Blogs For Victory

From Canada Free Press:

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Carpe Diem has a link to the actual report, but I was unable to access it – it’ll be interesting to see just how our global warming zealots deal with this report.

It has long been my opinion that if the earth is, indeed, in a long term warming trend, then there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it. If it wasn’t caused by us, then that is just a natural position to hold – but even if it were caused by us, then it took more than a century to put into effect, and it would likely take longer than that to stop and then reverse the effects…meaning, of course, that there’s no point in trying to reverse it (though it still is wise to reduce pollution on general principle), and we might as well adapt to it. In addition to this, I hold that the doomsday predictions of the global warming zealots are just absurd – they have no idea what would really happen if the world warmed up by a few degrees over the next 100 years. Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much.

Last week the Maine College Republicans relaunched their website which has “new media capabilities, original content, and user-friendly interactive features.” Let’s hope more College Republican groups follow suit.

According to FOX News contributor Bill Kristol, Senator Joe Lieberman is set to endorse John McCain for President.

Assuming this is true, there’s a lot to be said about this.

First, considering Joe Lieberman was once the Democratic nominee for Vice President, and also ran for president as a Democrat, this endorsement speaks volumes about not only the current slate of Democratic candidates for president, but also the Democratic Party.

No one can say that Lieberman is just getting back at the Democratic Party for not sticking behind him when he ran for reelection to the Senate, because he has still be caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate. So, despite the enormous insult he received from the Democratic Party, he still remains somewhat loyal to them. But clearly, this endorsement is a rejection of the Democratic Party being increasingly beholden to the radical anti-war MoveOn.org wing of the party.

But, clearly this isn’t just an endorsement of a Republican candidate, this is a rejection of the Democratic Party’s candidates and their defeatist views on the war on terror. If Lieberman thought any of the current Democratic nominees were capable of effectively leading the war on terror then he would endorse one of them.

This also brings up a the possibility that Lieberman could be willing to join the ticket of the Republican nominee, whether the nominee is McCain or not. That would be an interesting situation, and easily help the ticket appeal to independent voters and moderate Democrats.

Will it help McCain? I would say it helps him less in the primaries than it would in the general election, but it certainly doesn’t hurt him. It certainly makes him appear to be the candidate that can win over more independents and moderate voters, and if that is something important to primary voters it can certainly give him a boost.

It’s just too bad that if Lieberman is endorsing a Republican that he hasn’t made the switch to caucus with Republicans in the Senate. Most importantly, our troops would be getting the funds they need.

And that means it is the 63rd anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge:

In December 1944 Adolph Hitler directed an ambitious counteroffensive with the object of regaining the initiative in the west and compelling the Allies to settle for a negotiated peace.

Hitler’s generals were opposed to the plan, but the Fuhrer’s will prevailed and the counteroffensive was launched on 16 December by some 30 German divisions against Allied lines in the Ardennes region. Allied defenses there had been thinned to provide troops for the autumn defensive. Hitler’s intention was to drive through Antwerp and cut off and annihilate the British 21st Army Group and the U.S. First and Ninth Armies north of the Ardennes.

Aided by stormy weather which grounded Allied planes and restricted observation, the Germans achieved surprise and made rapid gains at first, but firm resistance by various isolated units provided time for the U.S. First and Ninth Armies to shift against the northern flank of the penetration, for the British to send reserves to secure the line to the Meuse, and for Patton’s Third Army to hit the salient from the south.

During the battle, 19,000 Americans gave their lives for the liberty of the world – the 101st Airborne was surrounded at Bastogne and received this message from the Nazis:

To the U.S.A. Commander of the encircled town of Bastogne.

The fortune of war is changing. This time the U.S.A. forces in and near Bastogne have been encircled by strong German armored units. More German armored units have crossed the river Our near Ortheuville, have taken Marche and reached St. Hubert by passing through Hompre-Sibret-Tillet. Libramont is in German hands.

