Archive for 01/23/2010

Times Online

Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

Rajendra Pachauri

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.

That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.

“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”

Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.

But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”



Friday, January 22, 2010

On first glance, it could be the ultimate Valentine’s Day card — a gigantic billboard that towers over New York’s Times Square, featuring a happy couple with the text: “You are my soulmate forever, Charles & YaVaughnie.”

But as every scorned lover knows, looks can be deceiving. This billboard — which also has gone up in Atlanta and San Francisco — is the ultimate act of revenge — a very public retaliation by a dumped mistress aimed at a very wealthy, and married, businessman who is an adviser to President Obama.

YaVaughnie Wilkins posted the signs after she learned that her lover, Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board — had reconciled with his wife, the New York Post reported.

The billboards — there are three in New York and one apiece in Atlanta and San Francisco, where Phillips lives — may have cost Wilkins up to $250,000, at an estimated $50,000 each.

After the billboards surfaced, Phillips fessed up to his longtime affair through a spokesman on Thursday.

“I had an 8-and-a-half-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins. The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended, and we both wish each other well,” he said.

The billboards also feature a URL of the Web site, which features photos of Phillips’ and Wilkins’ lengthy relationship.

In an Oracle newsletter from 2006, Phillips was described as an ex-marine and “family man” who has a wife and 10-year-old son, Chas, the New York Times reported.

Tea Party Crashers

Posted: 01/23/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Tea Party's

January 23, 2010

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Some members of the media are in a snit about the Tea Party Movement’s First Amendment-inspired freedom to peaceably assemble without them.
Only a handful of media outlets have been invited to a Tea Party Convention in Nashville later this month.
What seems to be grating excluded journalists, such as ABC’s Jake Tapper, who was complaining about it on Sean Hannity’s radio show the Friday before Martin Luther King Day, is that the invited media outlets include only those that haven’t bashed, misrepresented, or maliciously distorted the Tea Party Movement, its events, or its adherents.
The right to assemble privately and exclusively is as important in American history as…well, the freedom of the press. Causes that were once unpopular have become mainstream precisely because of the freedom to assemble, which means the freedom to assemble privately if the organizers so wish.
Movements can be stifled or stopped by publicly disclosing certain conversations, thoughts, or plans made in private. Indeed, the government has often sought to interrupt the privacy of peaceable association before causes become too big.
When the civil rights movement started gaining strength, the government concocted conspiracy theories as the bases to subpoena membership lists of the NAACP. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in NAACP v. Alabama that “[i]t is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”
He further wrote that “compelled disclosure of the names of the [NAACP’s] members would entail ‘the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by [NAACP’s] members of their right to freedom of association.'”
Sam Adams, the original tea partier, was a newspaperman. Do you think for one moment he would have invited a reporter antagonistic to the cause of freedom to one of his meetings?
Much of the media have abdicated their watchdog role over corrupt government and have become symbiotic, sycophantic protectors of what the Tea Party Movement opposes. Fortunately, those media now have competition that will force them to develop the humility to become objective lest they continue to be viewed as suck-ups to entrenched power. The choice is theirs.
Tea Party organizers may extend invitations to certain media outlets and not to others. The Tea Party event at the end of this month, about which John Loudon writes at BigGovernment (at which yours truly will address, among other issues, the implications for Tea Party activists of the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision), is open to all media. That’s the choice of the organizers.
If uninvited media outlets were to attempt to gain access to a conditioned-entry tea party event, they would be trespassing and could be removed. Were those same media folks to attempt to crash an SEIU meeting, they might expect a harsher escort out.

Obama’s Kiss of Death

Posted: 01/23/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

By Bob Beers  Friday, January 22, 2010

Rasmussen Reports is one of the few polling companies you can trust to give you real numbers rather than those the Obama Administration uses to skew the results. After the Massachusetts debacle, the west wing of the White House went into a major spin overdrive in an attempt to prove what had just happened hadn’t. The reality is something else entirely.

Check out this link on how America really feels about the Marxist Messiah,

Here is the first paragraph:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday, shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15.”

Jimmy Carter has the dubious honor of being known as the most incompetent President this country ever had. Ronald Reagan’s quip, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” may be changed to, “Are you better off now than you were a year ago?” Because Barack Hussein Obama has proven that he knows even less about economics than his peanut-pushing compatriot Carter.

Like Carter, Obama is attempting to blame his disastrous results on the previous administration. The message isn’t being believed, not even by a majority of those who voted for him. Admittedly, Ford was essentially a buffoon much like Bush, but neither man could be honestly accused of creating the economic disasters that came into play after they left office. Unlike Carter, Obama has managed to work his voodoo onto the American economy into less than half the time. The GOP is literally salivating at its improved prospects. Also like Carter, Obama is completely clueless in regard to public opinion. Apparently, so is the Mainstream Media. You have to search long and deep for any article criticizing Obama’s agenda for the Democrat losses in Virginia, New Jersey and now what is known as the most liberal state in the union, Massachusetts. There is a simple reason for this, most of the managers and directors of America’s media outlets are now aging hippies; the same people who decided in the 60’s to abandon every cultural aspect that they associated with their parents, cleanliness, chivalry, loyalty to kin and country, manners and patriotism; and the big one, the sanctity of innocent human life.

