WE Blog

I see the blog’s #2 anti-science “expert” is posting the daily Global Climate Change denial.

You’re probably going to make old man price unhappy by posting your lies first!

anti-intellect,

Hmmm, an American research scientist name mentioned along with some internaltional research scientist who camped out for 18 months in Antarctica doing research. Yeah, anti-intellect…
:twisted:

I’m always amazed at the number of left wing nitwits that refuse to even consider that AGW might be the biggest farce since the greenies banned DDT!

The earth is cooling. It’s being controlled by the sun. The wacko environmentalists, the unprincipled politicians and the willing dupes that attack anyone here that dares to consider both sides of the debate are irrelevant. The earth is cooling.

Global warming, an unsettled science

The thesis of man-made global warming has been portrayed as a scientific consensus, but this is more a policymaker and media phenomenon than a settled matter?

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. This included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature rise.

Founding director of the UN Environment Programme Maurice Strong once analyzed global environmental challenges as follows: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” “Industrial civilization” has been pumping additional carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect, whereby carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor combine to trap sunrays bouncing off the earth’s surface, keeping the earth at a temperature conducive to supporting life.

What ultimate benefit the collapse of industrial civilization could bring at a time when – as Oxford University economist Paul Collier put it in his award-winning book The Bottom Billion – around four billion people are being lifted out of poverty, remains unclear. However, the IPCC outlines that “deep cuts in global emission will be required,” while the European Commission supports emissions cuts of 25-40 percent by 2020. The US, however, considers such cuts beyond reach, at least before 2050, while Japan says it is premature to commit to 2020 limits.

On 26 May, G8 environment ministers endorsed slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century, but failed to agree on much more contentious near-term targets. Environmentalists were disappointed, according to AP reports: They missed the “opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations, but they failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough,” said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan. Whether or not such emissions cuts, and the industrial and economic turmoil that could ensue, are necessary, depends precisely on whether global warming or climate change is man-made, or whether the anthropogenic aspect outweighs natural factors.

On 10 May 2007, UN special climate envoy Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland declared the climate debate “over,” adding that “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” Questions about the “consensus” are mounting, however, as are apparently growing numbers of scientists who dispute the notion that “the science is settled.”

Unraveling consensus

All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature – the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California – report a 0.7C cooling in 2007 – a reversal of the warming that has taken place over the 20th Century.

A recent study in the journal Nature by scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, postulates that global temperatures are unlikely to rise again until around 2015-2020, after a decade-long leveling-off since the 1998 recorded high. In other words, it is possible that by 2020, the world will not have warmed for over 20 years.

Dr Vicky Pope of the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office told ISN Security Watch that natural climate variations linked to the Pacific cooling system known as La Nina, as well as a cooling phase of a system of Atlantic currents, contributed to the 2007 cooling and what the Leibniz/Nature study predicts for the coming decade.

The climate prediction modeling system used by the IPCC postulates that global temperatures will rise in tandem with carbon dioxide emissions, and at an unprecedented and dangerous rate, hence the need for, if not the collapse of industrial civilization, then reductions in carbon emissions as outlined since the Kyoto agreements in 1998.

Another study published in Nature in mid-May postulated that “Changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone,” and that man-made climate change is having “a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally.”

Speaking about this study to the Financial Times, Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide, said: “[We should] consider that there has been only 0.75C of temperature change so far, yet the expectation for this century is four to nine times that amount.”

However, Richard Lindzen (Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology), told ISN Security Watch that predictions such as the IPCCs were based on flawed modeling: “The text of the IPCC [as opposed to the spin-oriented summary] makes clear that a major assumption of attribution studies is that the models were used properly and adequately account for natural internal variability. This study acknowledges that they did not. Under the circumstances, it is absurd to depend on these same models to predict the end of phenomena that they could not predict in the first place.”

