6 Dead at Northern Illinois University

For the forth time in one week, a gunman opened fire at a US school.Today, Thursday, a gunman, identified Stephen Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University. according to university President John Peters, "As many as 18 people were injured, then The shooter took his own life.He described the scene aftermath of the incident as terrifying and chaotic."Some girl got hit in the eye, a guy got hit in the leg," Gaynor, a senior geography student, said outside just minutes after the shooting occurred. "It was like five minutes before class ended too."Witnesses said the young man carried a shotgun and a pistol. Mr. Robinson, another student at the scene commented, "It was almost like he knew who he wanted to shoot," Robinson said. "He knew who and where he wanted to be firing at."Another student in the hall, Jillian Martinez, described how the gunman came into the hall by the lectern and just started shooting."He just started shooting at all the kids," she said. "He just started shooting at people, and I ran out of there as fast as I could. I ran all the way to the student center; when I got there I could still hear shooting.Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said he did not know what his motive might have been.authorities said they found out Two of the weapons — the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun — were purchased legally less than a week ago, on Feb. 9th. Kazmierczak had a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card, which is required for all Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms.Campus Police Chief Donald Grady told investigators, "He had stopped taking medication and become somewhat erratic in the last couple of weeks,"The shooting was the fourth at a U.S. school within a week. It makes one ask... what is wrong with us as a society?This is an enormous tragedy. As a parent, I can feel for the loss that the families of the victims are experiencing, yet I not truly imagine that level of pain. You work hard, make sacrifices needed to send your child to college, and then in a second, the 're gone. It must feel as if all of the air had been sucked out of your world, that the sun and starts stopped shining, and all that is left is darkness and pain.

In an attempt to understand, I am left with some questions:
Why are these tragedies happening in ever increasing frequency? And why are people with know mental problems able to go out and load up on weapons? What happened to the idea of a 7 day waiting period?

I have great respect for people on all sides of the political fence, but clearly our system is broken. We can not keep allowing mentally unstable people to go out at a moments notice and fill their shopping cart up with guns.
Larry Lubell

We have Lost the Iraq War!

As an American, I desperately wanted to see a stable, pro U.S. democratic government take hold in Iraq.
There is no disputing that such a government would be a stabilizing force in the region and a catalyst for change. A strong, safe, free Iraq would be an ally in the “War against terror” , as well as foil to Iran.

When President bush first took us into Iraq the justification given was to rid Iraq of “Weapons of Mass Destruction, and free the people from the tyrannical rule of Saddam. When the “Weapons” were not found, The justification changed . Bush explained the “Up-side” of a victory, Assured us that the people of Iraq wanted us to be there and their lives would be much better off then before our arrival.

True enough, Saddam was evil. The people of Iraq lived in mortal fear. His son’s were sadistic monsters, that used tyranny and torture to maintain Iraq as their personal thief Dom I can promised I did not shed a tear at the demise of any of them. While I was thrilled to se that bunch go, unfortunately we learned that there is something worse than Saddam, and that is Anarchy and civil war.

When president Bush and his team try to boost support for the war he warns us of what would happen if we lost- It is with great sorrow and regret that I’ve come to the conclusion that this is precisely were we find ourselves today.

Since the war began we have lost more than 3,515 of our troops, and more than 26,000 of them have been wounded. In addition to the US. Military, more and more of the work in Iraq is being done by “Private Contractors” according to new government numbers from the Labor Department, Casualties among the private contractors in Iraq are on to make 2007 into the bloodiest year yet for the civilians contractors. At least 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq in the first three months of the year, by far the highest number for any quarter since the war began in March 2003.

Over the past year we have seen an effort of Sunni’s to Target Shiite mosques, and in turn, Shiite’s attacking Sunni mosques. This has consistently resulted in further attacks, and an increased circle of violence. The resent bombing of the Golden Mosque in the town of Samarra, left its famous golden dome in ruins and pushed the region further down the road of self destruction. As predicted, soon after two Sunni mosques were bombed south of the capital, police said. One was destroyed and the other lost its minaret.

While president Bush pleaded in a written statement for calm.

"Violence will only contribute to what the terrorists sought to achieve by this act,'' in Washington. "I ask all Iraqis to exercise restraint in the wake of this tragedy."

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr: said no rival Sunni Arab could have been responsible for the bombing, calling the bombing a "cursed American-Israeli scenario that aims to spread the turmoil and plant the hatred among the Muslim brethren." The only enemy of Iraq is the occupation and therefore everyone must demand its departure or a timetable of its occupation."

