O yea, he's gonna get it, big time

“… we are relieved that population growth has not been blamed as the cause of global warming and our difficulties in addressing the problem. Population has always been made the scapegoat for most development problems. We should not fall into this trap. How can we hold our people responsible when they are the ones that we are mandated to serve? Making people the problem will only lead us to the wrong direction and create bigger problems.”

Oh. Yeah.

As the Junkman says: It’s always about blaming people ...

Here are some quotes (complete blog post here):

“The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” — Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution.

“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer.

“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” — Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.

“We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.” — Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974

The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man. — Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockerfeller Foundation

Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape. — John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal

“We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.” — Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma.

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998.

Movies to watch

There are movies that we could watch, when they arrive in this part of the world. Colleen Carroll Campbell gives us titles, and then some.

It was a Christmas piece from her, and ended thus: Still, there is no mistaking the pro-life theme running through these stories and the cultural shift they signify. In a season in which billions celebrate the redemptive promise that began with an unwed teenager's unexpected pregnancy two millennia ago, these films are an unconventional reminder that fertility is a blessing, even amid brokenness. And that life, for all its messy complexity, is a gift worth welcoming.

Dawn Eden talks about two of those movies that CCC speaks of too. Or a review here.
Check also Debbie's list here.

Emissions in EU rising faster than US's (H/T: NRO)

If an emission falls and there's no bureaucrat to mandate it... [Chris Horner]

Yesterday's Washington Post coverage wrapping up its assessment of the Bali coverage and, one hopes, ending its recent run of ill-informed global warming activism, came and went without them running a letter I had sent in response to said string of items.

The long and the short of it is found in George Will's comment, also yesterday but in an entirely unrelated context. "Today's liberalism, combining tolerance and statism, cares less what happens than that it be mandatory." So here it is FWIW:

To the Editors,

The preference for rhetoric over substance is widespread in Washington, but the Post is increasingly aggressive in its claims that the U.S. is "doing nothing" about greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, sitting on the sidelines, refusing to act, and otherwise falling behind in comparison with some subset of the rest of the world. Yet nowhere in its recent series of editorials, news articles and human interest stories covering the topic has the Post actually noted comparative U.S. and EU greenhouse gas emissions performance — Europe, the self-proclaimed "world leader", being the most likely party in comparison to which we are not acting. It seems the Post believes that if an emission drops and no bureaucrat was around to mandate it, it didn't really drop.

Disappointed though the Post may be in all things Bush Administration, imagine how this malaise could be improved by acknowledging actual comparative performance, figures for which are publicly available. Under any relevant modern baseline, e.g., the year Europe made its Kyoto promise (1997) or thereafter, U.S. emissions have risen far more slowly than those of its noisiest antagonists. For example, International Energy Agency data show that over the past 7 years (2000-2006), the annual rate of increase for U.S. CO2 emissions is approximately one-third of the EU's rate of increase. Indeed, over the same period even the smaller EU-15 economy has increased its CO2 emissions in actual volume greater than the U.S. by more than 20%, even while the U.S. economy and population also grew more rapidly. At minimum the Post can acknowledge performance, before trying to explain it away. In truth, mandates are not everything any more than Europe's rhetoric amounts to policy.

I don't believe it

AFP writes about Pope's Benedict XVI's Midnight Mass homily saying that the Pope "used his Christmas homily to speak out against selfishness and the degradation of the environment." I agree with the selfishness part, but I could not see how his words could have included the degradation of the environment. The writer quoted this: "And the richer men become, the more they fill up all the space by themselves. And the less room there is for others." I don't see how these lines could pertain to the environment. Duh?

Read the translation here. Judge for yourself.

Update (H/T: Abe): He did say something about how the world is, towards the end of the homily: What would he say if he could see the state of the world today, through the abuse of energy and its selfish and reckless exploitation? Something from Gregory of Nyssa in his Christmas homilies.

Merry Christmas!

