Lottery Post Journal

Global warming theories quickly going up in smoke

Investor's Business Daily
Cooling Down The Climate Scare
Friday September 29, 7:00 pm ET

The country is drowning in wild alarms warning of impending doom due to global warming. Yet there has risen — from the U.S. Senate, of all places — a lone voice of rational dissent.

While Al Gore drifts into deeper darkness on the other side of the moon, propelled by such revelations as cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming," Sen. James Inhofe is becoming a one-man myth-wrecking crew.

Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, took to the Senate floor two days last week to expose the media's role in the global warming hype. This is a man who more than three years ago called the global warming scare "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and has made a habit of tweaking the left-leaning environmental lobby.

One member of the media, Miles O'Brien of CNN, responded last week to Inhofe's criticism of the media with a piece criticizing Inhofe and challenging his arguments. If anything, it seems that O'Brien's reply simply motivated Inhofe to continue his effort to undress the media's complicity and bring light to the issue.

We hope so. The "science" on global warming and the media's propaganda campaign need to be picked apart.

The assumptions made by gloomy theorists should be revealed for what they are: mere conjecture.

The lies and carefully crafted implications, many of them discharged like toxic pollutants by a former vice president, deserve a thorough and lasting deconstruction.

What the public needs — and deserves — is a credible voice to counter the sermons from Gore, on whose behalf cigarettes were distributed in 2000 to Milwaukee homeless people who were recruited by campaign volunteers to cast absentee ballots. Inhofe could be that voice.

He's no John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness. What he is, in fact, is a thrice-elected senator, a former member of the House and, before that, a state senator and representative.

For those not impressed by a political background — after all, Gore, far out of proportion to his qualifications, rose to the second most powerful position on Earth — consider that Inhofe is an Army veteran and longtime pilot, and has actually worked in the private sector.

Unlike most in the Senate, Inhofe is willing to stand on a soapbox and expose his head to his opponents' rhetorical stones. Name another in that august body who would dare label as a hoax the premise that undergirds the day's most trendy pop cult. Is there anyone there who would want to try to stand up to the likes of O'Brien?

O'Brien's biased report is not exactly the type of exposure global warming skeptics hope for, though. The goal, say the skeptics, should be to teach and inform, to provide an alternative to the flood of hyperbole and intentionally misleading thunder that's passed off as settled science.

There are enough scientists to fill a fleet of Humvees who can express scepticism over global warming, despite Gore's claims that the matter has been resolved in favor of his conclusions. But none has the forum a U.S. senator can command. With rare exceptions, scientists can marshal media attention on the climate change issue only by spouting the party line that man-made emissions are causing Earth to warm. That's the sort of stuff the press laps up like a starving dog.

Without the wind of a compliant media at his back, Inhofe nevertheless got his message out to America, primarily through C-Span and the Drudge Report, which linked to his speeches at the Web site of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Among those responding to Inhofe's first speech included a scientist and a meteorologist. Both hold views on global warming that are in line with the senator's — which puts them at odds with the environmental lobby's assertions of "consensus" that have been relentlessly beaten into the masses for more than a decade.

The most important audience, though, is among the Americans who have no links to science. They're the ones who have a lot to learn and will benefit the most from someone who has mass access to the public and is willing to challenge the widely — and often uncritically — accepted claims about climate change.

Jimmy Carter: exercise in hypocracy

In a speech yesterday, Jimmy Carter told the crowd that President Bush has brought "international disgrace" to America, and that every past president has been a supporter of human rights, until this one.  I guess Carter forgot about all the presidents who supperted slavery.  And he must be taking back all the awful things he said about Reagan.

Carter's speech is so typical of the hate speeches given by radical liberals.

The first thing of note is something that Ann Coulter points out in her book, Slander.  There is a technique liberals have been using for decades, and is supported by the complicit mainstream media.  Every Republican president that gets elected is the worst, most dangerous person ever.  They always set the record for as "worst" for whatever category they are talking about.  But after they leave office their reputation rebounds, and the media tries to make everyone forget what they said.

Ronald Reagan, of course, is the best example of this.  There is only a small segment of people now who still go around saying that Reagan was the worst president ever, but during his presidency in the 1980s that's all you would hear every day.  The day-in and day-out steady drumbeat of negativity in the press for 8 yearswould wear down all but the hardiest of souls.

The same thing happened to George Bush Sr.  The media hated and ridiculed him, but when he left office he became a good guy again.

I guess the current president can look forward to making new friends in a couple of years when he leaves office.

Back to Carter, the ironic thing about his speech is the sheer hypocracy of it.  Although he's calling the current president an "international disgrace", it is in fact he who is bringing disgrace to America by his very un-presidential actions as he travels around telling the world how horrible our elected leader is.  No less, he is doing so in a time of war, when hundreds of thousands of American troops are in harm's way.  Jimmy Carter is a bad American.

The news story, from KESQ in Nevada:

Ex-Prez Carter: Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace"

RENO, Nev. Former President Carter is urging northern Nevadans to elect his son, Jack, to the Senate to help combat a Bush administration he says has brought "international disgrace" to the country.

The former president told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided that it has ever been as a result of Bush's policies.

The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, he says he's deeply embarrassed that the American government now stands convicted around the world as one of the greatest abusers of civil rights. He continued the theme in a dinner speech to 700 at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, saying every past president has been a supporter of human rights, until this one.

Jack Carter is bidding to unseat Republican Senator John Ensign. Both father and son said Ensign must go because he has voted 96 percent of the time with the Bush administration. They say that in addition to bungling foreign policy, Bush has cut taxes for the rich to the detriment of working Americans.

