By KEITH JOHN SAMPSON

May 9, 2008 -- IN November, I was found guilty of "racial harassment" for reading a public-li brary book on a university campus.

The book was Todd Tucker's "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan I was reading it on break from my campus job as a janitor. The same book is in the university library.

Tucker recounts events of 1924, when the loathsome Klan was a dominant force in Indiana - until it went to South Bend to taunt the Irish Catholic students at the University of Notre Dame.

When the KKK tried to rally, the students confronted them. They stole Klan robes and destroyed their crosses, driving the KKK out of town in a downpour.

I read the historic encounter and imagined myself with these brave Irish Catholics, as they street-fought the Klan. (I'm part-Irish, and was raised Catholic.)

But that didn't stop the Affirmative Action Office of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis from branding me as a detestable Klansman.

They didn't want to hear the truth. The office ruled that my "repeatedly reading the book . . . constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers."

A friend reacted to the finding with, "That's impossible!" He's right. You can't commit racial harassment by reading an anti-Klan history.

For months, I felt isolated and dejected. Yet I knew that most of the faculty, staff and students at Indiana University were good people. The campus is a growing, thriving part of Indy, where people of all colors and religions come to study.

But the $106,000-a-year affirmative-action officer who declared me guilty of "racial harassment" never spoke to me or examined the book. My own union - the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - sent an obtuse shop steward to stifle my freedom to read. He told me, "You could be fired," that reading the book was "like bringing pornography to work."

Shame on the affirmative-action people and my union for displaying their ignorance and incompetence. Their pusillanimous actions, in trying to ban Tucker's anti-Klan history book, played into the hands of the hateful KKK.

After months of stonewalling, the university withdrew the charge, thanks to pressure from the press, the American Civil Liberties Union and a group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE.

Let me be clear: I don't view this episode as a black-against-white or conservative-vs.-liberal issue. It's a basic civil-liberties issue.

Martin Luther King Jr. wanted a world where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The affirmative-action people at Indiana University never saw past the color of my white skin. (Ironically, I detest the Klan and I have dated a woman of color.)

Abolitionist Charles Sumner said, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance. It is sure to prevail where people do not know each other." The people at the Affirmative Action Office were so myopically intent on finding a Klansman, they failed to see a natural ally standing before them.

The unchecked power of such campus bureaucrats needs to be restrained. And if a union like AFSCME won't protect its workers' constitutional rights, it should go out of business.

If they can stop me from reading one book, then they can stop any American from reading any book.

Un. Freaking. Believeable.

New York Post

In September of 1995, as part of the pompously named National Performance Review–Al Gore’s fatuous project to cut down government waste, fraud and mismanagement–the Vice President boldly declared that he was recommending the privatization of Elk Hills, a 47,000-acre oil-rich land in Southern California. Since 1912 it had been in the possession of the U.S. Navy as an emergency oil reserve. The oil companies salivated and made their bids. In October 1997 the Energy Dept. announced that the U.S. government would sell its stake in Elk Hills to Occidental Petroleum for $3.65 billion. Overnight, Occidental’s U.S. oil reserves tripled. Occidental’s stock surged and its stockholders glowed. One of them was the Vice President’s father, Al Gore Sr. He owned more than $500,000 worth of Occidental stock. A clear conflict of interest? Not to the airheads in the media. Neither then nor any time since have they evinced the slightest curiosity about this deal. Or indeed about the Gore family’s long and intimate connection with Occidental and, in particular, with its longtime chairman, the shady and sinister Armand Hammer.