Here's hoping you have a very blessed Christmas.

Whatever else be lost among the years, Let us keep Christmas still a shining thing: Whatever doubts assail us, or what fears, Let us hold close one day, remembering; Its poignant meaning for the hearts of men. Let us get back our childlike faith again. - Grace Noll Crowell

All from ElizabethAndrew.org

Unsustainable lifestyle

If I can comment on CHabito's column, I'd say:

You said in your column last week:

And then there is the argument that as world reserves of fossil fuel begin to dwindle, super powers need to find a convincing way to get people to control consumption so that they can maintain their own affluent lifestyles far into the future. And the global warming “hysteria” is one such convincing way.

The problem with this last argument, though, is that the Bush administration’s denial that climate change and global warming are real threats seems based on the same motivation (“the American way of life is nonnegotiable”), apart from protecting big business interests.

I've heard that before and it seems true. Definitely Al Gore and the Hollywood celebs who have joined his band of eco-warriors do not deny climate change and global warming, and definitely the same motivations reflect on them too. If Al Gore's house consumes 20 times more electricity than the average American home, and he flies around on private jets, travels on gas-guzzling SUV's (of course, he took the train to claim his Nobel while his luggage traveled on a Mercedes van), and organizes huge-carbon-footprint Live Earth concerts, that is quite a lifestyle he can't seem to forego. And it is on public record that he purchases carbon offsets from a company that he co-owns, truly, "protecting big business interests, don't you think? He is in the board of Apple, Inc., and even Greenpeace says that Apple isn't that green. Big business, right?

This is why the United States, Europe and China are the key focal points in the climate change debates. The United States is the runaway largest emitter of GHGs. And yet it also continues to be the biggest recalcitrant in the efforts to set targets for reducing GHG emissions, both under the 10-year-old Kyoto Protocol, and in the Bali negotiations.

While it is evident that the United States has the biggest CO2 emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels (also because it is the most industrialized nation in the world; up to more than 50 times RP's), Randall Hoven writes in American Thinker based on statistics and projections, the US is actually better in dealing with emissions, considering that comparing figures of 1997 (last year before Kyoto was signed) to 2004, the US only increased emissions by 6.6%. Okay, it is still more than 1B metric tons, but emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

Highlights:

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

• Maldives, 252%.
• Sudan, 142%.
• China, 55%.
• Luxembourg, 43%
• Iran, 39%.
• Iceland, 29%.
• Norway, 24%.
• Russia, 16%.
• Italy, 16%.
• Finland, 15%.
• Mexico, 11%.
• Japan, 11%.
• Canada, 8.8%.

I believe in global warming because there is evidence to support that, in the same manner that I believe that there were times in the Earth's history that global cooling occurred (and there will be shifting back and forth).

David Whitehouse says:

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.


I believe in climate change because climate really changes naturally. But what I cannot support is the anthropogenic global warming theory and the alarmism that goes along with it. And I don't think I am alone saying this (except that I am not a scientist, unlike these people).

Heisman Trophy Winner, Winner over Abortion

Another story surrounding 2007 Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow. Appears that he wouldn't have been around at all.

Here's the intro of a piece from Fr. Thomas Euteneuer:

How Many Heisman Winners Has Abortion Killed?
December 19, 2007

The sports world recently greeted the news that this year's Heisman Trophy Winner, Tim Tebow from the University of Florida, was almost a casualty of abortion. Twenty-some years ago he was not the strapping 6'3", 235 lb. beloved sports hero that he is today. At that time, he was a one-inch-long unborn child whose existence, because of an amoebic infection, was defined as a threat to his mother's health. Pam Tebow, his mother, was told by a doctor that it would be in her best interests to abort this baby, and she refused. Her husband backed her up on that generous decision, and seven months later they gave birth to a perfectly healthy boy. Little did they know that twenty years later they would be standing on a national stage with a Heisman Trophy winner giving that magnificent witness to life. The world thanks you, Mr. and Mrs. Tebow! There cannot be a more touching Advent story than this.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked how many potential Heisman Trophy winners abortion has actually killed. The answer is, twelve. Reflect on that a bit as you read further because there is a larger lesson in the Tebows' witness.