Dr Pope conceded that “climate science is an evolving subject,” but in reference to the second Nature study, said that “they looked at secondary impacts of climate change, and made a stronger link back to core causes, along the lines of the latest research being done on this issue.”

Arguments over the reliability of climate models have emerged at various times, in recent years. Most notoriously, the “hockey stick” graph used by the IPPC showing a rapid temperature rise over the industrial era was revised after allegations that it glossed over previously occurring natural cycles, including the Little Ice Age, running to around 1850, and the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than now.

A warm Middle Ages saw vineyards in England, while Greenland got its name due to the relatively lush coastal regions encountered by contemporary exploring Vikings, whose villages there lasted until around the 17th Century, until a cooling climate reduced the snow-free land available to the settlers and indigenous people alike, leaving Greenland as we know it today. Needless to say, such temperature levels occurred well before any “industrial civilization” was in place to emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide.

But in response to counter-arguments to the man-made global warming thesis, the UK Royal Society has drawn up another point-by-point counter-argument, which states “our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.” The Royal Society, however, goes on to outline: “While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies.”

In turn, Director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project S Fred Singer has responded to the Royal Society’s position in a paper authored for the Centre for Policy Studies in London. And referring to the Leibniz Institute Nature study, he told ISN Security Watch that “natural climate fluctuations can be greater than manmade forcing,” and that it is feasible that “the modeled manmade forcing has been greatly exaggerated.”

The 4th IPCC report was released 10 months before it shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, and that publication made it clear that there was a consensus of 2,500 scientists across the globe who believed that mankind was responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations, which in turn were very likely responsible for an increase in global temperatures. However, just two weeks ago, Dr Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine told the National Press Club in Washington DC that more than 31,000 scientists had signed the so-called Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line.

Moreover, some of those included on the IPCC’s list have also raised objections. On 12 December 2007, the US Senate released a report from more than 400 scientists, many of whose names were attached to the IPCC report without – they claim – their permission. In the report, the scientists expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

While the US remains outside the Kyoto system, along with developing-country high carbon emitters such as China and India, US President George Bush has made conciliatory noises on climate issues in recent months, while all three remaining presidential candidates have been vocal about their commitment to offsetting.

Less commented-upon is the data on emissions reduction: The US has cut the rate of increase of its carbon emissions more than any party to Kyoto, according to the Index of Leading Economic Indicators’ figures for 1997-2004, the last year for universal emission data.

The US Senate will convene next week to discuss a climate bill, which aims, through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, to reduce emissions 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, even though countries such as China, Russia and India have no such plans.

Alarmism misplaced?

Prior to the December Bali climate summit, some of the scientists who signed the Senate and Oregon letters penned an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, outlining their view that climate alarmism was misplaced, and the policy options discussed were futile:

“The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. [.] Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the ‘precautionary principle’ because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. [.] The current UN focus on “fighting climate change” [.] is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take.”

Whether this distraction results in the destruction of industrialized civilization or not, some analysts, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, believes that an inappropriate reaction to global warming will cause more problems than contribute solutions.

Carbon trading has been pitched as part-panacea to man-made global warming. Stanford University academics believe that the system does little to prevent emissions, while cynics believe that proponents of the schemes can benefit financially – a sort-of counter-argument to the “big oil funds climate dissent” view held by green activists.

Problems aside, Dr Terry Barker, director of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Research, tells ISN Security Watch that the ongoing climate negotiations need to “establish a global carbon price through a global cap-and-trade scheme for international transport, not adequately covered by national jurisdiction.” He adds: “Governments need to agree to quantified targets [...] with a reasonable chance of achieving the EU’s 2 degree target.”

It seems that policymakers are in a bind: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas reacted to the Bali summit as follows: “Now the real hard work must begin. It is essential that the agreement to be worked out over the next two years is ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.”