Hammer devoted his life to negotiating business deals with the former Soviet Union. Following the 1917 revolution Hammer set up a bank in New York to channel hard currency from Russian emigres into the hands of the Bolshevik government. He also received money from the Bolsheviks that he distributed to spies and underground agents here. In later years he ran a pencil factory in the Soviet Union, the only Western capitalist permitted to operate in Stalin’s Russia. In the 1930s, as the Soviet regime’s need for hard currency grew ever more desperate, he was assigned the task of selling off Russian art in the West and remitting the proceeds. A lot of this art had been stolen by the Bolsheviks from its "capitalist" owners. A lot of it was junk. And a lot of it was forged. In return for the money, the Soviets sent him oak staves from which he would build beer barrels.

None of Hammer’s enterprises made much money He was continuously on the verge of bankruptcy until the 1960s, when by extraordinary persistence–and a lot of bribery–his company, Occidental Petroleum, won a lucrative oil concession in Libya. At last, he had serious money to play with.

Hammer could not have prospered during the Red Scare, the Cold War and the McCarthy era had he not had powerful friends. It was no easy feat to persuade the world that he was no red–just a businessman trying to make a buck. One man who was very helpful to him in this regard was Sen. Albert Gore Sr. In 1950 Hammer had taken Congressman Gore on as a partner in his cattle-breeding business. He also sent him annual Christmas gifts of antique silver. And Gore repaid Hammer in kind. In the late 1950s he introduced him to Sen. John F. Kennedy. After the 1960 election Gore proposed to Kennedy that he use Hammer as his personal envoy in any future Berlin crises. While Hammer did not get the Berlin assignment, Kennedy did have an important mission for him. The President had been informed that Soviet crabmeat was produced by slave labor. Gore suggested that he send Hammer to investigate. Hammer returned to announce triumphantly that there was no truth to the rumor about slave labor. With great fanfare the U.S. government lifted the ban on Soviet crabmeat.

Using the money pouring in from Libya Hammer bought the Island Creek Coal Co., the nation’s third largest coal producer. Following Gore’s 1970 electoral defeat, Hammer appointed him chairman of Island Creek as well as executive VP of Occidental. Gore’s took home a handsome $500,000 annually. By 1992 Gore owned Occidental stock worth $680,000. By now Hammer was, not surprisingly, cultivating the ambitious young Gore. In the 1960s, Gore Sr. informed Hammer that zinc ore had been discovered near his farm in Tennessee. Hammer bought the land for $160,000. He then promptly sold it back to him. Occidental then began payments of $20,000 a year for the right to mine it. Gore Sr. then sold the land to Gore Jr. for $140,000. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Gore Jr. has been receiving $20,000 a year from Occidental ever since. Interestingly, Occidental never did mine the land. In 1985, Gore leased the land to Occidental-competitor Union Zinc–clearly a sweetheart deal between Hammer and the Gore family.

Today, Gore Jr. is executor of his father’s estate, which holds $500,000 worth of Occidental stock. In other words, the Vice President himself controls $500,000 worth of Occidental stock. Not surprisingly, Occidental has been extremely helpful to Clinton and Gore. Occidental gave $50,000 to the Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. Since 1992 Occidental has given more than $470,000 in soft money to the Democratic Party. According to the Center for Public Integrity, two days after Ray Irani, Armand Hammer’s successor as chairman, slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, Occidental forked over $100,000 to the DNC.

Gore is famous for his tedious expostulations about the consequences for the Earth’s temperature of burning oil and coal. Yet when it comes to his own stock holdings the environment can take a running jump. In a few months Occidental is due to start drilling for oil in the Samore field in Colombia. Standing in Occidental’s way are the U’wa people, a remote Colombian Indian tribe inhabiting the country’s rainforests in the northeast, who do not want to leave their ancestral land. They promise to walk off a 1400-foot cliff in the Andes if Occidental begins drilling for oil. Predictably, Gore has said nothing. He has not protested Occidental’s mining decision, or threatened to dispose of his stock or rallied fellow stockholders on behalf of the U’wa.

There is one thing the Clinton administration has done. It proposed recently to step up aid to the Colombian military to the tune of $1.3 billion. Ostensibly the money is to fight the "drug lords." In reality, it is to make sure that Al Gore’s oil wells and pipelines are firmly protected.