The former president say that Bush's policies have been a radical departure from what all previous presidents have done, including Republicans like Bush's own father, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower.

He says never before has the United States had a policy of pre-emptive war, as was the case in what he called an "ill-advised invasion" of Iraq.

Reaction to landmark global warming speech: CNN blows a gasket

It seems that the speech on global warming by Senator James Inhofe, which I blogged about, is whipping up a frenzy, as pure, unadulterated, factual information is bypassing the mainstream media, and getting straight into the hands of the public.

CNN, one of the chief mainstream media outlets (spearheaded by the radical Ted Turner) lashed out at the Senator, as they are starting to get backed into a corner, boxed in by the facts.

How wonderful it is to finally be able to get factual information unfiltered into the hands of the public.  Al Gore would never have invented the Internet if he knew this would happen. Big Grin

Here's the follow-up speech, delivered on the Senate floor Thursday by Senator Inhofe.



America reacts to speech debunking media global warming alarmism 

By Senator James Inhofe
Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Contact: Marc Morano ([email protected]) Matt Dempsey ([email protected])


This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories.

Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming — and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70's, an alarm for another ice age was raised — and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming — and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.

Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.


This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.

First off, CNN reporter Miles O'Brien inaccurately claimed I was "too busy" to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I did appear on another CNN program today — Thursday — which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN's Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.

Second, CNN's O'Brien falsely claimed that I was all "alone on Capitol Hill" when it comes to questioning global warming.

Mr. O'Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year — an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.

Third, CNN's O'Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O'Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding — on balance — Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

CNN's O'Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."

CNN's O'Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930's than today.

O'Brien also claimed that the "Hockey Stick" temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick's claim that the 1990's was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.

So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.

It seems that it is business as usual for many of them. Sadly, it looks like my challenge to the media to be objective and balanced has fallen on deaf ears.


Despite the traditional media's failed attempt to dismiss the science I presented to counter global warming alarmism, the American people bypassed the tired old traditional media by watching CSPAN or clicking on the Drudge Report and reading the speech online.

From the flood of overwhelming positive feedback I received, I can tell you the American people responded enthusiastically to my message.

The central theme was not only one of thanks, but expressing frustration with the major media outlets because they knew in their guts that what they have been hearing in the news was false and misleading.

Here is a brief sampling:

Janet of Saugus, Massachusetts: "Thank you Senator Inhofe. Finally someone with the guts to stand up and call it what it is — a sham. I think you have taken over Toby Keith's place as my favorite Oklahoman!!"

Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: "It's about time someone with a loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage — if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily."

Kevin of Jacksonville, Florida writes: "I'm so glad that we have leaders like you who are willing to stand up against the onslaught of liberal media, Hollywood and the foolish elected officials on this topic. Please keep up the fight!"

Steven of Phoenix, Arizona writes: "As a scientist, I am extremely pleased to see that there is at least one member of congress who recognizes the global warming hysteria for what it is. I am extremely impressed by the Senator's summary and wish he was running for President."

Craig of Grand Rapids, Michigan writes: "As a meteorologist I strongly agree with everything you said."

My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand's television station to balance what he termed "alarmist doom-casting" and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America.

As the controversy in New Zealand shows, global warming hysteria has captured more than just the American media.

The reaction to my speech keeps coming in: Just this morning, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper wrote an editorial calling my speech "an unusual display of reason" on the Senate floor.

I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ's Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen's office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune.

As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money.

But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ's questions about the 'Ketchup Money' grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.


I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.

Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News's Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC's "modest" title for the segment was "Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?"

The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook — warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.

But that's no surprise — Blakemore was already on the record declaring, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" about manmade catastrophic global warming.

You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." ( )

On Tuesday's program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as "passionate" about global warming. "Passionate" is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.

I believe it's these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes — is increasing.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

I hope my other colleagues will join me on the floor and start speaking out to debunk hysteria surrounding global warming. This issue is too important to our generation and future generations to allow distortions and media propaganda to derail the economic health of our nation.

The absolute best speech on global warming

Do you really want to understand global warming?  By this, I mean that you want to cut through all the BS and really understand what's at work in the whole global warming debate, and why there's a debate at all.

After all, if you are personally going to go through the efforts, and perhaps even spend more of your money, to make yourself more "green", don't you want to be sure it's time, effort, and money well-spent?

The following is a speech given on the Senate floor just yesterday by the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  It is long, but not filled with fluff.  It provides some absolutely terrific examples and evidence, so it's not just some guy getting out there and yelling about how he's right and the other side is wrong.



Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming

By Senator James Inhofe
Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Contact: Marc Morano ([email protected]) Matt Dempsey ([email protected])


I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.

Global Warming — just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media pedaled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.


First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called 'hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.

The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick."

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.


The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?


My skeptical views on man-made catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for 50% of 20th century warming. Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

The 60 scientists wrote:

"If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted:

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"


One of the ways alarmists have pounded this mantra of "consensus" on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models which project future calamity. But the science is simply not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom.

Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted, "The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models."

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction." In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.

This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.

It is long past the time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria.


One final point on the science of climate change: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask, "What if you are wrong to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?"

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.

The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.

But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question — "What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?" — because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue.

If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis. The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.

Legislation that has been proposed in this chamber would have even less of a temperature effect than Kyoto's undetectable impact. And more recently, global warming alarmists and the media have been praising California for taking action to limit C02. But here again: This costly feel-good California measure, which is actually far less severe than Kyoto, will have no impact on the climate — only the economy.

Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.