And more incongruently, only last week, Slovenia’s UN ambassador Sanja Stiglic, speaking on behalf of the EU, whose rotating Presidency Ljubljana holds, said that “the present [food] situation highlights the urgent need to reach ambitious, global and comprehensive targets for reductions in CO2 emissions.”

The massive rise in world food prices in the past two years came to a head recently, with widespread food riots in numerous countries, and many analysts point to the diversion of cropland to the subsidized biofuels industry – aimed to curb carbon emissions – as a contributory factor to the food crisis.

Global warming, therefore, is causing the food crisis, but most directly through human efforts to prevent warming. In any case, the IPCC itself concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 percent, “globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.”

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026

Australia: Plans to drill for oil off Sydney

Greenie reaction predictable but it seems it is going to happen — unlike the American situation, where almost all coastal waters are blocked from exploration

PLANS to drill for oil off the NSW coast have been revived because of sky-rocketing world oil prices. In a move that has outraged green groups, an Australian joint venture has announced it will establish a drilling rig 22km offshore between the Central Coast and Newcastle to look for gas and oil deposits. One of the firms, Perth-based MEC Resources, has been conducting air surveys of the area since January following a review of geological formations and says there are early indications of petroleum stores at the intended dig site.

“MEC was reviewing new data from an airborne survey conducted east of Newcastle which detected evidence of petroleum seeps on the sea surface,” it says in a document lodged with the Australian Stock Exchange on Friday. The only thing delaying the operation is the availability of a suitable sea-drilling rig. A joint contract led by Australian firm Bounty Oil and MEC Resources is expected to be executed this year. “A rig is to be secured, in the near future, to fulfil the work commitments,” MEC said ahead of a June annual meeting.

The target exploration site is part of the massive Sydney basin which stretches inland and includes coal seams from Newcastle to the Illawarra. The MEC report contains optimistic estimates that undersea reserves could contain one billion barrels of oil and enough gas to meet Sydney’s entire needs for the next decade.

MEC has told shareholders the price of oil has prompted renewed interest in the site. “Based on the present oil price exceeding $US80 per barrel (and) perceived future demand … hydrocarbon exploration in the area is justified,” it says. The project has applied to the State Government for an extension of a licence to explore the site while awaiting the arrival of a drilling rig to Australia. A spokeswoman for Premier Morris Iemma yesterday confirmed the application had been received.

MEC has told shareholders it expects the application to be approved. News of the potential drilling close to the NSW coast has outraged green groups. Greens MP Lee Rhiannon yesterday slammed the idea. “A world oil shortage is no justification for pushing ahead. We have to adjust to the fact the petroleum products are now in short supply,” she said. “The chance of having an oil spill would be considerable and the damage that would do to the tourism industry, the marine industry and fisheries just isn’t worth it. “It would be highly irresponsible for the amount of oil we might be able to produce.”

The companies are confident they will book a drill by November, but the unit could take a further six months or more to arrive. Initial exploratory digging is expected to take as little as three weeks. “By pursuing the exploration and drilling of (the reserve), the company is targeting an oil and gas project with potential in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” the report reads.

MEC is attempting to get shareholder approval for a restructuring of its gas and oil assets to improve access to capital for exploration. In a document for shareholders, regarding the Sydney basin, it says there are four other large leads in the area, each with significant potential gas recoveries. “If available estimates were to be realised, (the area) would be on a par with some of the largest gas reserves in the world. “Should an oil play be established, potential oil resources could be in excess of one billion barrels in place. Oil has been recorded from some 55 locations within the onshore basin. “The potential reward from a successful drilling program makes this a very attractive exploration opportunity.”

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23789557-5006009,00.html

WHY THE FRACTURED CONSENSUS?

Last week, Dr. Arthur Robinson of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that over 31,000 American scientists signed a petition rejecting the theory of man-made global warming. So why is the support for this theory evaporating among scientists? Perhaps it might be due to the fact that global temperature trends have remained flat for the past decade while the levels of carbon dioxide have risen 5.5%.

