(click for original article)

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

Syte’s summary:

• Scientists are split on global warming; there is no agreement on whether it is occurring or not.
• Skeptics of global warming include an Obama-supporting Nobel prize winning physicist, editors of climate research journals, and numerous very prestigious and acclaimed scientists.
  
• There has been no evidence of “global warming” for over 10 years now.
• CO2 is not a pollutant.
• Alarmism is of great benefit to many politicians.
• Many young scientists doubt global-warming, but are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry… continue reading…

Herman Cain: Guilty or Not Guilty?

and Why Does it Matter?

False accusations should be punishable by law.

Herman Cain Suspends Campaign

Two Possibilities

The recent attacks on Herman Cain, the swiftness of his “trial” by media, and his rapid exit from the Republican presidential primary race have left many bewildered.  There lingers an uneasiness, as though a lynching had just occurred, and nobody objected.

There are two possibilities; that Herman Cain is guilty of recent accusations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity, or that he is innocent of these accusations.  We simply do not know which is the case.

If Cain were guilty, that would be unfortunate. His moral integrity would certainly be blemished.  However, to be fair, it must be pointed out that similar issues did not get in the way of Gingrich’s, Clinton’s, or JFK’s public careers.  In a society that has just removed the ban on bestiality in the military, with the White House laughingly declining to comment, surely Herman Cain’s weakness would not be as staggering as such transgressions might have been in the past?

Gingrich, Clinton, JFK

If Cain were innocent, however, then the extent of the coordinated slanderous attack on Cain would be historically significant and unnerving.  If President Obama’s campaign was prepared to coordinate such a vicious and fallacious attack on an opposing candidate, that really would make a story dwarfing other stories of political ethical misconduct, including Watergate and the more recent Blagojevich affair.

continue reading…

Recall Walker?

or

Wanted: one Veto-Man!

.

.Nobody likes to have salary/privileges cut, so it’s not surprising that first reactions to Walkers budget cuts in March 2011 included rebellion and threats of recall.
But beyond the initial frustration of living through budget and bargaining privilege cuts, recallers should consider where a recall would steer us.
Suppose the recall is successful; what happens next?

Will the recession go away?

Answer: No

Who will replace Walker?

What politician would consider the politically suicidal prospect of governing with both legislatures controlled by the opposition?  Little other than a long list of vetoes would head his/her potential portfolio of accomplishments.

Is there a delusional narcissist, a fictional masochistic super hero to be found in Wisconsin who would find this proposition attractive?
Classifieds:  WANTED: One Veto-Man!

Recallers are already struggling to find a replacement.
Russ Feingold has already said no.

Further down the line

What other jobs would the Governor’s replacement face? continue reading…

Taxing the Rich

or

Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Neighbor’s Cow

or

Does President Obama Know How to Count?

.

Brainstorming for a title for my article on the merits of  “taxing the rich,” I stumbled across an article entitled “Killing Your Neighbor’s Cow: The Defining Sin or Our Times.” The relevancy of this concept to my article was so striking that I borrowed it.  I am grateful to Charles Colson of Catholic Exchange for his perceptive article, which is well worth reading.  (We’ll get to the cow later. Or scroll down.)

US and China Deficits

.

.

Outlining the Problem

• The US has a two-pronged financial problem; an annual deficit, and an accumulated debt.
• Obviously we must find solutions to the problem.
• Continued borrowing is destabilizing our international status and our economy.
• Our national debt is 34 times higher than China’s.
• We must stop spending or find a new source of income.
• Political leaders like Wisconsin’s Governor Walker try to reduce spending and are vilified and threatened with recall.
• Political leaders like President Obama try to find new sources of tax income with popular slogans like “tax the rich,” a concept which, not surprisingly, seems to have much public appeal.  The concept of dipping into Scrooge McDuck’s seemingly limitless wealth is, on the surface, quite attractive.

.

Is “Tax the Rich” a Realistic Solution to the Problem?

Scrooge McDuck

Kevin D. Williamson analyzed the possibilities regarding taxing the rich in the United States in his National Review Online Article

Define the goal:
National Debt: 15 trillion  ($15,000,000,000,000)
Yearly Deficit: 1.3 trillion ($1,300,000,000,000)

Define the rich:
Definition A:  households earning $250,000 ($250K)
Definition B: households earning $1,000,000 ($1 million)

The “Rich” as Those Who Earn $250K Annually

There are 2.2 million households in the US earning more than $250K.  To raise enough money to wipe out the annual deficit of 1.3 trillion, each of these households would have to pay $600K per year ( more than twice their entire income). continue reading…

Wisconsin State Capitol

.

UPDATE: View the November 16, 2011 Assembly Committee on Education hearing HERE.

UPDATE: Notice has just gone out on November 9, 2011, that the Assembly Committee on Education will be hearing testimony on SB 237 on November 16, 2011. In the Assembly, the bill will be called  Assembly Bill 337, AB 337) .  It is not yet clear when the Assembly will be voting on this sex ed bill which was passed by the Senate.