These people, Obama included, found avenues of employment that allowed them to continue their steadfast belief in the communist agenda without having to deal with the economic realities the rest of us cope with on a daily basis. They did so, covering their walls with posters, not of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Adams, but with the likenesses of Mao, Lenin, Ho, Guevara and Castro. Insulated from economic reality, they developed a cocoon of self-righteousness that continues today. There can be no other rational explanation for the headlines that preceded the Massachusetts election. Words such as “shocking” give an indication as to how the results of the voting hit them.

If you peruse the archives concerning the Brown/Coakley campaign, you will notice several articles trumpeting Obama’s decision to stump for the Democrat candidate. Nowhere will you find one warning the President off because his lack of popularity may do more harm than good. You actually have to travel into the Tweetsphere (my coined term) to find mention of Obama’s deadly pucker. There was a brief glimpse of the term “Kiss of Death” on The Drudge Report, but that was it.

The liberal messiah is planning on traveling to my state of Nevada to champion Harry Reid’s reelection. Reid’s numbers are just above those of the good President, which is to say, they are both cellar-dwellers. There is every chance that when Obama leaves Nevada and we finish cleaning up the stench, that Harry Reid will find campaigning against the Searchlight High Prom King an uphill battle. And now, they face an additional obstacle, the Supreme Court has taken the shackles off of corporate giving.

In a 5-4 decision, the court found the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political giving to be unconstitutional. Of course they were. The problem was that McCain either didn’t understand the Constitution or didn’t care. We know that Obama’s choice of Justice doesn’t care because she voted in the minority. If you read the very small paragraph:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Nowhere in this short passage can you find or even infer that a collective has any more or less right to contribute to a campaign than the other. In fact, corporations, the great Satan of the mushy-brained type, aren’t even mentioned, unless you want to include them in the last clause. McCain Feingold was a violation of our constitution pure and simple.
Sotomeyer’s vote in this is very telling of both her opinion and the one who appointed her. What is also telling is that the great flock of the American Sheeple is changing into a wolf pack and the Democrats haven’t a clue. 0 for 4 and counting.

Ban by baby steps Thanks Tpgow

Posted: 01/23/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

OutDoors Hunting

UN’s push for Arms Trade Treaty could affect American gun ownership

By Colin Moore

LAS VEGAS — In the parallel world where the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi live, the enlightened govern the ignorant masses by applying one set of universal rules, and it’s not the Constitution of the United States.

In Hillary’s world, radical ideas progress at first with baby steps that ultimately become great strides to harness the destructive forces in society. That’s why the current Secretary of State and the other Hillarys in her world are drawing a bead on gun owners, mainly those in the United States.


Colin MooreSteve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, says “anti-hunters will do or say anything to curtail hunting, and they’ll settle for winning small battles and advancing their cause in incremental stages.”

In 2012, the United Nation’s will push for the Arms Trade Treaty, which, among other things, will establish goals regarding the ownership and disposition of firearms on a global basis. This new world order is apt to take various forms, but none of them are likely to be good for gun owners in this country.

The Arms Trade Treaty, along with attempts to reconstitute the so-called “assault weapons ban,” and efforts to ban lead-based ammunition are among the biggest challenges facing the shooting sports industry in the coming years, according to Steve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

It’s been a while since the ban on any firearm that looked remotely like an assault rifle was in effect. Thankfully, the public has become better educated about the firearms and the fact that just because they look like something that Rambo might wield, basically they do the same thing as any other rifle.

Talk of outlawing black guns was a topic that once scored points for politicians in the “blue states,” but there’s no current movement to return the ban. Still, Sanneti said, it only takes one lunatic with a rifle to re-energize the issue.

The lead ban is an ongoing project for anti-hunters and their allies, the gun control crowd. Banning lead shot on wildlife refuges and other federal lands was the first stage, and now various advocates in the northern tier of states, and California, have taken up the cause. In the Bear State, pro-raptor groups managed to convince the powers-that-be that condors were being poisoned en masse after ingesting lead bullets or shot in the remains of deer or various other game animals and birds.

In truth, more California condors have died from eating the poisoned carcasses of sheep and other domestic animals intended for coyotes. Still, lead was a convenient villain. More recently, anti-hunters tried to stampede food banks and others from accepting donated game meat shot with lead ammo by well-meaning hunters. Eventually, the wheels fell off that campaign when even the Center for Disease Control said it was a bogus issue.

“Anti-hunters will do or say anything to curtail hunting, and they’ll settle for winning small battles and advancing their cause in incremental stages,” Sanetti said. “What is so insidious about the various lead ban proposals is that they ignore the fact that there are no wildlife populations that have been threatened or endangered because hunters use lead ammunition. It just doesn’t happen, and we’ve got to continue to remind people of that and present the truth.”