In addition, we now have many environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities, like Laurie David, who have been advocating measures like changing standard light bulbs in your home to fluorescents to help avert global warming. Changing to more energy-efficient light bulbs is a fine thing to do, but to somehow imply we can avert a climate disaster by these actions is absurd. Once again, symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.

But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world's poor that is being lost in this debate.

The Kyoto Protocol's post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America — where some of the Earth's most energy-deprived people currently reside.

Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet's health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death.

If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world — billions of people will continue to suffer. Last week my committee heard testimony from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who was once a committed left-wing environmentalist until he realized that so much of what that movement preached was based on bad science. Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and has organized some of the world's top Nobel Laureates to form the 2004 "Copenhagen Consensus" which ranked the world's most pressing problems. And guess what?

They placed global warming at the bottom of the list in terms of our planet's priorities. The "Copenhagen Consensus" found that the most important priorities of our planet included: combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made many trips to Africa, and once you see the devastating poverty that has a grip on that continent, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.

I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.

French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."

Furthermore, if your goal is to limit C02 emissions, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond.

The Bush administration and my Environment and Public Works Committee have been engaged in these efforts as we work to expand nuclear power and promote the Asia-Pacific Partnership. This partnership stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations including three of the world's top 10 emitters — China, India and North Korea — all of whom are exempt from Kyoto.


Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."

A headline in the New York Times reads: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output." Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974.,23657,944914,00.html

They weren't referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970's and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

"[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore's movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the "trump card" of global warming "has been the melting glaciers."


There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable." These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute.


Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming?

You be the judge.

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap.

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an iceberg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration.

In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue.

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers."

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.


In April of this year, Time Magazine devoted an issue to global warming alarmism titled "Be Worried, Be Very Worried.",16641,20060403,00.html

This is the same Time Magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in 1920's before switching to warning about global warming in the 1930's before switching yet again to promoting the 1970's coming ice age scare.

The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the media's shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism.

Headlines blared:

"More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought"

"Earth at the Tipping Point"

"The Climate is Crashing,"

Time Magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views with scientists skeptical of this alleged climate apocalypse.

I don't have journalism training, but I dare say calling a bunch of environmental groups with an obvious fund-raising agenda and asking them to make wild speculations on how bad global warming might become, is nothing more than advocacy for their left-wing causes. It is a violation of basic journalistic standards.

To his credit, New York Times reporter Revkin saw fit to criticize Time Magazine for its embarrassing coverage of climate science.§ion=1&id=7

So in the end, Time's cover story title of "Be Worried, Be Very Worried," appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried — very worried — of such shoddy journalism.


In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared "Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie." The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore's science, despite AP's having contacted over 100 scientists.

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore's brand of climate alarmism.

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President's film Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about "An Inconvenient Truth." "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse."

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

  • He promoted the now debunked "hockey stick" temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate
  • He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age
  • He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.
  • He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer
  • He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
  • He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing
  • He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices
  • He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
  • He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing
  • He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
  • He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving
  • He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie — there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.


Following the promotion of "An Inconvenient Truth," the press did not miss a beat in their role as advocates for global warming fears. ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment.

In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth's climate. You don't have to take my word for the program's overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted "You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program" because of its lack of scientific objectivity.

Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter million dollar grant form the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore's Hollywood movie.

Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer of the group Environmental Defense accusing skeptics of being bought out by the fossil fuel interests.

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is 'Not Enough,' — especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.


Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called "consensus view" that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

But despite this manufactured "consensus," the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism.

As the dog days of August rolled in, the American people were once again hit with more hot hype regarding global warming, this time from The New York Times op-ed pages. A columnist penned an August 3rd column filled with so many inaccuracies it is a wonder the editor of the Times saw fit to publish it.

For instance, Bob Herbert's column made dubious claims about polar bears, the snows of Kilimanjaro and he attempted to link this past summer's heat wave in the U.S. to global warming — something even alarmist James Hansen does not support.


Finally, a September 15, 2006 Reuters News article claimed that polar bears in the Arctic are threatened with extinction by global warming. The article by correspondent Alister Doyle, quoted a visitor to the Arctic who claims he saw two distressed polar bears. According to the Reuters article, the man noted that "one of [the polar bears] looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted." The article did not state the bears were actually dead or exhausted, rather that they "looked" that way.

Have we really arrived at the point where major news outlets in the U.S. are reduced to analyzing whether or not polar bears in the Arctic appear restful? How does reporting like this get approved for publication by the editors at Reuters? What happened to covering the hard science of this issue?

What was missing from this Reuters news article was the fact that according to biologists who study the animals, polar bears are doing quite well. Biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, refuted these claims in May when he noted that

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."

Sadly, it appears that reporting anecdotes and hearsay as fact, has now replaced the basic tenets of journalism for many media outlets.


It is an inconvenient truth that so far, 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The global warming alarmists and their friends in the media have attempted to smear scientists who dare question the premise of man-made catastrophic global warming, and as a result some scientists have seen their reputations and research funding dry up.

The media has so relentlessly promoted global warming fears that a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research — and this from a left leaning group — issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what they termed "climate porn" in order to attract the public's attention.

Bob Carter, a Paleoclimate geologist from James Cook University in Australia has described how the media promotes climate fear:

"Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as 'if', 'might', 'could', 'probably', 'perhaps', 'expected', 'projected' or 'modeled' — and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense," professor Carter concluded in an op-ed in April of this year.

Another example of this relentless hype is the reporting on the seemingly endless number of global warming impact studies which do not even address whether global warming is going to happen. They merely project the impact of potential temperature increases.

The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards, and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media's addiction to so-called 'climate porn' has failed to seduce many Americans.