The foundation of the AGW theory is based on rising carbon dioxide levels producing higher temperatures. Perhaps this evaporating consensus might be due to the analysis of paleoclimate data that reach back hundreds of thousands of years through glacial/interglacial transitions. This analysis showed that changes in Earth’s temperature always preceded changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. How can that be? Well the oceans are a vast reservoir of carbon dioxide. As the oceans warm, it release this gas back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured today are primarily of a natural origin rather than man-made.

Or perhaps the global warming theory is in trouble because it is based primarily on a complex computer climate model that is more hype than substance. This sophisticated model fails to include the effects of cloud-cover. Clouds are a major factor in modulating Earth’s temperature. Clouds block sunlight, reflecting the light back into space thus lowering temperature. The intensity of the sun’s magnetic field controls the rate that high energy particles, called galactic cosmic rays, hit the Earth’s atmosphere. These particles seed cloud formation through ionization. This process was demonstrated experimentally at the Danish National Space Centre by Dr. Henrik Svensmark and his research team with the results published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in Great Britain in 2007. Therefore the climate models, without adequately including cloud mechanics, will be poor predictors of future climate on Earth.

So if you set aside these climate models for a moment, what is science trying to tell us about the near-term climate? The sun’s magnetic field has been unusually strong for the past century. But the field appears to be weakening. We are at the verge of entering solar cycle 24. Judging by the extent of spotless days (days without sunspots) during this solar minimum, this cycle appears weaker than the 20th century solar cycles.

This will result in greater cloud cover and declining temperatures over the next decade or longer. This process may already be underway since global temperatures as measured from satellites have fallen significantly over the past year. Dr. Noah Keenlyside of Germany’s Leipzig Institute of Marine Science, published a paper this month in Nature indicating global warming will stop until 2015 based on an analysis of ocean temperatures and the giant ocean “conveyor belt” known as the meridional overturning circulation. So as I sit near my computer with the heater running during the end of May when it should be warm, I ponder “Where is a little global warming when you really need it!”

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Consensus.pdf

Again price, how old is the Earth?

Just proving a point boxtop.

I’m sure it goes right over your head!

Apophis Posted June 1, 2008 at 8:53 am |
“Just proving a point boxtop.
I’m sure it goes right over your head!”

I realize what you are TRYING to prove…but as usual you fail.
What would you do with a student that did such poor work?

“HLP” proclaims –

“The earth is approximately 8,000 years old…”

Why would anyone bother discussing science with such a man?

I have a question: Who is more resembling of the American people, Obama or Clinton?
In business, Politics and person conduct?

“HLP” whines –

“My faith in no way hinders my understanding of science.”

Really?

How ’bout you start advocating Big Oil geologists to go drilling for more oil… so long as they approve all crude pumped is 8,000 years old or less?

I’m a religious fanatic? Really? When have I ever defended my faith without it first being attacked by insecure nitwits like you or MonkeyHawk?

I never initiate discussions on religion, yet I’m the fanatic?

LOL

…………. checking in…….. waiting to be “buried.”

I will be back later to see if I have been buried yet.

Ha!

Hank Price posted June 1, 2008 at 8:30 am

“Last week, Dr. Arthur Robinson of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine…”

Hank Price believes that careful, thorough scientific methodology equals signing a card you got in the mail and mailing it.

‘Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

Well, let’s see my dear cosmos, you’ve got 1,700 academic nitwits that signed a letter. Most of them either economists or government grant whores.

On the side of reason and common sense my side has 32,000 that signed a petition. Over 9,000 of them PhDs.

I win.

MonkeyHawk proclaims:

“I don’t care a whit about your personal spiritual journey or your evangelical theology… until you try to mix it into science.”

So, my dear MonkeyHawk, how do I mix my religion with science? I’m afraid that dragging my faith into any discussion concerning science doesn’t really prove our point.

