socialism


al_gore.jpg
Of course, Al denied he did anything improper in selling this big government, high tax program considering the moral truth he was portraying, despite exaggeration, and convenient deletion.

I encourage you to consider the source of this story, with an eye toward removing this obstacle from Al’s eventual move to save mankind from itself from the office of the President of the United States.

==============================================================================
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007
New York Times

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

Read the rest.

congress-iwojima-surrender.gif

I know, I know. The title to this post is a real shocker. I hope you were sitting down.

Frankly, the effort’s of Congress to dictate foreign policy and war strategy is nothing new in the history of armed conflict and American politics, and virtually all presidents in time of war have had to deal with congressional interference.

The deja vu with this Congress and it’s effort to micro manage defeat using similar Vietnam era style tactics is most disheartening. 3,000,000 Vietnamese were massacred or died in re-education camps because of the American cut and run forced on our troops by the Democratic Congress of the time.

Abandoning Iraq and letting the bloodbath begin isn’t an option for America, a nation rich in law and practice regarding the value of human life. Unless, of course, your a liberal Democrat, with millions of aborted babies under your belt, a burning desire to make suicide as acceptable as getting a drivers license and even putting the deformed out of their misery because of “quality of life” issues. With that record, what’s a few more bodies?

Only the Socialist Left in America wants to cut and run from Iraq, consequences be damned. Why? Because anything even perceived as an American defeat, is a source of glee and pleasure. Anything that damages the reputation, dimishes the influence or injures cohesion or security of the American nation is what these people are all about.

Imagining the lie about “supporting the troops, but against the war” is believable is another example of self delusion and shows an arrogance about the aptitude of their fellow countrymen. No culture, society or nation on earth honors cowards, or those who break their promises. Fighting the enemies of this country at home is every bit as important as fighting those abroad.

Never give up.

congress-surrender.gif
==============================================================================
Excerpts from The Politico article:

“In 1973, Congress sought to deal with its de facto exclusion by passing, over President Richard Nixon’s veto, a War Powers Resolution. It required the White House to cease hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes military force or extends the time. Every president since Nixon has viewed the key provisions of the resolution as unconstitutional.”

“During the Korean War, there was hot talk on Capitol Hill of impeaching President Harry Truman for having sacked Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.”

“As the war went on, it often solicited testimony from both high-ranking and junior officers. It leaked secret testimony to newspapers to sway public opinion. And it repeatedly pressed President Abraham Lincoln, sometimes successfully, to dismiss generals not to its liking.

Shortly before taking on the committee’s chairmanship, Wade wrote a friend that Lincoln’s views on slavery “could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave state.”

“On numerous occasions, they browbeat the president to remove a general or endorse a piece of legislation they thought was important. They were angered when Lincoln did not give in. They complained about the president’s humor and his penchant for handling conflict by telling anecdotes.”

The Politico is new, but right on top of the facts for now. Read the rest here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.