Our brave young men and woman are loosing their lives to protect people that in ever increasing numbers do not want us there. This is a war without winners: therefore it is a war that we can not win.

Larry Lubell

http://www.lowpricedcarinsurance.com/

Just in time for Summer

After months of a long dark winter, it’s great to see leaves back on the trees, birds singing and flowers in bloom. But just about when I’m ready to burst in to a chorus of “Here Comes the Sun, out comes a report warning us about the danger of Melanoma.

I have turned back the “Tanning” years ago; the days of eight hours on a beach coated in baby oil have been replaced with a few hours wearing suntan lotion with SPF 15. Instead of hearing “Wow what a dark tan” I get comments like “Have you been outside lately you seem to have A Healthy glow.” I can even say that free from the burden of keeping a tan, I have freed up time to just enjoy the weather.

A report out today in

tells us that even wearing sunscreen does little to protect us from the deadliest form of skin cancer. There has been no proof that sunscreens protect against melanoma The recommendation of Stephan Lautenschlager of the Outpatient Clinic of Dermatology at Triemli Hospital in Switzerland is to “Instead, wear sunblocking clothing or stay out of the sun altogether”

"Wearing sun-protective clothing and a hat and reducing sun exposure to a minimum should be preferred to sunscreens," Lautenschlager said. People tend to sunbathe for social reasons, he said. "Nevertheless, sunscreens should not be abused in an attempt to increase time in the sun to a maximum."

While reading the article, I had a mental image of a couple walking along the beach, covered in sunscreen, him wearing “surf-Boarding shorts and a T-shirt, she dressed in a thin short-sleeved sundress. Not clothes designed for swimming or a day on the beach, but at least seasonally appropriate.
I has a little taken back by his recommendation of what he considered proper summer attire.

“The best clothing for sun protection is tightly woven, thick garments made of denim, wool or polyester, not cotton, linen or acetate, he said. Dry material or clothes that have shrunk after washing are denser and better at blocking UV rays than wet, stretched or bleached clothing”.

Could you imagine how poor the ratings for Bay Watch would have been if Pamela Anderson was filmed in an all wool suit, hat, gloves and Zinc oxide. That would have brought her career to a screeching halt.

The article however failed to mention the dangers associated with wondering out on to a crowded beach dressed in protective garb traditionally associated with a Christmas sleigh ride. Aside from heat stroke, you run the likely risk of being pelted with rocks, and or having the
S#!T kicked out of you by a group convinced your some sort of “Weirdo.”

Maybe, once again, moderation is the answer. There must be a way to be out on a beautiful summers day without wearing a wardrobe purchased at a NASA surplus sale.

www.urbaninsuranceagency.com


Urban NewsBlog
Larry Lubell

Poll Finds Approval Up for Congress

As the Democrats mark their first 100 days in power, a new AP poll polls show public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year. It appears that a they step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War , Congress’s popularity increases. The polling clearly shows the American voters wants Congress to push for an end to US involvement in the Iraq war that has to- date claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops

While Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent Bush's approval ratings remain in the low to mid-30 percent range. These numbers for Congress clearly weak by most objective standards, are up dramatically from 25 percent approval registered for the Republican majority in the weeks leading to last fall's elections.

It is evident that Iraq is the driving force in the poling data but increasingly questions regarding Valery Plame and Alberto Gonzales are pushing down the nations confidence in the administration and reminding voters of the value of Congressional over-site.

A new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

A majority of likely voting Americans – 55% – said they believe Congress should be able to force President Bush’s top aides to testify under oath before Congressional panels that are investigating the firings late last year of eight U.S. attorneys,