I’ll make a deal with you, I won’t bring my faith or religion to the discussion unless you do. easy for me, I never bring it up first anyway.

Ah, but you see my dear Apophis, I have no problem separating my faith from science. I’ve never brought up my faith as a defense of scientific beliefs.

The question is, my friend, can you defend your positions without ad hominem attack on me? I doubt it.

I don’t need to “defend my position”.

I don’t base my interpretation of scientific data through the lens of “beliefs”. It’s too bad you have to resort to the old “ad hominem attack” cry when someone calls you on the carpet for your archaic beliefs.

How old is the Earth again? What scientific data supports your claim?

Dear cosmos,

I went to your link that lists the 1,700 scientists and economists. I saw very few there that don’t fit the description of academic nitwit and grant whore.

Very few of them actually do any scientific work.

How many of them would you classify as economists? When has an economist ever been right about anything?

“I don’t base my interpretation of scientific data through the lens of “beliefs”.”

What a crock! You have preconcieved notions based on the belief there is no God!

You are so insecure in your beliefs you feel the need to attack mine almost daily!

You are living your life in denial!

Your daily attack on my faith is your way of defending your beliefs. If you don’t need to, just stop!

LOL

Tell me cosmos,

“Hank Price believes that someone like a medical doctor, or electrical engineer, with little or no knowledge of climate science, is a qualified, credible “climate scientist”.”

How many of the 1,700 academic nitwits, grant whores and economists actually have a working, understanding of climate science? 5%? 10%?

I looked at the list. Very few of them meet your strict requirements. (other than they agree with your politically correct view on climate change)

Gee, a whole thread of juvenile scrollovers. Tell me, fellas, is this a guy thing?

BlueJay,

Blogs can be had for free. In fact, what a wonderful idea for many of you!

I love these arguments on global warming. It’s like watching passengers fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic. If people could just cease their name calling for a time and come to grips with reality.

Climate change or not, China, India Russia and Brazil (to name a few) will not be swayed from pushing their respective economies to new heights. They feel it is not just in their interest, they feel it is their right. This will involve ever increasing usage of raw materials and ever increasing production of unpleasant waste products. Al Gore and the rest of the Climate Change Rah-Rahs think the answer is to place the United States economy in even greater peril, just so we can be perceived as a world leader on the issue. Funny, but the world clamors for our leadership only when it involves something no one else wants to deal with. It is another way that the rest of the world can bring the USA down “a peg or two”.

Beyond that, how about the ever virtuous EU, that group that spends all it’s time eviscerating the United States for it’s lack of vision and leadership. Is there any major EU partner, or for that matter, any major signer of the KYOTO Protocol that has managed to even level off their CO2 emissions, let alone reduce them?

Finally, let’s face it, regardless of what we do, the earth is going to heat up for a time. The USA, and the world are better served by a strong American Economy, an economy that will spawn and sustain new technologies and applications that will help us deal with the changing climate. In the longer view, the earth has endured much worse catastrophes than a temporary uptick in it’s temperature. Stop whining and arguing about how to stop climate change, ’cause that ain’t happenin’. Instead, I propose we start figuring out how we’re going to live with it.

Question, when we went to catalytic convertor cars and started using lead free gas, did this change the Global Warming Effects? If so, how? If not, why bother on alternative fuels know? Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, Nov 2008.west.herb@yahoo.com http://www.wen2k.com P.S. Ask California and China.

Catalytic converters – good point HerbertWestIII.

I remember being in Germany and the Germans did not put them on their cars because it reduced gas mileage a great deal.

The Air Force didn’t like them because they generated a great amount of heat and were a fire hazard for vehicles on/hear a flight line.

The deal of shipping a car to any European car back in the 70s to early 80s is that the pellets used in catlytic converters had to be ’sucked out’ because the Europeans still used leaded gas and one couldn’t get a car ‘tuned up’ with the converter active.

It was really cheap to get the pellets ’sucked out’ but cost about 10 times as much to get them to put back in when one returned the car to the U.S.