According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it's from natural factors or not happening at all.

In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.

Yes — it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.

The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

The American people deserve better — much better — from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific "consensus" of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific "consensus" that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells — it's very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

Chris Wallace reacts to shocking Clinton interview

Wallace: "I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. "

Wallace and Clinton

Following today's buzz generating conversation with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace shared some of his post-interview thoughts with FishbowlDC:

I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple — 15 minutes — to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact I prepared 10 questions, 5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror — fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details — emotion — and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers — accused me of a "conservative hit job" — and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.

Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward — wagging his finger in my face — and then poking the notes I was holding — I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually — it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules — to move the President along — and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules — then I just went with the flow of the interview.

Clinton Gone Wild!

...Or, "Clinton, Unhinged".

Wow, I've never seen Bill Clinton so wild before.  And I have certainly never seen an ex-President of the United States act in this manner.

It's one thing to defend your record as President, but it's a completely different thing to insist that everyone but you was to blame, and blow up at a television reporter, insisting that he's sitting there with a "little smirk on his face."

This interview is uncomfortable to watch(!) because the guy literally becomes unraveled before your eyes.  Clinton practically jumps into Chris Wallace's lap at one point, hitting the arm of his chair with his hand.


How to be a BAD American (and a bad human being)

I started writing a comment on Jack's blog, but then had a few more ideas, so I thought it would be better to create a new Blog entry, looking at things from the opposite direction.

So first of all, thanks to Jack for the idea.

Being a good American can be definied in some many ways that it is very difficult to describe.  Being an American means that you are free to do almost anything you want, providing that it does not:

  • Impinge on anyone else's freedoms,
  • Harm other people, or,
  • Engage in an activity that, if lots and lots of people did the same thing, would be harmful to society.

(That last point is MY definition of why we have certain laws, such as "don't do drugs.")  (Yes, I know that's not the official name of the law!)

So, back to the "good American" thing, there are infinite things you CAN do that would fall outside the bounds of those 3 things.  Basically, live life the way you see fit, within some sort of boundries.  Anyone who does that is a "good American" in my book.

And that encompasses MOST People in America, so to me it is much more helpful to define what is a "bad American".  There is a very small percentage of the population who are "bad Americans", but unfortunately bad Americans are the most interesting, simply because they are bad.  As a result those people get the most attention from the news media, Hollywood, and others, so it SEEMS like there are a lot of them out there.  But there isn't.

So what does it take to be a bad American?  Here's my list.

  1. You discriminate against someone for something that they ARE, rather than something they DO.  Among other things, that includes race, religion, age, gender, appearance, and abilities.
  2. You generally take more than you give.  This is not just about money, although it would certainly include that.  It's about giving to your family, giving to friends, and giving to your community.  It's about giving time, ideas, prayers, and effort.  It's about showing you care by making sacrifices.  People by their nature do need to get from others also, but on the balance a good American will end up being a very giving person, because there are infinite ways to give, and only one way to get.
  3. You generally spend more time spreading the negative than the positive.  This is completely different than "being a negative person".  People can go around being as negative as they wish.  That comes under "live life the way you wish."  This point is the active spreading of negativity, in any form.  That can include crime, ridicule, criticism, mockery, and more.  One can commit crime, ridicule others, criticize, mock, and do a thousand other negative things without being a "bad American".  But when their life, on balance, does those things primarily, and they do those things to others or to society, they are "bad Americans".

I think that about sums it up.

So how does this apply to current events?

There are people out there protesting the war, protesting Bush, protesting Republicans, etc.  Lots of time I hear the phrase, "Just because I hate Bush and hate the war, I am NOT a bad American!!"

Every time I hear that it sounds very defensive, as if they feel they need to justify themselves, but that's really beside the point.

The point is that they are essentially correct, with a caveat.

There are people who honestly feel a great disdain for warfare in any form, and would prefer any route over violence.  I may disagree with such people, but as "good Americans" they have every right to feel the way they do, and they have the right to express themselves in whatever way they wish.  (With the exception of doing so in a way that hurts or takes away the freedoms of others.)

However, there are other people for whom the war is a good excuse to continue spreading hatred of our form of government, or hatred of our laws, or hatred of the people who live here.  Such people are most certainly "bad Americans."

As I mentioned above, the vast majority of people are "good Americans", but unfortunately the "bad" ones get the most attention.

NJ Senate Race

This is a really clever web site for anyone interested in the NJ Senate race.

Excellent! Senate set to consider fence bill

My comments are in red.


Senate set to consider fence bill
By Charles Hurt
September 19, 2006

The Senate, which has been the major obstacle to strict border-security legislation this year, will take up a bill this week that calls for constructing 700 more miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. YES!

"It's time to secure the border with Mexico," Majority Leader Bill Frist said last night before filing the parliamentary motions to force the House-passed bill onto the Senate floor in a final effort to get a major immigration bill on the president's desk before the elections.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Minority Leader Harry Reid, said the move "smacks of desperation" and was a "clear repudiation of President Bush's call for comprehensive legislation."  That's B.S., as is most of what Reid says. Bush supports border enforcement (in addition to some other stuff that I don't like).

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was easily approved by the House last week, contains none of the "comprehensive" measures that President Bush, Democrats and some Senate Republicans have demanded. Thank God. Those include provisions to grant citizenship rights to about 10 million illegal aliens living in the country and a guest-worker program that would usher hundreds of thousands more foreign laborers into the U.S.

"Mr. Frist was for comprehensive reform before he was against it," Mr. Manley said. He dropped the B.S. parts, which is a good thing.