Link

"Statewide water content readings from this week's snow survey are some of the highest since 1969, the 'snow season' of record, and in some locations higher than the record." In case there was any doubt, the banner headline on the release reads: "Spring Flood Potential Elevated Due to Near-Record Snowfall."

"The National Weather Service says weekend rain could cause some flooding of streets and small streams."

"While this winter's near-record snowfall has created a flood potential that is above normal, that doesn't guarantee flooding will occur this spring...."

The AP and the Globe had the choice of reporting a truly inconvenient truth -- for them -- or of perpetuating Global Warning, of facilitating officials' efforts to protect the public or advancing their ideological agenda. Why are we not surprised by the decision they made?

American Thinker

HANOVER, MD, May 8, 2008 – Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS^®).

On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15 whether polar bears should be listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.

The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21^st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.

Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.

Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.

Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.

The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear.” A portion of the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof. Armstrong and questioning climate change http://theclimatebet.com/" title="http://theclimatebet.com/" target="_blank"http://theclimatebet.com/.

About INFORMS

The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS^®) is an international scientific society with 10,000 members, including Nobel Prize laureates, dedicated to applying scientific methods to help improve decision-making, management, and operations. Members of INFORMS work in business, government, and academia. They are represented in fields as diverse as airlines, health care, law enforcement, the military, financial engineering, and telecommunications. The INFORMS website is www.informs.org. More information about operations research is at www.scienceofbetter.org.

Link

By Walter Williams

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com" title="http://www.JewishWorldReview.com" target="_blank"http://www.JewishWorldReview.... | Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Jewish World Review

Get it NOW, you enviro-wackos?

Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?

The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.” End article excerpt.

This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” (LINK)

Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter also noted in 2007 that “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.” Carter explained that the “temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.” (LINK)

The May 1study in Nature essentially finds that global warming will have stopped for nearly 20 years (1998 until 2015). According to the UK Telegraph article; “Writing in Nature, the scientists said: ‘Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [man-made] warming.’”

The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the significant deficiencies in UN climate models: “The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.”

The evidence-based data showing the Earth’s failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public’s concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989. Gore's $300 million dollar campaign to promote climate fear is attempting to convince Americans that they face a climate "crisis" despite the new accumulating scientific evidence to the contrary.

The latest peer-reviewed scientific data showing the dominance of natural climate variability appears to be directly at odds with Gore's central climate message. On May 25, 2006, Gore declared, "We are the most powerful force of nature now. We are literally changing the relationship between the Earth and the Sun." Gore added that mankind's CO2 emissions have "the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead halt." (LINK) [Note: Unfortunately, children seem to be the most susceptible to Gore's and others baseless climate doomsday message. See: New York Times article: Children may be driving alarm over global warming. (LINK) Also, read more about global warming propaganda campaign aimed at kids here. ]

This new study in Nature further reveals a “tipping point” for the promoters of climate alarm. 2007 and now 2008 have challenged man-made climate fear as new peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears. A U.S. Senate minority report reveals over 400 scientists dissented from man-made climate fears, and more and more scientists continue to declare themselves skeptical of a man-made climate “crisis” in 2008.

Sampling of key inconvenient developments for promoters of a man-made climate “crisis” so far in 2008: (See also related link at bottom of this report)

1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming's missing heat” (LINK)

2) New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing “greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” (LINK )

3) Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth' (LINK)

4) UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says (LINK )

5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri “to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” (LINK)

6) New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)

7) Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps (LINK)

8) Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds cold periods – not warm periods – see increase in floods, droughts, storms, famine (LINK)

9) New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming (LINK)

10) Prominent hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact (LINK)

11) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK)

12) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (LINK)

13) Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008. (LINK)

14) New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented&rsqu o; for the month of April in over 25 years.’ (LINK)

The EPW Press Blog

Good news. This is what happens when the real scientist get involved.