THE NEW MATH–CLINTON v OBAMA

This guy’s blog sums it up:

“So, the Democratic National Committee has bent the rules for Senator Clinton and effectively given her 87 delegates and Senator Obama 63 from two states that were not supposed to be counted. That gives Clinton a grand total of 1,580 pledged (more or less) delegates, and Obama 1,711. While, technically that still leaves Obama with ‘the lead,’ there are 86 pledged delegates remaining to be awarded in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota. This means that Clinton can still pull it out if she picks up 153 percent of the remaining delegates, an improvement on the 181 percent she would have needed to pick up if not for the Michigan-Florida deal.”

Clinton seems to be winning about 60 percent of the vote in non-state Puerto Rico. Tuesday is the last primaries of Montana and South Dakota which don’t have enough delegates to matter anyway.

Wednesday, Obama becomes the official Democratic nominee.

Now on to November and let’s dispense with the silliness . . .

Parkay..your horror stories only convince people that sometimes there are worse things than abortion. Why do you think telling grisly tales of mothers murdering their infants will convince someone to be prolife?
The world is depressing enough, stop already.

Nathan Price is here. Will he post some climate science lies from the agricultural economist Dennis Avery?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

Does Nathan only eat foods grown with chemical pesticides? Avery says that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.

And poor Nathan is still unable to understand that climate science uses error bars, ranges, etc, because it is “not based in absolutes”.

“fleettwood” seems intrigued by –

Pantyhose Fur Fetish Men In Pantyhose

I am so confused.

I suspect someone can explain it all to you, complete with pictures, a fashion show, and accessories. Probably someone such as “MaxGrobnik,” “Nathaniel,” “Regular et al”…

kaz0819,

Ditto!

Apophis
Posted June 1, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

Science is not based on a philosophy contrary to what you fundies may think.
————————
Then we need to change the “Ph” part of “PhD.” :)

One more diversion

California court’s activism hands Obama an issue he probably didn’t need

Joel Belz

This week’s riddle asks: What do Jeremiah Wright and the California Supreme Court have in common?

The answer is that both of them, just when the Barack Obama campaign seems to be picking up steam—and just when he’s persuading the electorate that he really might be the reconciler and uniter and healer who could conceivably pull a fragmented and disjointed America together—both Wright and the California court jump in with awkward reminders that maybe this middle-of-the-roadism isn’t quite as soft and moderate as we’ve been led to think.

The unsettling reminders and questions aren’t coming, mind you, from Rush Limbaugh or Phyllis Schlafly. They haven’t been manufactured by some mass mailer from the religious right. Nobody had to make up the 20 years of actual quotes from Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit in Chicago; nobody had to take them out of context. And nobody had to pretend that the mid-May California court decision ratifying homosexual marriage was more radical than it appeared.

No, the disquieting reminders have come from within the camp itself.

A whole lot of Americans, I suggest, would love to see some genuine healing take place in this terribly splintered society. So it’s natural for Barack Obama and John McCain, instead of boasting about how distinctive their message is, instead to head for the middle and go after the millions of independent centrists in the electorate. Both of them claim that “I can stake out some common ground for Americans to stand on,” and that “I know how to work across the aisle”—and a big bunch of people seem to want to listen.

I hear this tune, sung with this tone, very often these days from many of my evangelical friends. “I’m tired,” some of them tell me (and especially many in their teens and 20s), “of being identified only by my opposition to abortion and homosexual behavior. Isn’t this maybe a time when we have to branch out and demonstrate that we are also serious about the legitimate concerns that liberals have traditionally focused on—issues like health care and racism and poverty and the environment?”

All that has apparently begun to sound compelling. And especially when conservatives are as “divided, drifting, and demoralized” (that’s columnist Robert Novak’s description) as most of them are these days. Explore various venues of American evangelicalism, and you’ll find remarkable numbers of former Republican stalwarts exploring other options.