On the Senate floor last night, Mr. Frist said he still supports comprehensive immigration reform legislation. But, he said, because no consensus can now be reached on other issues, Congress should move ahead with border security. It's not "enforcement only," he said, but "enforcement first." Although "enforcement only" would be fine too.

"Border security is the essential first step of any effort to enact immigration reform," Mr. Frist said. "Only when we have convinced the American people of our commitment to securing our borders will we be able to reach a consensus on comprehensive immigration reform."

The last time the Senate considered a border-security-only bill, the measure failed, with all but two Democrats and 20 Republicans refusing even to debate it. Since then, several Republicans bent on comprehensive reform have told The Washington Times that they would now consider legislation that dealt only with stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the country.

Among the most adamant supporters of comprehensive reform have been Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona (RINO) and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (RINO), who helped form a coalition earlier this year to derail any legislation that failed to grant broad citizenship rights to illegals and create a guest-worker program. The group of Republican defectors also included Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia.

Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner and Mr. Graham also have bolted party leadership by opposing Mr. Bush's proposed legislation for handling the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The specter of a showdown this week over both the Guantanamo detainees and immigration had some Republican staffers on Capitol Hill wondering whether the trio could wage a two-front battle against their own party during an election season in which control of both chambers is in question. The media loves to play up 3 jerky Republican Senators who did the wrong thing, rather than pointing out the dozens of Democrats who junked the liberal talking points and supported the fence.

By filing last night a cloture motion that will limit debate and let the Senate vote on the bill, Mr. Frist hopes to get the measure to the floor by week's end. If Democrats stall, they could push the debate well into next week. And if, as is expected, Mr. Frist introduces the bill so that amendments cannot be offered, the battle in the Senate likely will take even longer and could end in yet another stalemate.

But the House's approval of the bill suggests that Mr. Frist might see some converts on both sides of the aisle in favor of a bill that deals only with border security.

When the House last year approved its border-security legislation, it included almost exactly the same fencing provisions. The fence came to symbolize what many Democrats said was an unforgiving bill. That's right, border security is non-negotiable. Get it?  They said the fence proved that Republicans harbored a hostility toward immigrants. B.S. from B.S.'ers.

But last week, the stand-alone fence bill was approved 283-138, with support from more than 20 Democrats and a handful of Republicans who dropped opposition to the earlier fence proposal. Thanks for finally mentioning that.

Still, most Democrats are adamantly opposed to the fence bill, calling it a new "Berlin Wall" and an election-year "gimmick" intended to portray them as weak on security measures. They don't need any help from Republicans on that. In addition, internal Republican polling has found that immigration is as powerful a motivator for voters as any issue with which Congress is grappling. You think?

"They're obviously done with legislating for the year," Mr. Manley said. "Now, they're just playing to their base." Ah, yeah, like the whole country wants a fence, so I guess they are playing to their base in giving it to them.

If approved by the Senate before month's end, the bill would reach President Bush's desk before the November elections. Stay in Matamoras for Christmas this year! 

In addition to building double-layered fences along 700 miles of the southern border, the Secure Fence Act also calls for changing Border Patrol policy to allow agents to forcibly disable fleeing vehicles along the border. Awesome! The measure also would deploy cameras, ground sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor the border. Wahoo!

"This border-security package, coupled with the increased appropriations for border security, will have a real impact on our homeland security and is a vital step forward toward fixing the problem of illegal immigration," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said yesterday.

"We've added thousands of new Border Patrol agents and nearly 10,000 new detention beds and hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. But this legislation will take us much closer to the operational control of our border that our homeland security requires and provide law enforcement with the tools they need to get the job done," the Kentucky Republican said. You go Mitch!

How to get rid of the dreaded pound sign

This is my next installment of technical blog entries dealing with technology-related techniques I've created during my re-architecting of Lottery Post.  Lottery Post is built from Microsoft technologies, including ASP.NET 2.0 (running on IIS 6.0), SQL Server 2005, and Microsoft's Atlas technologies, soon to be called the Microsoft AJAX Library, ASP.NET 2.0 AJAX Extensions, and ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit.

This entry deals with an issue that some people may not know about, others may not care about, and the rest know exactly what I'm talking about:  the dreaded pound sign (#) in a web page URL (link).

Normally when a new URL is entered into a web browser's Address line, the browser jumps to a new page.  However, when a pound sign (plus an identifier name) is added to the end of a web page's URL, the web browser jumps to a new location within the page.

For example, if you're scrolling down a long web page and need to go back to the top of the page quickly, some pages include a "TOP" link, which takes you to the top of the page.  The way MOST web sites do that is to include a "name" tag in the HTML code near the top of the page, like this:  <a id="top"></a>  (or it could be <a name="top"></a>).  You don't actually see the tag, but it is there as a bookmark in the page.  Then, the "TOP" link is coded like this:  <a href="">TOP</a>.

When you click on the TOP link, it adds "#top" to the URL in the browser's Address line, and the page jumps to the tag named "top", which is located at the top of the page.  So, to the user, they have a nice feature:  a way to quickly jump to the top of the page.