There is only one possibility to save the encircled U.S.A. troops from total annihilation: that is the honorable surrender of the encircled town. In order to think it over a term of two hours will be granted beginning with the presentation of this note.

If this proposal should be rejected one German Artillery Corps and six heavy A. A. Battalions are ready to annihilate the U.S.A. troops in and near Bastogne. The order for firing will be given immediately after this two hours’ term.

All the serious civilian losses caused by this artillery fire would not correspond with the well known American humanity.

The German Commander.

General McAuliffe’s reply?

Nuts!

**UPDATE** We’re back in working order. Thanks for your patience.

We are currently experiencing some technical difficulties here. I hope we can get them solved soon… We’ll keep you posted.

UPDATE, 10:16 PM ET: Still working on the problem.

UPDATE, 2:02 AM ET: We really do apologise for this; if you are bored and still want to hammer us, you can go over to Hub Politics, Battle Born Politics or GOP Bloggers.

Now, this is a big endorsement for Romney.

Today, noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, “Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today’s endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court’s ruling legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’ His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time.”

Judge Bork continued, “Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.”

With judicial nominations being a big concern regarding who the next president is, getting Bork’s endorsement should help Romney in these crucial weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. The question is, will this eclipse the Tuttman/Tevares story? It might do just that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Huckabee camp will respond by bringing that up again.

On largely party lines, the Democrat-controlled House voted to outlaw using harsh interrogation methods against terrorists.

I’m sorry, but I can’t understand how they could vote in such a way… Five years ago, Democrats wanted to do whatever was necessary America. Now, as 9/11 has faded from their memories, they’ve decided that scoring short term political points with their extremist base is more important than winning the war on terror.

Oh, Democrats can say that using harsh interrogation techniques is torture, that it harms our efforts to fight terror, or that it puts Americans at risk by angering terrorists… but the only way it can anger terrorists is by exposing our interrogation techniques to the world, by, for instance leaking tapes of interrogations to the media — something that only enraged Democrats, clearly disappointed that they lost an opportunity to put our soldiers at risk by leaking those tapes before they were destroyed.

Clinton campaign advisor Bill Shaheen has resigned following his comments that Democrats should be worried about nominating Barack Obama because his illegal drug use during his youth could come back to haunt him in the general election.

But, really, should he have resigned? Was it such a bad thing for him to suggest that it could become a liability for the Democratic Party if they nominated Obama? Because, let’s face it, it would and should be.

Some on the left praise Barack Obama for being honest about his prior drug use, which included smoking marijuana and snorting cocaine, as if his honesty today make his past drug use okay.

If Democrats want to pretend that Obama can turn anything shady in his life or his record into a positive by being “honest” about it, then by all means they should continue thinking that…. Because no matter how you try to dress it up, past issues with drug and alcohol won’t help you in a general election. President Bush’s past problems with alcohol was not only seen as a liability from the left, but it was something they exploited and tied to endless jokes at Bush’s expense during his first run for president.

So, I believe Obama’s past drug use is fair game. But, I’d be more than happy to wait for the general election have that discussion.

UPDATE: Israpundit points out something else that speaks a lot about Obama’s character — and nothing good.

You know the Democrats are in trouble when the MSM has no choice but to report on it.

Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress

Democrats Bow to Bush’s Demands in House Spending Bill

Dems cave on spending

Surge’s success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq

Desperate to keep or retake her lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is urging fellow Democrats to “give more thought” about Barack Obama’s past illegal drug use.

A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama’s admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.

Obama’s campaign said the Clinton people were getting desperate. Clinton’s campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks.

According to Clinton campaign advisor Bill Shaheen, questions about Obama’s past drug use could be difficult to overcome in the general election.

“It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'” said Shaheen, whose wife Jeanne is the state’s former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

“There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome,” Shaheen said.

Isn’t that amusing, Hillary’s campaign is the one making an issue of Barack Obama’s past illegal drug use, and yet, Shaheen is saying it’s the Republicans that are going to take advantage of Obama’s shady past. Gotta love it.