Then comes another Wright bombshell, or another arrogant bit of judicial activism specifically designed to eclipse the voice of voters. Never mind that just eight years ago, Californians approved by a 61 percent majority a proposition declaring that the state was permitted to recognize “marriage” only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court, by telling the voters to buzz off because they can’t possibly understand how terribly sophisticated these matters really are, just may have resurrected an issue Barack Obama would rather have waited until after November to bring up again.

It’s altogether possible, of course, that such dramatic changes have occurred since the year 2000 that a majority of Californians no longer object to homosexual marriage. If that’s the case (and no one should dismiss it out of hand), we Christians will need some radical readjustments to living as a shrinking minority in so secular a society. In fact, even if we aren’t there quite yet, it’s where we’re likely to be a generation from now.

But it’s also possible that the California court decision will grab people’s attention in a manner inclined to prompt them to say: “Now wait a minute! If that’s what you mean when you’re talking about moderation, forget it. We don’t need to go down that road quite so fast.” And that’s just one more surprise diversion that Barack Obama, with everything he’s had going for him, probably can’t afford.

If you have a question or comment for Joel Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.

Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
May 31, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 11

“Wednesday, Obama becomes the official Democratic nominee.

Now on to November and let’s dispense with the silliness . .”

I would not refer to the Democratic nomination process as “silliness”

Though I grant you, yesterdays DNC rules committee meeting was a joke AND a sham.

It aint over til Senator Clinton says its over.

And SOME of us want to WIN the election in November. We don’t believe Obama can pull that off.

“Nathaniel,” vaunted scientist that he must think he is, says –

“…what my father or I think about the age of the Earth has nothing to do with the discussion on Global Warming.”

Well, now, “Nathaniel,” that’s not quite true.

Unlike most people, I’ve actually read some of the crap your father has cut-and-pasted on nearly every morning’s Open Threads in this forum.

Some of them (hell, read ‘em yourself; why should I be the only one subjected to the agony?), address the anti-climate-change dogma by speaking to records in polar ice packs which (HORROR OF HORRORS!!!) talk about even pre-historic planet temperature changes. And they go way back further than 8,000 years.

So, “Nathaniel,” you’re either ignorant or you’re lying. I have enough respect for you to hope you’re merely ignorant.

I’d prefer to think you, an honored Marine, are simply ignorant.

(And, since this is an Open Thread and the topics are malleable, let me once again suggest you check up with a mental health professional regarding the 1-in-5 Iraq War veterans who’ve returned with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Nothing personal to me. I just think it might help you.)

Thank you Hank for answering my question, I believe it was an honest answers and you were not being “Political savvy”.

No problem ‘dog,

I think both sides of the aisle have serious problems with their candidates this cycle. Although I like McCain for his promise to pick originalist judges and his stance on the war I believe Clinton might actually be tougher.

No matter who gets the nomination this time the VP will be a bigger factor than ever. I think McCain will be smart enough to pick one that helps. Obama? I’m not so sure.

Like the blind pig who finally finds an acorn, “HLP” posts –

“…this time the VP will be a bigger factor than ever.”

Yeah, since all business-based actuarial projections suggest McBush will die in office before the next election.

“I think you have a lot to offer this forum, “BlueJay,” and I respect your passion. But put more of your intellect into your arguments and dial back your partisanship just a bit, please. ”

Thanks. I think.

I’m sorry Monkeyhawk. I can’t quantify all of it. But there is something I just don’t like about Obama.

It starts of course with his own words.

And then there is the evolving question of just who IS Barack Obama? You have not said. Are you as troubled as I am the media pass he has been given? I don’t think it’s healthy.

Then there are his supporters. And I remind that when I take them to task, I always refer to “SOME Obama supporters”. They seem to think Obama can win no matter what. They are oblivious to political reality. WORSE, they imagine they can win without Senator Clinton’s supporters.