But, there are a couple of annoyances with this process that as web users and developers, we have learned to live with.  The annoyances, as I see them, are:

  1. When the link is clicked and the pound sign and tag name (like "#top") are added to the URL, the web browser has actually created a new page in its history chain.  The web page itself is not reloaded, but now when we click the Back button it essentially stays on the same page, and jumps back to where we were when we clicked the TOP link.  In my view, the purpose of the Back and Forward buttons are to move back and forward between pages, not positions on a page.  So, the pound sign wrecks the functionality of the Back and Forward buttons.
  2. The second annoyance affects web developers.  When a URL containing a pound sign is examined through program code on the server, the pound sign, and everything after it, is truncated.  There are techniques for obtaining everything after the pound sign, such as this one, but most developers don't know about the techniques, or would have a hard time implementing them.
  3. The third annoyance is most dear to my heart, as the developer of the Lottery Post forum software, and that is to be able to permanently identify a link to a piece of content (in this case a forum post), and if that content is in the middle of a page, jump directly to it.  Before coming up with the technique I'll describe below, the way I did that was to add the dreaded pound sign to the end of the URL, making the page jump directly to the content when the page loads.  But that meant that a post's PermaLink (permanent link), a link that is supposed to be valid forever, has a pound sign in it.  Yuck!  A PermaLink is supposed to identify a piece of content, not identify a bookmark location on a page.  What if the user can select other formats for viewing posts, and it is undesireable to have a pound sign (jump) in the URL?  For example, what if that post is the only thing on the page?  Obviously the pound sign is not ideal in that case.

So annoyance #3 prompted me to create a new technique.  I needed a way to create a PermaLink to every forum post, without having a pound sign in the PermaLink, and I needed to create a technique that would mimic the pound sign, and have the page jump down to the post after the page loads.

The solution was pretty straight-forward, and in front of my face for a long time, but just required putting a couple of pieces together.  The genesis of the solution came from a technique I had seen to jump to the top of a page using JavaScript, without using the pound sign.

In Lottery Post, I don't use the code <a href="">TOP</a> to jump to the top of a page, I use <a href="javascript:scrollTo(0,0)">TOP</a>.  That JavaScript function call scrolls the browser window to the coordinates specified, in this case "0, 0", which is the coordinates of the top-left corner.  (You can see an example of this technique in action on the Pick 6 Wheels page — check out the "Top" buttons along the right side of the page.)

There are many benefits to using scrollTo() over the pound sign, including:

  • The performance is much quicker
  • In Internet Explorer you don't hear that "click" sound that indicates going to a new page
  • There is no pound sign inserted into the URL, so the Back button functionality is not wrecked
  • As a developer, there is no need to insert a <a id="top"> tag into the HTML.

The downside of using scrollTo() is that you need to know the pixel coordinates of where you want to jump to, which for a long time ruled out my usage of the function for anything other than going to the top-left (since it would always be coordinate 0, 0).

But after noodling on this for a while I came to realize it would not be such an enormous challenge to eliminate that pound sign after all.  I would need two things:

  1. A way to locate a specific element's y-coordinate on the page (since x will always be 0, the left side of the page) and jump to that coordinate, and,
  2. A way to kick off step 1 right after the page loads.

All of this would be created in JavaScript.  Since JavaScript is required in order to use Lottery Post (and most other forum web sites) anyway, this did not create any new requirements on the part of users.

So the first function I created was called ScrollToElement(), which finds the y-coordinate of the element passed to it, and jumps there.  Passing the object itself to the function is better than passing an ID and having the function lookup the element in the DOM, because (among other things) it allows constructs such as < ..... onclick="ScrollToElement(this)">.

function ScrollToElement(obj) {
   var posY = 0;

   while (obj != null) {
      posY += obj.offsetTop;
      obj = obj.offsetParent;


This is a pretty common technique.  It works by getting the y-coordinate of an object, relative to its containing element.  If the containing element is anything other than the whole page itself, it loops again, adding the coordinate of the containing element's containing element, and so on, until it reaches the whole page level, in which case the containing element is null.

Most HTML pages written will have containing elements, as they are used to create page layouts.  Unfortunately, there is no property of an element that gives its coordinates relative to the entire page, only to the containing element, so this jury-rig is necessary.

The best place to put this function is in the <head />.  Lottery Post uses its own library of common functions that is included on each page, and this function is a good one to include in there.

So now we need a way to kick it off.

First, we want to be sure that the entire page is loaded before attempting to jump to the element, because otherwise the function may run before that element is loaded, and no jump would occur.

So the first thing I did was to create a really good generic JavaScript function for adding tasks to the page's onload() event.  I can't assume that this will be the only thing kicked off when the page finishes loading.  So here it is:

function AddLoadEvent(func) {
  var oldonload = window.onload;

  if (typeof window.onload != 'function') {
      window.onload = func;
  else {
      window.onload = function() {
        if (oldonload) {


Someone who is pretty familiar with JavaScript will be able to go through the code for this function and understand what's happening in there.  For those who aren't JavaScript hacks, it basically looks at what is currently setup for the page's onload event, and if there is currently an onload function setup, it dynamically creates and assigns a new function to onload, which calls the old function, and then calls what we added to it.  If there was nothing already assigned, it just assigns our function as the onload function.

The function can be added to the page in any of the normal methods, using the <script /> tag, preferably in the page's <head />.

Then, all that's needed is to write the AddLoadEvent() function (with ScrollToElement() as the argument) somewhere in the body of the page.  That can be accomplished using the ASP.NET RegisterClientScriptBlock method in either the page's Load or PreRender subroutine:

Page.ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptBlock(Me.GetType(), "ScrollToPost", "AddLoadEvent(function(){ScrollToElement(document.getElementById('ElementID'));});", True)

ElementID is substituted with the DOM element ID of the block tag containing the content we want to scroll to.  For example, many times <div /> tags are used to surround a post's content.  The div tag would be given an id attribute, and that id would be substituted for ElementID.

When those three pieces are put together on a page, the pound sign can finally be eliminated!