Read on.

Dang! or Not

Dang! I was wrong. Felix culpa?

At least we won't see his face in Time's next cover. Not that I am too excited about the winner, either.

H/T: Kyoto Schmyoto (American Thinker)

While it is evident that the United States has the biggest CO2 emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels (also because it is the most industrialized nation in the world; up to more than 50 times RP's), Randall Hoven writes in American Thinker that based on statistics and projections, the US is actually better in dealing with emissions, considering that comparing figures of 1997 (last year before Kyoto was sisgned) to 2004, the US only increased emissions by 6.6%. Okay, it is still more than 1B metric tons, but emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

Read the rest here.

Some highlights:

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

• Maldives, 252%.
• Sudan, 142%.
• China, 55%.
• Luxembourg, 43%
• Iran, 39%.
• Iceland, 29%.
• Norway, 24%.
• Russia, 16%.
• Italy, 16%.
• Finland, 15%.
• Mexico, 11%.
• Japan, 11%.
• Canada, 8.8%.

All hot air

Come to think of it, the Bali conference in climate change could have all been hot air (20,000 cars worth). Even the Associated Press thinks so:

The new deal does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It simply sets an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

Despite an aggressive EU-led campaign to include specific emissions reduction targets for industrial nations — by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — the final road map has none.

Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie & Fitch sells "humour" shirts although I don't think anything's funny about the Love and Awkward Mornings shirts. See the pictures of the shirts here.

Oh well, here are those shirts from Jill Stanek. It is no wonder what side of the fence they are.

Pope Benedict XVI on the environment

The Vatican released in advance Pope Benedict XVI's message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace on January 1, 2008.

He talks mostly about the role of family, and puts in two paragraphs on (highlights, mine):

The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

Read the complete message.

IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters

IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

Club World Cup Champions: Forza!

Almost forgotten was the 2007 Club World Cup in Japan the past week. Yesterday, I watched the match of ACMilan against the Boca Juniors in a 4-2 win by the Rossoneri in Yokohama. Kaka' put in one in the first half. Inzaghi put in two and Nesta scored one. Kaka' was best player (golden ball) as well as the Toyota Awardee. Seedorf got the silver ball.

Meanwhile, Tiger Woods closed with a 4-under 68 to match the tournament record at the Target World Challenge and set a record for the largest margin of victory, by seven shots over Masters champion Zach Johnson on Sunday.

Homeschooled Heisman Trophy Winner!

A blog entry from Nancy C. Brown on December 10 features reader Chris' note about "2007 Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow who became the first underclassmen and the third Florida Gator quarterback to claim Heisman Fame":

Sent in by alert reader Chris (thanks!):

I am a sports fan, and thought I'd point out that the young man that won the Heisman trophy last night from the University of Florida was actually homeschooled. His parents are evangelicals, and run an orphanage in the Phillipines. Mom was recommended an abortion when she was pregnant with him, but of course didn't. The mom was also involved in changing Florida law so that h[ome]s[chooled] kids could take advantage of public school extracurricular programs, including sports. Apparently he's a pretty nice kid.

Anyhow, we always hear about the spelling bee and math contest winners, it might be nice to see the view widened a bit.

His profile at the Heisman site says this:

Long before he donned his Florida Gator jersey, Tim Tebow's life began in unusual fashion compared to most All-American QB's. Tebow was born on 8/14, 1987 in the Philippines where his parents were serving as Christian missionaries.

My Best Homes

Forzamillan comments at My Best Homes forum.
mybesthomes.net
Check the forum and join us if you want.

