Steam Valve

Growing Numbers of International Scientists Now Dispute Global Warming Claims

Jim Inhofe's blog reports that the number of scientists disputing the UN's man-made global warming claims has increased significantly:

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Some quotes from the dissenting scientists:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

Cross posted at Truth v. The Machine

It's only the Constitution

You remember, that document that stands between us and tyranny.

I've been reading a lot of conservative blogs lately that have been telling me that all of the lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's right to be president are products of some new derangement syndrome.

They emphasize what a long shot it is to get the US Supreme Court to even pay attention to this. They don't want to back losers. Or whacko conspiracy theorists.

They don't see any credible evidence to challenge the assertion that Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution.

But what they don't address is this important question: who is entitled to a hearing on this subject?

So far, the courts have ruled that ordinary citizens don't have the right to a hearing on it, and it doesn't matter if they've contributed to anyone's campaign or taken any steps that would be frustrated by the election of a president who is not qualified to serve under the Constitution.

If you're just an ordinary person, you don't have the right to even ask that question in a court in this country.

Well, this bothers me.

I don't care if the evidence these challengers have so far presented doesn't convince me, because the question is whether they should be allowed to present it at all, and whether they should be allowed the normal rights of litigants, such as subpoenas and ordinary discovery.

If whacko truthers don't have standing to raise a constitutional challenge to a candidate's right to be president under the constitution, then who does?

Does it have to be somebody who meets the conservative elite's definition of an intelligent person? Or could it be just somebody who might be harmed by an unconstitutional presidency? I imagine there might be many so situated.

Those who seek to silence this conflict may justify their efforts with the goal of avoiding a constitutional crisis.

But to accomplish this avoidance, they would have to muzzle every attorney in the country who might be involved in litigation arising out of bills signed into law by the new president.

We live in interesting times indeed. Will our constitution survive?

Cross posted at Truth v. The Machine

Green vs. Green

Steven Milloy, the junkscience.com guy, tells us about the little green guy invading the offices of the big green guy, accusing the green goliath of collaborating with the enemy by advocating cap and trade:

The activist group Environmental Defense got a taste of what it used to dish out this week when its Washington, D.C., offices were invaded by another green group, the Global Justice Ecology Project.

The Global Justice Ecology Project (GJEP) essentially accused Environmental Defense (ED) of collaborating with the enemy -- big businesses that want cap-and-trade global warming legislation. Noting that her father was one of ED's founders, GJEP head Rachel Smolker said she was now "ashamed" of ED because it advocated cap-and-trade. Smolker said that the European version of cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Protocol, had "utterly failed" to reduce emissions and served "only to provide huge profits for the world's most polluting industries."

"Instead of protecting the environment, ED now seems primarily concerned with protecting corporate bottom lines. I can hear my father rolling over in his grave," Smolker said.

Imagine that.  Using global warming to make money.  How dare they?  What a waste of taxpayer's money.

Cross posted at Truth v. The Machine