The former CIA operative Valerie Plame, was the star witness at the House hearing investigating who “Leaked” her name outing her as an agent and effectively ending her career. Plame testified that senior officials at the White House and State Department had "carelessly and recklessly" blown her cover to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, over his questioning of the Bush administrations claim that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, to the Iraq War. Ambassador Wilson stated in a July 2003 New York Times editorial, that he found no evidence to support the administration claims, which became a part of the justification for the war.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is another force driving public opinion. The former House Speaker, and likely 08 presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning. Newt said “The botched firing of U.S. attorneys has destroyed Gonzales' credibility as the nation's top law enforcer”.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is helping lead the investigation into the firing of eight federal prosecutors, said Gingrich's comments pointed to building bipartisan support for a new attorney general. "This is another important voice who believes that the attorney general should step down for the good of the country and the good of the department," Schumer said in a statement. "We hope both the attorney general and the president heed Speaker Gingrich's message."
Congress is also in a fight with the president to compel the testimony of White House officials including Karl Rove and former White house counsel Harriet Miers to determine the extent of White House involvement in the firing of the eight federal prosecutors.
One must keep in mind how quickly these numbers can change. If Democrats are looking at these polls and “Ordering new drapes” they better watch-out. 2008 is still a long time away, far too long to “Coast.” It will not be enough to for the Democrats to “Just not be Bush”, they are going to have to be seen as solving problems or they will be seen as irrelevant.

“Scientific consensus?”

In response to My posting on Global Warming Robert Rosenberg wrote the following reply. I must say that there is a great deal of Validity to his informed comments.
I am more convinced than ever that no trumpeting of “scientific consensus,” no UN press release and no press conference can obscure the fact that the theories on anthropogenic (human caused) climatic forcing are far from proved. Neither is the opposing case proved, however. The documentary to which you linked does a good job, not necessary illustrating a scientific case against global warming, but showing the case for uncertainty. The best analogy is a medical one. Hippocrates first dictum was to do no harm. The climate is so vastly complex, so little understood that, to me, the effect of any human intervention is unknowable. Thus we have roughly equal chances of doing harm or good (and probably vanishing little of either). And we’ll spend close to a half quadrillion dollars doing it (latest estimates $450,000,000,000,000) over the next 50-75 years. The law of unintended consequences is already beginning to rear its ugly head. Corn-based ethanol is all the rage in the US now. A perfect storm of nefarious political influence (corn state politicians, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland, etc) and environmental activism has generated huge interest from industry is making more ethanol and converting more automotive energy generation to this source. At first glance this appears wonderful. The net carbon effect on the environment of ethanol use appears to be zero. The carbon emitted from the exhaust pipe into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere just a season or two earlier. Let’s, for a moment, ignore that we may have to use more petroleum energy to cultivate, harvest and refine the ethanol than we obtain from it use. Good arguments have been made for and against this proposition. (No “scientific consensus” here). Even assuming massive subsidies from the government to bring the price of ethanol down to where it’s competitive with petroleum, it seems that the worst case is that we’re only hurting ourselves. A few more billion for ethanol subsidies, a couple less billion for the war in Iraq, or for Medicare, or for other corporate subsidies. Fine with me so far. Here’s the problem: all the ethanol generation has increased competition for corn supplies. The price of corn has more than doubled in the last year. This is not a huge factor in American food prices (little corn is actually eaten here; it is mostly used as animal feed, and constitutes a relatively small, but not inconsiderable factor in the cost of raising livestock). The price of corn meal throughout Latin America has skyrocketed, however. Corn meal is a staple food from Mexico south. People are starving right now as a consequence of our concern with carbon budgeting. I’ve read estimates that as many as 5,000 – 15,000 additional people will starve this year alone in Latin America as a consequence of increased corn prices. And for what? So we can feel self-righteous and pure? I call this the Prius effect.
The Prius is a neat car and a brilliant idea. It gets tremendous mileage using a very clever technological fix that holds great promise for the future of automotive transport. If someone would have the balls to manufacture a plug-in version, its effective mileage would approach 100 mpg. It also has a total energy footprint many times greater than that of a Hummer H1 due to the difficulty and cost of manufacturing its batteries. But I’d bet that each driver behind the wheel of one feels like an environmental saint. It’s hypocritical, but harmless. At least the cost of that particular sainthood isn’t the starvation of a few thousand poor brown people. The problem is that each particular energy trade-off we make, while inconvenient for us rich Americans, will be devastating to the world’s poor. This harkens back to a criticism made of the environmental movement in general and the anthropogenic global warming advocates in particular, by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. He accuses the movement of being, at its core, anti-human. Scratch a radical environmentalist and under the surface you’ll find someone who believes that the world would be better off with 90% of its human cargo dead. Of course the 90% doesn’t include any of his friends or family or any of the “right” people. In this regard the philosophy closely resembles the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I’ve personally encountered this mindset and explicit ideology at dinner parties. When I’ve explained that massive famines will be the inevitable result of the energy cutbacks contemplated by warming advocates, my friends have responded stoically that such a price must be paid. Just not paid by them or anyone they know. Black, yellow and brown people, preferably poor, would suit the bill just fine.
Robert info@arrelle.com
______________________________________________________
By Larry Lubell
I can’t help but come away with the idea that we are having an impact on our environment.
Has man changed the entire global climate, that has not been proven, but I still think the odds are better than 50/50 that we have impacted the Earth. But I absolutely agree that the computer models needed to attempt to to answer the question for sure, are beyond our present technology.I will also concur that politics are playing a role and at times are pushing the science.
The question is what steps can we take that will help our environment, reduce greenhouse gases without causing economic hardship. Is there technology that we can build in the US. that creates jobs and wealth and reduces our dependency on fossil fuels?
I refuse to apologize for being human! I always found it comical when people talk about “Saving The Planet” As far as I’m concerned- Man comes first. My concern for the planet is tied to what is best for us. But I will add, what is best for us includes what is best for future generations. ( at least as far in the future as my child and my child’s children). I don’t like the idea of animals being hurt in the name of research, and I will go out of my way to buy shampoo that is not tested on animals, but if testing on animals is necessary to find a cure that could save my child- Test away.
People come first.