Definitely not rocket science

Definitely not rocket science:

If you are a skeptic about runaway, anthropogenic global warming, then you are a "denier" and worse than the Nazis.

The problem is that the voices of doom... those holier than thou... just can't seem to get it right.

This year there was an 85% probability that we were going to be belted with many more big hurricanes than normal... didn't happen.

This year we were supposed to have the hottest year on record... didn't happen. In fact, South American had one of its longest, coldest winters on record and Antarctic ice expanded significantly.

For which the Climate Skeptic disses:
If all your forecasts are coming out in the bottom 1% of the forecast range, then it is safe to assume that one is not forecasting very well. Which reminds me of Michael Mann, who said with famous confidence that there was a 95-99% probability that 1998 was the hottest year in the last 1000, which is an absurd claim. (Mann now denies having said this, but he is actually on film saying it, about 25 seconds into the linked clip: ).

And another H/T from the Climate Skeptic:

The Hidden Message

The cost to abate CO2 production as much as climate catastrophists wish will be staggering. One of the ways the catastrophists and their supporters in the media work to cover up this fact is to publish numerous cute articles about families recycling and such. The hidden message is that this is all that it would take from us to make an impact on CO2.

This Sunday article in the Arizona Republic is a great example (last Sunday, the Republic had an article just mentioning, without letting us make our arguments, that skeptics like me exist in Phoenix. However, even this violates the orthodoxy so the Republic has had pro-catastrophist and green front page articles every day since as pennance.). In today's article, the Republic looks at a number of families and gives advice on how they could be greener...

Read the rest here. And the Arizona feature is here.

Distancing?

Distancing . . .

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming

- December 05, 2007

Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali

As a contributor to the IPCC's 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate's alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report's first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC's bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC's published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize. 

Read complete.

I missed this

Because of other pressing matters, I missed this conference in late November in Manila: Second International Congress on Love, Sex and Life -- Love, Laughter and Life Ever After.


Here's a bit of the summary from Mercatornet's Carolyn Moynihan:

Did you hear about the New York education professor, the Singapore IT aficionado, the Spanish doctor and the Philippine economist who met up in Manila last week? They, and 700 others who arrived at the same destination, were all in pursuit of what an American author has ingeniously dubbed "the thrill of the chaste".

And thrilling it was to spend two jam-packed days listening to the wit and wisdom of experts and amateurs alike on the theme of the Second International Congress on Love, Sex and Life -- that is, chastity as "Love, Laughter and Life Ever After". Corny? Only for the cynic who has forgotten what the gift of human sexuality is all about.

It is not, as the congress reminded us, about "having a relationship" while protecting yourself from a deadly disease. Not, as a Spanish advertisement pretends, a great "therapy" so long as you use a condom. And not, as the mass media constantly portray it and as some young people have come to believe, a way of having "fun".

Read all here.

Oops!

Bloomberg.com says:

Hot Air Emitted by Climate Summit Equals 20,000 Cars (Update1)
By Alex Morales and Kim Chipman

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island 950 kilometers (600 miles) from Jakarta, according to estimates e- mailed to Bloomberg by the UN agency holding the conference.


And more secrets coming out?

IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data
Posted by ReasonMcLucus at 07:39 on 05 Dec 2007

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge" in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking.

Angel from Heaven

Girl, 7, Shot 6 Times While Protecting Mother

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

A Detroit girl who jumped in front of a hail of bullets to protect her mother from an enraged gunman Saturday night is being hailed as an “angel from heaven.”

Alexis Goggins, 7, was hit protecting her mother Selietha Parker, 30, after Parker's ex-boyfriend Calvin Tillie, 29, forced the pair and family friend Aisha Ford to drive to Six Mile Road under threat of death, the Detroit News reported.

Click here to read the full report from the Detroit News.

Tillie, who was armed with a handgun, shot Parker in the side of the head and in the arm after Ford stopped for gas, but before he could fire a third shot, Goggins jumped over the seat between her mother and Tillie, begging him to stop, the Detroit News reported. Without hesitation, Tillie reportedly pumped six shots into the child.