Finally? There is something no more maybe than a cockeyed hunch. I just….don’t trust this.

You are a diligent reader Monkeyhawk. You know I was not in the bag for Clinton. You know also how I did not like to see Democrats fight. I hope you will trust that my concerns are honest.

I cannot say what is in Senator Clinton’s heart. Who could? She, like Barack, is in the place to make history.

She, like Barack, is in the place to remedy history.

I trust her that her fight is thus directed. And she IS within her rights to pursue it as far as she cares to. MY hope is she takes it to the convention. IMAGINE it! An American political convention that is more than just a coronation.

And the stars are a woman and a black man.

It doesn’t MATTER whether it be now or in August. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ARE linked if either of them want to win. They compromise now or later with one another. I know you aren’t doing it. But an awful lot of people are trying to call the game before it’s over. That is why I responded to Capn’s post and why you responded to mine.

The ironic thing is that none of our votes here in Kansas matters anyway. But in a lot of states? People just as conflicted as we are here are going to have to reconcile. That or lose together.

Hank Price posted June 1, 2008 at 9:05 am

“The earth is approximately 8,000 years old. What does my faith have to do with anything?”

VERSUS

‘Greenhouse gases highest for 800,000 years’
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1440399320080514
“Greenhouse gases are at higher levels in the atmosphere than at any time in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of Antarctic ice on Wednesday that extends evidence that mankind is disrupting the climate.
…
“We can firmly say that today’s concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are 28 and 124 percent higher respectively than at any time during the last 800,000 years,” said Thomas Stocker, an author of the report at the University of Berne.”

More at link.

More, and graph of CO2, methane, and temperatures over the past 800,000 years (starts 1000 years from present)

‘Ice cores reveal fluctuations in the Earth’s greenhouse gases’
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uoc-icr050808.php

Nathaniel Price,

This is your earlier post:

“-Science is not based in absolutes, yet, you liberal goons present certain fields of study as if they are beyond reproach and if anyone dares to question them they are anti-science.”

Please prove your point, by finding some quotes from,

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

that say, or imply, that peer-reviewed AGW science is “based in absolutes”.

And Nathaniel, please explain exactly why you believe what the agricultural economist Dennis Avery says qualifies as credible “science”.

I wrote the above post last night, decided to sleep on it, and sent it along because I guess I do not expect anyone but “BlueJay” to read the whole damned thing .

Tangential to what I wrote, I just heard that Senator Ted Kennedy is presently undergoing brain surgery for his cancer.

Godspeed, Senator Kennedy.

Well, I read the whole thing, MonkeyHawk. It was well written, quite insightful and right on target.

Good job.

Pearls before swine, “Boxlock.”

Pearls before swine.

I read it all and thanks Monkeyhawk.

I used to write as you do. A bit more edgy maybe. But just as in depth and thoughtful.

Lately poverty and desperation and just overall fear that America is making a mistake don’t lend to the best prose.

I note here that your seminal point several times over is that you “sat in the room” with Obama.

I won’t accuse you of this Monkeyhawk, but there are other posters I know here who were also there in El Dorado.

Though I’ve known them a long time, it seems I don’t know them anymore. They are….spellbound?

Even to the point of attacking friends for their candidate who says we can work with the enemy.

I don’t know what happens tomorrow. Tonight, I watch the shills in the media for Obama make light of Senator Clinton AND her supporters. Fighter that I am, even I know you don’t burn the bridges with the “just now” opponent. I fear that SOME Obama supporters have lost their understanding of that.

And of course, there is that luxury of knowing my vote does not count anyway here in Kansas.

I can’t vote for Obama now. Could I in November?

Not if I see the game as called before the last pitch.

I’m really sorry, but help me plz with my question. I what to make my own blog. Do you know any blog-engines for this?
Thank you very much!!!

Hi everyone. I stumbled upon this site and I’m making my first post.

Interesting Facts