And I’ve noticed a change lately in that many (mostly scientists) are now referring to “climate change” rather than “global warming”.

“Climate Change” is real and very well documented. The climate has been changing, sometimes quite drastically and even rather suddenly, ever since the Earth first had a climate and long before man came on the scene and the climate will continue to change with or without us. There are much more powerful forces at work that affect global climate including plate tectonics, volcanism, ocean currents, sun spot cycles and slight wobbles in the Earth’s tilt and orbits around the sun and there is nothing we can do to change or influence these forces.

But the question is, or should have been all along; is the Earth really warming for a long enough period of time to declare it more than just an anomaly over much longer trends and more reliable models and even “if” the climate is warming, is it really due to man made activity?

Of course the answer is that the activities of man have little or no effect on large scale global climate and only a very nominal effect on local climates – think of the “heat islands” in large cities during the hot summer months where the temperature in the heavily paved over downtown areas vs. the temperature in greener areas like the ‘burbs and rural areas that can vary by a few degrees. That’s truly man made “warming” but only on a small local scale and it has no real impact on the overall environment. Same with massive deforestation in localized areas – it can have a very real affect on local climates and conditions but not necessarily globally and long term as some would have us believe.

Global warming theories and dire predictions and calls for “action” is what happens when small scale statistics and scientific theories absent true rigorous scientific peer review and challenges are high-jacked by people with purely social, moral and political agendas.   Caramelgal

TEHRAN (AFP) — A top cleric on Friday vowed that Iran would deal a knock-out blow to what he called maniacs in the United States and Israel if they ever attacked the Islamic republic.

"If maniacs in Washington or Tel Aviv seek to take action, the Iranian nation will slap them so hard they will not get off the floor," hardline cleric Ahmad Khatami said in a Friday prayer sermon carried live on state radio.

The Pentagon on Wednesday denied reports of new plans for military options against Iran, which is accused by the United States of seeking nuclear weapons, sponsoring terrorism and meddling in Iraq.

Iran vehemently denies all the charges.

However, Washington has never ruled out a military option in a bid to thwart Iran's nuclear drive, which Tehran insists is solely aimed at peaceful energy production.

The cleric said the fact that the United States had not yet attacked Iran was because it "has not been possible, not that it did not want to."

"Death be upon" Israel for "celebrating the killing of innocent people" in the Gaza Strip, Khatami also said. Iran does not recognise Israel, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the annihilation of the Jewish State.

"Israel should know that these pressures will pave the way for another Intifada which will turn the Israelis' day into night," Khatami said.

Israel, the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, accuses Iran of seeking atomic weapons and has urged tougher punitive measures against Tehran, which is already under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Khatami also took a swipe at US Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel.

"Shame on you that your presidents should be weak-willed servants of Israel," he said.

Yeah, yeah, yeah,... Listen up blow hard, the last bigmouth who promised the US a mother-of-all battles, was pulled out of a spidy hole after hgiding like a little girl for months, had his head checked for lice on worldwide TV, and then swung from a gallows.  Asshole.

AFP 

By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November. On Monday, while speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change being held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” As reported over at the Business & Media Institute by my colleague Jeff Poor (emphasis added throughout, h/t to many):

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the [witness] stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

How delicious. Of course, for those that are interested, Nobel Laureate Gore was invited to speak at this conference -- was even offered his normal fee to attend! -- but refused. As reported Monday by Anthony Watts, one of the conference speakers (emphasis added):

I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.

I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.

They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.

Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue, it would seem this would be a perfect place for Mr. Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt to bridge the crevasse.

Exactly, Anthony. Sadly, these folks don't want to speak to the half of the nation not buying into their junk science, for it is so easily exposed as such, and that would bring an end to the fraud.

Of course, one has to wonder how all those that do believe in this myth feel about the fact that the leaders of their cause not only refuse to debate the issue, but won't even attend a conference dealing with it.