Using that technique, Lottery Post now has good PermaLinks to individual posts like this:

Notice that there is no pound sign at the end, yet if you click the link it behaves exactly like it was there.  After the page finishes loading, the web browser jumps down the page to the post referenced in the "get=xxxxxx" portion of the URL.

This technique has great application for forum owners, but it can also be used by anyone who wants to avoid the annoyances of the dreaded pound sign.

Over 600,000 posts (and counting)

Lottery Post hit yet another milestone, with more than 600,000 posts on the forums.

It has been a challenge to keep the technology running smoothly as the number of posts ramps up, but I think it's been pretty good.  There aren't too many forums out there with 600,000 posts in the active portion of the database.

Once a certain quantity of posts is achieved, most forums only keep a small percentage of the posts in the active part of the database, and archive the rest.  That's done in order to keep the performance of the forums running snappy.

Lottery Post is different, in that every post made over the past 6½ years is available online, and completely searchable, together with all the current posts.  (Minus a few spam posts here and there that had to be removed. Wink)  I look at it as a large-scale database challenge.

Think about it: you can go to the Lottery Discussion forum (the one with the longest history), select the option to display "ALL" posts, and instantly jump to any of hundreds of pages of topics.  It goes to whatever page you choose with about 1 second.  Then you click in to any of those posts -- maybe a post that's five years old -- and you're looking at the post contents within 3 hundreths of a second.

That was my vision for this site a long time ago, and it's neat to see it come to pass.  I wanted to run the forum with a deep, searchable history, to create an extensive and valueable resource for any lottery player.

Also notable is that Lottery Post is approaching 20 million predictions posted.  Like the forum posts, those 20 million predictions posted by the membership are all available online.  Another technology challenge, especially in trying to calculate and re-calculate individual member statistics in real-time.

New version of ieSpell available

My people probably aren't aware that a new version of ieSpell is available for free download (version 2.4.0, released August 3, 2006).

ieSpell is the spell checker that Lottery Post uses in the Rich Text editor, and is accessed with the Check Spelling button .

ieSpell is an all-around awesome application which, once installed, allows you to check your spelling on any web page on any site.  You just right-click the text entry space, and choose "Check Spelling". 

If you haven't installed it, I highly recommend it.  ieSpell is free software, and completely ad-free and nag-free.

Here's the download link:

There have been a couple of versions released this summer, and they include the following enhancements to the software (copied from the ieSpell web site):

  • 2.4.0 (build 428) (released 3rd August 2006)

NEW - "Look up meaning" feature via right click menu for ANY word/phrase on the page.
NEW - Added more info about ieSpell in the "Add or Remove Programs" applet.
FIX - Clean up resource IDs (removing duplicates) paving way for the resource DLLs.
FIX - Bug that cause the caption of the Options dialog not to display properly.
FIX - Registration info displays in localized text after changing language.

  • 2.3.0 (build 264) (released 28th July 2006)

NEW - Allow user to change the location of the custom dictionary (either copy or move) in the "Edit Custom Dictionary" dialog.
NEW - Added persistent window placement (survive shutdown) with a user override option (default is on).
NEW - add installer switch to set a custom user dictionary location during installation.
FIX - Make Default button is no longer enabled when a selected custom dictionary is READ-ONLY.
FIX - Bug that cause ieSpell to think that a non-existent custom dictionary is read-only.
FIX - Memory leak in spell checker - options object not freed at shutdown.
FIX - Improved support for optional language packs.

  • 2.2.0 (build 647) (released 27th March 2006)

NEW - Multi-language support! The core application has been revamped to support localization. i.e. Not only will you be able to spell check in other languages, the UI itself will displayed in that language. We will be releasing language packs for the various European languages shortly. (starting with French)
NEW - Users now have the option to choose their preferred online reference dictionary to check the meaning of an unknown word.
NEW - Users can add on their own online reference dictionaries to the list provided.
NEW - Users can choose to show or hide the ieSpell items in the browser's right click context menu. (This feature is especially useful for users with multiple logon accounts on a PC as the default install only sets up the right click options for the windows account that performed the install.)
NEW - Users now have the option to remove all the custom dictionaries during the uninstall process.
NEW - Check write permissions on custom dictionaries, if its READONLY, disable the add/delete function in the edit custom dic dialog.
FIX - Checkdocumentnode does not work for INPUT type=text elements.
FIX - IE7 beta2 does not show the word highlighted until the doc is forced to redraw. This is considered a temporary fix as contents in a DIV tag are still not refreshed by this fix. We are monitoring the developments over at the Microsoft camp and will provide a more comprehensive fix closer to the IE7 launch date.
FIX - If user click on OPTIONS in the validator dialog and return to the check, they will lose the initial context (e.g. using CheckDocumentNode).

Katie Couric is laughably bad

It has been a LONG time since I sat and watched one of the network news programs (i.e., NBC, CBS, ABC), but since tonight is the debut of Katie Couric on CBS, I thought I'd check it out.

In fact, she's on right now, and I've watched the first 12 minutes.