The first grader is in stable condition at Children’s Hospital in Detroit with gunshot wounds to the eye, left temple, chin, cheek, chest and right arm, the Detroit News reported. Parker was admitted to the hospital, but later released.

Tillie was arrested at the scene. He had dated Parker for six months, the Detroit News reported.

Out of Bali

Why not?

UN Rejects Press Credentials for Representatives of US Newspaper
Writers for Environment & Climate News excluded from participation in Bali climate change conference Written By: Tom Swiss
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: November 30, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 3, 2007) -- As the first goals of the Kyoto Protocol are about to expire, the United Nations is preparing a "Conference of the Parties," the highest decision-making authority. The meeting will take place in Bali, Indonesia from December 3 to December 5.

But the event lost any claim of impartiality when organizers rejected attempts by representatives of Environment & Climate News to receive press accreditation for the conference...

Read more.


Where is consensus?

Countries split over stance on emission goals
Marian Wilkinson, Environment Editor in Bali
December 5, 2007

CONCERNS are growing at the UN climate conference in Bali that Japan and Canada could throw their weight behind the US to resist a new climate change agreement that includes binding emissions targets for developed countries.

Read more.


Associated Press notices:

Climate change meeting adds to emissions
By ROBIN McDOWELL, Associated Press Writer Tue Dec 4, 2:04 PM ET

BALI, Indonesia - Never before have so many people converged to try to save the planet from global warming, with more than 10,000 jetting into this Indonesian resort island, from government ministers to Nobel laureates to drought-stricken farmers.

But critics say they are contributing to the very problem they aim to solve.

"Nobody denies this is an important event, but huge numbers of people are going, and their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country," said Chris Goodall, author of the book "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life."

Read the rest.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Climate change pow-wow

Keep in mind the UN meeting on climate change in Bali that runs up to the 14th. Initial estimates say that "some 15,000 politicians, officials, quangocrats and assorted busybodies are descending on Bali for a jamboree that will produce more than 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The purpose of their trip? To discuss how to reduce CO2 emissions."

Will they listen to their own kind?

Concerning the Current Consensus on Climate Change
Volume 10, Number 47: 21 November 2007

In a Policy Forum article inspired by the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Oppenheimer et al. (2007) write in the 14 September issue of Science that "with the general credibility of the science of climate change established, it is now equally important that policy-makers understand the more extreme possibilities that consensus may exclude or downplay." Why is that? Because, as they continue, "setting aside or minimizing the importance of key structural uncertainties in underlying processes is a frequent outcome of the drive for consensus."

In light of this illuminating admission, we note that the setting aside of key uncertainties in the climate modeling enterprise could well lead to more extreme possibilities at both ends of the climate prognostication spectrum, such that not only may earth's surface air temperature rise somewhat more than is predicted by the current IPCC consensus, it could equally as easily rise somewhat less than that august group has opined. And for the IPCC's current full range prediction of 21st century warming (1.1-6.4°C), somewhat less warming could well turn out to be indistinguishable from no warming at all.

Read the rest here.

Did you hear about the ship that sunk in the Antarctica? Thought maybe all of Antarctica has melted, huh? In any case, apparently shipowner was a friend of Al (who, fortunately was not aboard).

You’d never read this in the mainstream media: The owner of MS Explorer that sank, leaving a huge carbon footprint at the bottom of the Antarctic Ocean Friday is an acolyte of teensy-weensy carbon footprint crusader Al Gore.

G.A.P. Adventures CEO and Explorer owner, Bruce Poon Tip and Gore have similar ideals, “filling their schedules with speaking engagements on environmental change to educate global audiences.” And that’s straight off of www.gapadventures.com. In fact, as recently as last April, both Poon Tip and Gore gave presentations at the Green Living Show in Toronto.

The rest here.