I must say I was upset the way Present Bush handled the Kyoto Accord. Not because he did not sign it ( I recognized it was a flawed proposal) but because he rejected it with out presenting an alterative. I always felt Kyoto was in part a “Game of Chicken”, by the US saying no, it safely let most of Europe say yes for free.

The question is what should we do. By ”We” I mean the average consumer, as well as The US. and UN lawmakers and policy makers? Do we do nothing till we have super computers capable of creating valid models. Do we just cross our fingers and wait? Does complexity mandate inaction?
Is there anything we can or should do that fits with my concept that people come first?

Boy, it sure is easier to ask questions, or to find fault with other peoples answers, then to come up with answers your self. I must admit, I have far more questions than answers.
Larry Lubell

Senate Panel Approves Iraq Pullout timetable

By Larry Lubell
While most people in the United States now believe that the war in Iraq is not going well, It seems as if many are reluctant to set a “Time certent” for their departure.Bill O’Reiilly recently stated that he believed “Most Americans have turned against the war because of the high cost of the conflict in both blood and treasure”. He spoke of there being three basic groups of opinion when it came to the war. “The first group believes, as President Bush does, that the war is absolutely necessary and must be fought to the bitter end.“The second group is the one I’m in. We believe the war was a noble effort to remove a homicidal dictator, who violated the first Gulf War cease-fire 17 times, but that the Iraqi people have not stepped up enough to make democracy possible there. I am deeply disappointed that many Iraqis are corrupt and put revenge over the good of their nation. — America has given Iraq a chance at freedom and prosperity. The Kurds in the north took that opportunity and are prospering, but many Sunni and Shia are mired in murder”.“The Third group he explains are “usually far left fanatics and believes the USA is immoral and the war in Iraq evil.”I was not in favor of going into Iraq, even though I saw not a single redeeming character trait possessed by Saddam. Sure I loved the idea of getting him out of power and brought to justice, but I just saw a great potential for a long bloody standoff. This is one of those I would rather have been proven wrong than right. In fact when I see the poor way the administration handled the war, I’m not sure how much of the reason we are in such a bad place in due to the whole idea of entering Iraq being a mistake, and how much is just a product of poor execution and second rate leadership. I still trust that the Bush administration meant well, and did truly did believe that they were doing the right thing. In this case I do agree with O’Reilly when he concludes.The Iraq conflict has been painful and is still in doubt after four years. If we had to do it all over again, we would not. We’d find another way to get Saddam.
It was Colin Powell who advised Bush 41 against going into Baghdad by saying“You break it- you own it!”The danger of setting a date for leaving is it almost guarantees defeat, on the other hand at what point do you say the price paid has reached a limit. I will conclude as I did on this topic before. What do you do when all options are bad? When all doors seem to lead to disaster?I have to say that I feel sorry for our president, and I’m glad I don’t have to make these calls.
If you have any answers or coments Contact us @ Send your comments
Posted in Uncategorized, Current events and politics