Here's my take on things after 12 minutes:

  • Katie Couric is horrible as a news anchor.  Even her appearance is disturbing.  She was always "cute" on the Today show, but whatever she's done to make herself look "serious" failed miserably.
  • She has no idea how to segue between stories.  It's jarring how she's talking about one thing, and then without even taking a breath she is suddenly talking about something completely different.  A half-decent news anchor can make the transition with some kind of hint of verbal cue to the viewers, but she just rolls along, reading the script.  Yes, she just reads and reads off that TelePrompTer.
  • I guess I've been watching the unbiased news (i.e., real "hard" news) at Fox News too long, because I totally forgot just how incredibly biased all the "news" stories are on broadcast TV.  In the very first 10 minutes, Katie sat down with an ultra-liberal New York Times (!) reporter to discuss the topic of the war on terror, and Iraq and Afghanistan.  The "lucky" viewer got to listen to a ranting liberal — in the same vein as a fringe nut like Michael Moore — describe how we have basically failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how people around the world hate the United States, and how it is President Bush's fault.  Yes, I know that many fringe liberal people think all those things, but that is a damn opinion, not something that belongs in the first 10 minutes of a hard news program!!  Meanwhile Katie just sat listening, and did not offer a single challenge to anything said!  I guess she felt that it was fact also.  (It's widely known that the liberal evening news programs get their talking points from the New York Times.)
  • Now the program is finished (as I write this).  There was almost no real news.  The only news story I saw was something about a big oil find in the Gulf of Mexico.  The general interest story about kids' portraits at the end was not news, so it doesn't count.
  • The biggest "news story" (definitely deserves to be in quotes) was a Jane Fonda moment, when a news reporter donned a burqua and hung out with the Taliban as they prayed and showed off a few weapons laying in the dirt.  According to the news reporter, the pathetic little gathering of miscreants in the middle of the desert meant that THE TALIBAN IS BACK, AND THE UNITED STATES IS LOSING!  The woman breathlessly reported that this group of roughly 20 people was a mere 10 miles from a US outpost — a place where just one year ago a US soldier shook hands with a local resident!  The United States must be such complete LOSERS to allow those people to show off their pop guns!!  (Of course I'm sure Katie Couric will not report when an F-16 drops a 500 pound bomb on their little prayer group and turns them into ash before the reporter reaches town.)
  • The very last segment was how Katie wants people to tell her "how to sign off at the end of the program".  She showed clips of some past news anchors signing off (including the hilarious "Courage" Dan Rather sign-off), and then said that she spent all summer trying to come up with something to say.  Can you believe how empty-headed she must be, that she could not come up with a 4-5 sign-off after months of "thinking"?  This is what Katie Couric considers "important".
  • Katie thinks a lot of herself, as she managed to talk about herself in each of the segments.  She really has a distorted view, but I have heard that once someone reaches her level of success, they begin to lose all perspective.  Even when her ratings sink into the toilet, I'll bet she is so far gone that she still won't "get it".

How sad for CBS, with its tradition of news reporting, that its premier news show has turned into a series of opinion pieces, intermixed with occasional hard news stories.

I'm sure I'll tune in to watch President Bush's interview tomorrow, as well as Rush Limbaugh's opinion piece on Thursday, but that will most likely be the last I'll be watching that pathetic show.  On the other hand, it really helps people appreciate the great job they're doing over at Fox.

Browzar: Simple, Privacy-Oriented Web Browser

I came across a new web browser today that is something I'd recommend everyone get a copy of.

It is quite unique, and rather than give a long description, I'll bullet the highlights:

  • It never saves browser history, typed URLs, search history, passwords, auto-completes, or cached web pages to your hard drive.  Cookies are immediately and automatically deleted when you exit the browser.  Even if it crashes, the next time you load it, it figures out that it crashed last time, and cleans up.
  • The browser is VERY lightweight, so it does not consume a lot of memory, and can be used on just about any PC.
  • It uses the Internet Explorer rendering engine (behind the scenes), so it is compatible with just about every web site out there.  For example, Lottery Post works perfectly, and looks just like it does in IE, with semi-transparent menus, shadows, etc.
  • It does not require any installation at all.  You just save the file to your hard disk and run it.  If you want to uninstall it, just delete the file.  NOTHING else is stored on your hard drive.  No registry entries, no temp files, nothing.
  • There are versions for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, so anyone can use it.

What are some advantages to using this web browser?

This is from their web site, and it makes sense to me:

  • You're at a friend's house and you want to check your email, download Browzar in seconds and protect your privacy.
  • You have one family computer at home that everyone shares, download Browzar in seconds and protect your privacy.
  • You are on holiday and you need to check your email from an Internet café, download Browzar in seconds and protect your privacy.
  • You're at work and looking for another job, download Browzar in seconds and protect your privacy.
  • You are at work and need to check your online bank account, download Browzar in seconds and protect your privacy.

Keep in mind that there are other ways an employer or ISP can track your computer usage, but using this browser will not leave any tracks on the PC it is used on.  So it is perfect to use from a public PC or friend's house, or any shared computer.

The fact that you can quickly download it, and that it does not need to be installed makes it perfect for the task.

What are the bad things about it?

The browser is far from perfect, even though it does many things well.  Here are some BAD things I immediately found.  There may be more, I just haven't come across them yet.

  • You can't access your Favorites (bookmarks)
  • You cannot adjust any options, other than the pop-up blocker (on/off).  So it is NOT a good everyday browser, because you can't be sure exactly what its settings are.
  • It is impossible to change its Home page, so you are stuck going to the Browzar home page every time it starts.
  • The Browzar search engine (its Home page) is a thinly-disguised advertisement network, so any searches using it are useless.  When you load the browser, the first thing you should do is get away form the Home page that comes up.
  • The Forward/Back buttons on your mouse won't work.
  • Using any multi-line text editor (including the Lottery Post editor) is strange, because nothing happens when you press the Enter key.  It does not go to the next line.  You need to press Ctrl-M to do a line break.  (The company says they are aware of the problem, and are in the process of fixing it.)
  • This web browser really has no features to speak of, so again, it is not a good everyday web browser, unless you never use any features.

OK, so here's the link to their home page:

You'll find the download page very easily.  Give it a try.

By the way, this blog entry was written using Browzar.