Regardless, Coleman on Monday also pointed his finger at The Weather Channel:

"The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

We at NewsBusters share your hopes, John.

Newsbusters

The $300 billion farm bill is being cobbled together by Congress this week. As Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) noted, "It's not just a farm bill. This is a farm and a food and an energy bill."

As Otto von Bismarck quipped, "Laws are like sausage. It's better not to see them being made." Let's take a look at these three aspects of this unappetizing piece of sausage.

First, what do the farmers get? Answer: A lot. Last year, net farm income reached a record level of nearly $89 billion due to high crop prices. Farm household income averaged $84,000 in 2007, according to the Environmental Working Group (the 2006 average for all U.S. households was $66,000). Despite such good times, the federal government showered $5 billion in direct payments on 1.4 million farmers.

These direct payments have nothing to do with crop productivity or a safety net in case of low prices—they are basically gifts to farmers just because they are farmers. In fact, farmers with gross incomes up to $2.5 million have been eligible for these payments. President Bush wants to cap that at $200,000 in income, but the House is considering a cap of $500,000, and the Senate voted to cap the payments at $750,000 per year in income. Overall, Congress shaved just 2 percent off of the direct payments of $5 billion per year over the next four years. While this is a barely discernible improvement, one would think record high farm incomes combined with a world food crisis would make this a good time for Congress to scrap farming subsidies altogether.

It is true that about two-thirds of farm-bill spending funds nutrition programs such as school lunches and food stamps. Lawmakers added $10 billion to the food stamp program to help lower-income Americans address higher food prices. But why are food prices higher in the first place? Part of the reason is the federal government's subsidies and its mandate to turn food into fuel—which brings us to the legislation's energy policy madness.

In December, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated that the U.S. produce 9 billion gallons of conventional biofuels this year. The Act requires that 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels be produced by 2015 and that 36 billion gallons of conventional and "advanced" biofuels be produced by 2022. How does this affect food prices?

Higher corn prices result from biofuel mandates and subsidies, which encourage farmers to plant fewer acres of wheat and soybeans—which in turn raises their prices. In addition, corn is the chief feed grain for which producers of beef, poultry, and pork must pay higher prices which they will eventually pass along to consumers. In 2006, a bushel of corn sold for just under $2; today it sells for nearly $6.

Currently, most biofuels are produced by turning corn into ethanol. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the 2008 corn crop will be 14.6 billion bushels, of which 3.2 billion[*] bushels will be fermented into ethanol. In other words, about 22 percent of our corn crop will be floating out the tailpipes of our automobiles next year.

The new farm bill contains a small gesture in the direction of sanity by reducing bioethanol subsidies from 51 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon. This should reduce the price of a bushel of corn by about 3 cents, according to the Des Moines Register. On the other hand, Congress is trying get around the unintended consequences of its biofuels policy by offering $1.01 per gallon subsidy for so-called cellulosic ethanol. Large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to take off, so the farm bill also disperses $400 million in tax credits in the hope of jumpstarting such production. In addition, the bill extends the tariff on imported ethanol until 2012.

The biofuel mandate is not the only reason for higher food prices—higher oil and fertilizer prices as well as commodity speculation also contribute substantially.

But there's no excuse for Congress to make matters worse with this farm bill. As Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) declared, "Negotiators managed to avoid every opportunity to reform wasteful, outdated subsidies while piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending." As a consequence, Americans can look forward to thinner wallets as they struggle to fuel their cars and feed their kids.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

[*]: Due to an editing error, this originally read million.

Reason Magazine

"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation-a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern-had shifted to its cool phase."

"Look out California agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost, among other things."

• In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase
• In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase
• In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase

"Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, ‘These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.'" [What an absolute load of bull.  So, no matter WHAT happens, it's all our fault?  Socialist assholes.  --ed.]