..

SB 237 Passed in the Senate

Wisconsin’s Senate Bill 237 (SB 237), the Strong Communities and Healthy Kids Act, was passed by Wisconsin’s Senate on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011.
The bill was passed by a narrow margin, with 17 Republicans voting for SB 237 and 16 Democrats voting against.

The purpose of the bill was to reverse the very liberal “Healthy Youth Act” passed in 2010, which required a uniform sex ed program across all of Wisconsin (designed by Planned Parenthood) which underplayed abstinence and required the teaching graphic of sexual material to young children.
SB 237 still allows liberal communities to continue teaching the permissive and graphic material, but no longer requires ALL Wisconsin communities to teach this material.  Under SB 237, each community is permitted to create its own standards, but must teach that abstinence is the only completely reliable preventative for STDs and pregnancy.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) cites abstinence as the only completely reliable preventative for STDs and for pregnancy.

.

What do Americans and Wisconsinites want?

In the U.S., 26 States have CONSERVATIVE sex ed laws, similar to SB 237, requiring that abstinence be taught in sex ed programs as the favored means of avoiding pregnancy and STDs.  Conversely, 13 States have LIBERAL sex ed laws, similar to last year’s HYA in Wisconsin, which require the graphic teaching of “barrier methods,” such as condom demonstration, in the classroom.  Opponents of the liberal Healthy Youth Act call it the “Un-Healthy Youth Act,” or the “Promoting Promiscuity Act,” because it does not permit emphasizing that abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  Under HYA, stating the superiority of abstinence would constitute showing bias against sexually active students.

• So two thirds of States with sex ed laws have conservative laws.
• Two thirds of American parents and teens favor abstinence before marriage, according to a U.S. Health and Human Services study released by the Obama administration in 2010.
• Wisconsin, previously more liberal, shifted to a Republican majority in the last election, November, 2010. Recent recall efforts by Democrats failed to upset that conservative majority; hence the creation of SB 237, reflecting more conservative attitudes.  The liberals who have enjoyed a majority in Wisconsin for many years, are very indignant about the shift in power, as evidenced by the March 2011 demonstrations at the Madison Capitol over government employee union privileges, which made national news. continue reading…

Wisconsin Sex Ed:  There’s an Elephant in the Room

.

It’s become pretty challenging, trying to cut through the rhetoric, to understand what’s actually going on with the Wisconsin Sex Ed bill.  At first glance, the political posturing and contradictions are bewildering—until you look at the raw data on teen pregnancy and STDs, and realize that everyone is tiptoeing around an elephant in the room.

Some of the Background:

In 2010, Wisconsin’s liberal legislature passed a liberal sex ed bill, called the Healthy Youth Act, or HYA. Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, gets to design the curriculum.

In 2011, the new, now conservative legislature which was elected in Wisconsin in November 2010, has recently proposed a modification to the liberal sex ed bill, which would allow conservative communities to opt out of the most progressive requirements of the “old” 2010 sex ed bill (HYA), such as opting out of the condom demonstration in the classroom requirement.  This proposal is called Senate Bill 237,  or SB 237, or Strong Communities Healthy Kids Act or SCHKA

Outside the SB 237 Senate Hearing  (Photos of Senate hearing by Tom Reitz)

More details:

Conservative objections to HYA (now in use in Wisconsin):

1. HYA requires Sex Ed with a liberal and permissive spin or no sex ed at all:
If sex ed is taught, every community in Wisconsin must teach ALL elements of the curriculum outlined in HYA , including the demonstration of condom use in the classroom.  Misleading phrases such as “medically accurate” and “age appropriate” are used in HYA to require the teaching of detailed explicit sexual practices and methods, including the practices previously considered by law, and still considered by numerous religions, to be deviant, unhealthy, risky, and damaging to society. continue reading…

Prosser-Bradley Investigation Ends
“Chief, I Have Lost Confidence in Your Leadership”
Supreme Court Disgraced
Democrat Delays and Cover-Ups Yet Again?

Justice Prosser has finally been cleared in “Chokegate,” two months after Justice Bradley made the false allegations. National Review Online

Yet disturbing problems remain for Wisconsin in the aftermath of this scandal.

How is Justice Prosser supposed to regain his reputation?

How is Justice Prosser supposed to regain his reputation after Wisconsin Democrats tried to smear it twice with lies twice this year? –

• First smear attempt during election (Kloppenburg’s attempted smear)
• Second smear attempt during collective bargaining law ruling (see 3 links at SyteReitz.com for more):
  Which Supreme Court Justice Assaulted Which Justice?
  Media Malpractice and Justice Prosser
  Why the Prosser-Bradley Choking Investigation Is So Prolonged?

Which individuals need to apologize to Justice Prosser?
Where does David Prosser go to get his reputation back?

Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged?

Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged with politically motivated false accusation of criminal conduct against a fellow member of the bench, as well as with assault of a Supreme Court Justice?

Three Supreme Court Justices who were present support Justice Prosser’s innocence and refute Bradley’s account. They say that it was Justice Bradley who attacked Justice Prosser with raised fists, which caused Justice Prosser to

"smack upside the head"

block her, while a third Justice, Justice Roggensack, pulled Bradley off Prosser (National Review Online).  This report is quite credible, since Justice Bradley was previously known to strike a fellow Justice– she had whacked Justice Gableman on the head for addressing the Chief Justice by her first name previously, NOT in jest.  Apparently, Justice Bradley has a very protective attitude toward Chief Justice Abrahamson, and is quick to attack anyone who does not treat her as Bradley sees fit.   So why is Justice Bradley not being charged with criminal conduct? continue reading…

What’s STILL going on in Wisconsin?
or
Circus Madison Goes On
or
How Minority Can Dominate in Democracy
or
What to Do with Badly Behaving Adults?

Liberal to Conservative Shift in Wisconsin

Circus Maximus- Rome, 326BC-549AD.  Ancient site famous for chariot races, gladiator fights, Christian slaughter and games, as well as local marketplace.

Conservative fiscal thinking is catching on, and now “conservative is the new liberal.” Not only in Wisconsin, but in our entire nation.  As power shifts from liberals to conservatives, liberals are not relinquishing power gracefully.  They are frantically employing unethical Alinsky tactics , trying to get their way (despite being the minority),  “by hook or by crook”.

The power shift was very dramatic in Wisconsin, where Democrats have long been accustomed to being in power.  The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the state capitol of Wisconsin, Madison, has remained very liberal, and now has become an island of liberalism surrounded by a sea of conservatism in Wisconsin.

Madison Disapproves

Many people and officials in Madison do not approve of the conservative changes voted in by the rest of Wisconsin.  Yet the Capitol

The Madison Capitol Building- stage for extreme events in Wisconsin, capturing the attention of  the entire nation this year.

building, which houses the legislative chambers and the Governor’s Office, the place where conservative changes are now being implemented, is the central fixture around which all of downtown Madison is clustered.

One local liberal paper recently featured a front-page article entitled “Not my Madison,” in which the author bemoaned  “a new sense that normal citizens can’t change anything.”  The numerous long-ensconced Madison Democrats had come to feel an entitlement to Madison as well as to control of the State Government.  When conservatives finally gained power, liberals have become outraged and took over the Capitol, disrupting the smooth functioning of the Democratic process. continue reading…

New NASA Data Disproves Global Warming:

The supposed threat of man-made Global Warming is used to justify population control programs. But a new study suggests that the threat is virtually non-existent.
– by Steven W. Mosher, Population Research Institute (source)

More on Global Warming from the Heartland Institute:

Global Warming: Not a Crisis

by Joe Bast
August 10, 2011

“The burning of fossil fuels to generate energy produces carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which, everything else being equal, could lead to some warming of the global climate. Most scientists believe the Earth experienced a small rise in temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century, but they are unsure how large a role human activities may have played.

The important questions from a public policy perspective are: How much of the warming is natural? How sure are we that it will continue? Would continued warming be beneficial or harmful?

The answers, in brief, are: Probably two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs.

Global warming, in other words, is not a crisis….”  cont’d here (click)
.

More on Global Warming from 2009 UK Guardian:

– possible falsification of data by global warming climatologists:

Climate Change Data Collection

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
“some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.”

Why the Bradley-Prosser “Choking” Investigation is So Prolonged

.

Overheard at brunch in Madison, WI; retiree attorneys (Democrats) conversing…

.

Attorney 1: “I’ve worked with Prosser for years.  My politics was completely different from his, entirely different.  But he was always very calm and composed.  My politics was on the other side, but when you met him on the street, he was always very pleasant.”

Attorney 2: “Well, every one of us has a veneer.  Under pressure, the veneer cracks and the real person comes out.  His veneer must have cracked.”

Attorney 1: “I never saw his veneer crack in 20 years.”

And yes, these were Democrats speaking.

.

The same conversation included a discussion of how the investigation on which Justice assaulted which Justice could not conclude with pointing a finger at either Justice– this would discredit the entire Wisconsin Supreme Court tremendously.

.

Yet, what are the options?
Pretend it did not happen?
Hope it goes away?
Censure the guilty Justice and let her/him continue judging after being proven a liar?
What about the witnesses who backed each Justice?  They are Justices, too, and clearly some of them lied – should those supporting the guilty Justice also be censured?

.

Even if a “choking” did occur, what was Justice Bradley thinking when failing to use legal channels, but leaking this story to Madison’s liberal press, to Bill Lueders, of the Soros-funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism?  Is this how the Supreme Court handles legal complaints? continue reading…