House Panel OKs Subpoenas for Rove and Miers

The one thing these day that both the Democrats and republicans seem to be able to agree on, is that the administration and particularly Attorney general Gonzalez, did a poor job of handing the firings of eight federal prosecutors. Bill Clinton fired all 93 federal prosecutors when he came to office, and there is no doubt that president Bush was well within his rights to fire the eight prosecutors in question. “I’ve told the attorney general that I think this has been mishandled, that by giving inaccurate information … at the outset, it’s caused a real firestorm, and he better get the facts out fast,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. The House Judiciary subcommittee, without dissent, decided to subpoena the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firing of the prosecutors. By issuing the subpoenas the committee was rejecting the President’s offer that his aides could to talk privately to the Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.“It’s sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here,” Schumer said. “There must be accountability,” added subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.Arlen Specter, R-Pa., argued that “It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation”“Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.When asked would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?”Absolutely,” Bush declared.Calling the investigation “ A Politically motivated fishing expedition.” By fighting the subpoenas the administration is asserting “Executive Privilege” in preventing their appearance under oath. It is impossible for me to hear that term without flashing back to the Nixon administration. It is my recollection that the strategy did not work well for Nixon. Not trusting my memory I did a Google search and confirmed my recollection.In an article By MICHAEL C. DORF he writes the followingThe Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon’s Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.The Court recognized “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” It noted that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process.”Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court’s decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned. Let’s not forget that the accusations in this case are trivial in comparison to the Nixon case, and there is no way President Bush is going to, or should resign over this case. However there are a lot of Democrats that would love to get some “Quality time” with Carl Rove under oath, and are likely to just walk away from the opportunity. So look for a fight.

Michael C. Dorf is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University.

Valerie Plame Covert agent?

Valerie Plame tells congress she WAS a covert agent.



March 17th, 2007


In response to new information to an earlier posting Libby leaked Plame’s covert CIA connection. A copy of which ran on the ABC New Blog I read the following response.

Facts………do not matter. This is about politics: Dems/Media vs Bush. It was never about justice/truth. There was no underlining crime. Say it with me! Plame was NOT a covert agent - read the defition. Fitzgerald was tasked w/ investigating who gave Robert Novak Plame’s name. From the start he knew it was Armitage. Case should have ended there.
If providing info on Plame was a crime - why wasn’t Armitage charged. Answer - because it was not a crime. Armitage was State Dept. NOT the Whitehouse. Armtage was against the Iraq War….not for it. Armitage is not a Bush supporter. Fitzgerald like in Moby Dick….went hunting the Whale and would not quite until he got someone for something. Libby was convicted for having a bad memory.Shame on Fitzgerald for being a political tool for the Democrats. : William Mar 12, 2007
In answer to the comment above Posted on ABC News Blog by: William Mar 12, 2007 12:05:22 AM. Where he said
“Plame was NOT a covert agent” this Is just plain untrue. Valerie Plame WAS A COVERT AGENT.
Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson stated. “There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed “. . . .[19] Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
Talk about working without a net! Are the Democrats playing politics with this affair, absolutely. Is Libby a fall guy, absolutely. But was she a Covert Agent working overseas on matters of national security, absolutly. The CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA issued a statement where they said the following: ”During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA. Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson’s classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life”.[29] Valerie Plame-Wilson was a covert agent who put her life on the line during a long career with the CIA. She was “Outed” by the Bush administration as a means of political revenge. She paid a great price by loosing her career. And our nation paid a great price by loosing an important agent and making it more difficult to recruit new agents. In our war with terrorism our most powerful weapon is information. Larry Lubell

Warmest Winter on Record

March 16th, 2007
By Larry Lubell



Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Reported that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since they began keeping records back in 1880.
Those that believe that global Warming is real will point to this as well as the fact that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. Not everyone is convinced that A. Global Warming is more than just a standard fluctuation, or B. that even if real that the rise is caused by man.Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831. From Fox Nexs- The world’s climate scientists meeting in Paris on February 2nd reported unequivocally that the Earth’s climate system is increasingly heating up and that it likely has not been this warm for at least 1300 years. The fourth report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that evidence for this includes more than increases in global average air and ocean temperatures.With much stronger language and more assurance than in previous reports, the IPCC members said there was less than 10 percent chance that this global warming was natural — they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of CO2 spewed out per year from fossil fuel burning is 12 percent greater now than in the 1990s, their report indicated, and the amount of the greenhouse effect is the greatest in 10,000 years.
The Earth, and it’s weather are extremely complex systems. Scientists have been working for years with “Super computers” trying to build the most accurate model possible. It is that very complexity that opens the door for conflicting opinions.

Weather and insurance premiums
Global Warming Robert Rosenberg


Posted in Uncategorized, Current events and politics, Stories of Interest