As for the Arms Trade Treaty, Sanetti said he thinks it might pose the greatest danger if only because there are so many different permutations it could take, any of which could be disastrous to gun owners.

Sanneti is no stranger in Hillary’s world, and as a former executive of the Ruger Arms Company, knows of the subtle ways that gun control advocates employ to advance their cause. Convince the general public that if all guns are banned, and nobody has them but governments, then there would be no more wars and no more crime. In effect, the Arms Trade Treaty is one of those baby steps in that direction.

“Essentially, the international community doesn’t understand why Americans respect and protect their Second Amendment rights because in most countries no such rights exist,” said Sanetti, who is presiding over the annual Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) show. “Of course, the Founders added the Second Amendment as one of the safeguards, and it’s not something open for discussion as far as we’re concerned.

“The current (Obama) administration has gone on record as saying it’s time for this country to rejoin the community of nations and get more in line with various international goals. So, definitely, gun control is moving to the forefront, though not in such an-in-your-face, confrontational manner that we’ve seen before in this country. Gun control advocates go in one direction, try and fail, and then go in another direction. That’s been the pattern.”

Sanetti notes that prior to the current administration, UN delegates routinely gave such notions as international gun control a no-way, Jose response. However, recently Secretary Clinton has noted that the administration is not opposed, per se, to an Arms Trade Treaty that inhibits the manufacture and distribution of guns, but rather that the U.S. might go along with it if there is a consensus among the nations.

“Our salvation might be that 2012, which is when the UN will put the Arms Trade Treaty on the front burner, is an election year,” Sanetti said. “We feel reasonably confident that this administration is not going to push the treaty or even avow any ownership, but there’s no certainty of that. If the administration sidesteps the issue and there is no unanimity among nations, the treaty is probably dead, but we’re definitely keeping an eye on developments there.”

Eternal vigilance and all that, but it’s the price to pay for living in the world next to Hillary’s. The neighbors will do whatever they can to get rid of as many guns as possible, perhaps by curtailing the international flow of component materials that go into the manufacture of firearms and ammunition.

It’s a long shot, but such ideas have merit in Hillary’s world, where even little victories lead ever closer to the big prize: no guns, just government.

Obama Received Millions From Healthcare Industry

Posted: 01/23/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Zebra


News organization Raw Story has obtained an exclusive analysis that shows President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle.

They are following Louisiana’s Recall of Mary

Posted: 01/23/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Hi everyone,

I’ve got a feeling I wasn’t the only one up past midnight watching the Scott Brown election coverage! Having moved to Tucson from Boston, I must admit that I never expected this to happen in a million years. But, you know, 2009 has been a crazy and exciting year; a year so exciting that it resulted in a one-in-a-million electoral upset!

I spent 2005-2007 studying, writing about, and connecting with the people involved in the democratic revolutions sweeping the former Soviet bloc states of Georgia and Ukraine, among other countries. After the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, I traveled to the capital Kiev and did some work with democracy activists there and in Belarus — the last dictatorship in Europe.

Some commentators are drawing comparisons, calling this win the “Brown Revolution“. My friend Andy Ignatov, whose work in the Orange Revolution helped connect and organize activists using the internet, used Facebook to type up his agreement, “Yep :)”.

So let me get to the point: If it can happen in Massachusetts, it can happen anywhere. We already know it can happen in Tucson. Nina Trasoff (D), who won 65% of the vote in the 2005 City Council race, was beaten by Steve Kozachik (R) this past November. And it will happen again this year.

2010 must be a year of resistance and revolt against oppressive government policies, culminating in the overthrow of our elected leaders who have lost touch with the people of this region. This means are city and town council-members, county supervisors, and obviously our congressional representatives.

So what can we all do right now to get the fight started early?

There is a recall campaign called Take Back Tucson that has been launched against Mayor Walkup and Council-members Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich. Getting involved in this effort is your chance to start setting the politicians in Tucson straight.

The recall campaign is launching the petitions this Saturday, January 23 at Reid Park, Ramada 28 between 8 to 9 am.

The campaign will be set up at the ramada to pass out petitions to anyone interested in collecting signatures. This will include information on how to properly circulate petitions, as well as a walking list to direct volunteers to high-efficacy areas.

I hope that you plan to join us out there! If you do, here is all the information you need:

WHAT: Recall Petition Kickoff
WHERE: Reid Park, Ramada 28 (map)
WHEN: Saturday, January 23, between 8 – 9 AM then BBQ at noon
RSVP? No need, but there is a Facebook event you can join!

You can easily park at Hi-Corbett Field (map) where the volunteers will direct you to Ramada 28. After picking up petitions and walking lists, everyone will gather signatures for a few hours. Everyone will then meet at Ramada 28 again at noon for a free volunteer barbecue!

I truly believe that this is the next step in reclaiming Tucson and turning it around. It is also the first step in organizing for the congressional campaign later in the year. I hope to see many of you there, as this will be the year that we take back Tucson!

Robert Mayer
Co-Organizer, Tucson Tea Party