts. The Haitian people, as well as the thousands of foreign missionaries and aid workers trapped in the country's capital, are entering day three without food or water. Supply pallets have piled up by the tons in the Port-au-Prince airport with no way to reach the hardest hit communities. "We're waiting, we're waiting for three or four days, just cannot do nothing," one Haitian man said, his frustration painfully obvious. "The president is staying at the airport while he does nothing for us." "We need help because it's urgent," another citizen pleaded. Click here for more information on how you can help the victims of the Haitian earthquake. ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer felt the rising anger when she on the streets of Port-au-Prince today. "I was surrounded by a giant group of people and they were yelling at me and they were yelling about the need and where is everybody and what's happening. I don't think they were going to hurt me or anybody else.. but it was that close. It's a tinderbox out there," Sawyer told "Good Morning America." She said Lt. Gen. Ken Keen also expressed frustation at the slow movement of supplies from the airport to those who need them in the ravaged city/ "I was talking to Gen. Keen and he told me, 'Today I am going to spend my day figuring out where the bottleneck is.' He said there is water sitting in a warehouse right over there and waiting for the U.N. and other aid organizations to distribute it." Adding to the tension is growing unrest among Haitian citizens that the search and rescue efforts have largely been focused on Americans and other foreigners. Stores have also been cleaned out by desperate Haitians, but the U.N. World Food Program denied a report that its warehouse in Port-au-Prince had been looted. There are still no official death toll estimates, though most estimate tens of thousands were killed. Haitian President Rene Preval said that 7,000 bodies have already been buried in a mass grave, and decomposing bodies are filling the streets with a sickening stench. "I'm very sad because my country is in great difficulty," Preval said from his post at the airport. So far two Americans have been confirmed dead, although officials are trying to determine whether three others taken from the rubble were also Americans. In addition, several American college students and professors who were on trips to Haiti have not been heard from. "We've been here doing everything we can," U.S. Lt. Gen. Ken Keen told "Good Morning America." "I can say our efforts have been pushed forward as fast as we can get here."

Source. How climate-change fanatics corrupted science By: MICHAEL BARONE Senior Political Analyst February 3, 2010 Quick, name the most distrusted occupations. Trial lawyers? Pretty scuzzy, as witness the disgraced John Edwards, kept from the vice presidency in 2004 by the electoral votes of Ohio. Used car dealers? Always near the bottom of the list, as witness the universal understanding of the word "clunker." But over the last three months a new profession has moved smartly up the list and threatens to overtake all. Climate scientist. First came the Climategate e-mails made public in November that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. The British government concluded last week that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit violated the nation's freedom of information act, although the violations occurred too long ago for prosecution. The CRU has been a major source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which for 20 years has issued alarms about supposed global warming. The e-mails conclusively establish the intellectual dishonesty of the climate scientists at the CRU and their co-conspirators. Recently there have been even more shocking revelations. The IPCC has claimed that warming will cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. It turns out that that claim was based solely on a pamphlet published by the World Wildlife Federation, based on no science at all. The head of the IPCC was informed that a 1996 report said those glaciers could melt significantly by 2350, not 2035, but he let the claim stand. As Christopher Booker writes in the Telegraph of London, "A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly non-peer-reviews WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority." Similarly, the Times of London reports that a claim that warming could endanger "up to 40 percent" of the Amazon rain forest came from an anti-smoking activist and had no scientific basis whatever. "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," writes Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations in The American Interest. "The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics." Some decades hence, I suspect, people will look back and wonder why so many government, corporate and media elites were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence. And taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that was based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling. There was some basis for concern. If carbon dioxide emissions were the only factor affecting global climate, it is clear that increased emissions would tend to produce warmer temperatures over time. Those temperatures could create problems that rational societies would want to address. But carbon dioxide emissions are not the only factor affecting global climate. Solar activity and water evaporation and countless other things do too. Climate scientists do not fully understand those things, and how they interact. It is rational for society to want to learn more. Unfortunately, the cadre of climate scientists who have dominated public discussion and have controlled the IPCC have been demonstrated to be far, far less than trustworthy. Like the theorists who invented epicycles to explain away the failure of Ptolemaic theory to account for astronomical observations, they have distorted science in the interest of something that resembles religious dogma. The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand. The rest of us, and judging from polls that includes most of the American people, are free to follow a more rational path. In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change." But he felt obliged to add, "even if you doubt the evidence" -- an admission that the evidence is less than overwhelming. On a par with, it seems, the claims of trial lawyers and the assurances of used car salesmen. Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

I'm not so much confused as intrigued. (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet.) I don't understand the sobbing.

I don't think he wants to take on someone else's kid. He said something very telling last night. He talked about when he went bungee jumping with Vienna. They were both afraid of heights, but he was more afraid and she stepped up and was strong for him and took care of him and empowered him. Something tells me he wants that in a woman - someone to take care of him sometimes. He seems to be such a perfect gentleman, that maybe no woman has ever let him drop his guard.