In the news today…

1.  After several companies that the Obama administration invested wasted billions in taxpayer money have gone bankrupt, the U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million.  In the government’s latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.  Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion.  In the past, the Obama administration has claimed that the automakers paid back the money they were lent.

2.  Six doctors and Scientist claim that Obama’s  Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of its own scientists and doctors after they warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.

3.  According to the Washington Post it found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.  Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.  So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more.  This is nothing short of modern-day McCarthyism.

4.  We didn’t need the Washington Post to tell us this.  For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever.

5.  Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.  This falls into line with other liberal thinking- if you’re retired and not contributing any longer to society there’s no reason to spend health-care money on life-saving operations or medication.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

___________

Sixteen scientists took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal Friday to argue that there is “no compelling scientific argument” for “drastic actions on global warming.”

According to the group, made up of scientists from around the world, while there has been a concerted campaign to incite concern and action to stop climate change, the science is not coming together in a fashion that would warrant economy-stifling changes.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause,” they wrote. “Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

In these scientists’ opinion, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a key necessity for life — spurring the growth of plant life.

The group further condemned the climate of fear that has acted to trample dissenting view points of the “global warming is a crisis” message.

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse,” they wrote.

So why is the scientific community so intent on stoking fear over global warming, when the science is not jibing with their conclusions? According to the Wall Street Journal Sixteen, it all boils down to money.

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow,” they wrote. “Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.”

The scientists conclude by urging candidates for public office to buck the trend and look at global warming claims with a skeptical eye.

“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy,” they wrote. “Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”

The article was signed by Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Courtesy:  Daily Caller

________

In the news…

-  Democrat voter fraud- it shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Whether showing up pretending to be Tea Partiers holding racist signs or leaking last minute lies about a Republican just before election day, Democrat have been infamous for their dirty tricks so the latest is not shocking. Erie County NY Sheriff’s detectives are reportedly close to making an arrest in the ballot tampering scandal at the Erie County Board of Elections.  A Democrat election clerk at the Erie County Board of Elections with close ties to the NY Democrat Party Chairman is emerging as the prime suspect in a ballot tampering case, in which about 15 absentee ballots were sent out with the name Republican Chris Collins already on them in the hopes of creating a scandal in which the Republican’s campaign would be accused of voter tampering.  The plan backfired when one of the marked ballots in an envelope came back unopened to the offices of the Board of Elections and a forensic investigation was conducted.  Just when you think that Democrats couldn’t reach much lower- by the way, good luck finding this story in the mainstream press.

-  Things are getting hot for Global Warming theorist.  Professor Judith Curry who is a leading member of Professor Richard Muller’s Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) has accused Muller of suppressing the project’s research data which show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – this information was confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. Prof Curry, distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers, said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

In the news…

-  Liberals are desperate to keep the lie that Republicans are racist are looking to excuses to explain Herman Cain’s popularity within the Republican Party.  On Martin Bashir’s television program this afternoon, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said that Republicans are supporting Herman Cain because of his race: “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

-  Global warming is about to take another punch.  An October snowstorm is expected to reach Connecticut on Saturday and has the potential to drop historic amounts of snow across the state for the time of year.  By the time all is said and done, 5-to-10 inches is possible in interior Connecticut, 5-to-5 inches around New Haven, and 1-to-2 inches in southeastern Connecticut.

-  Ethics trouble for Attorney General Eric Holder may cost him his job.  At least eight members of Congress have now called on Holder to resign over the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  Records show that Holder lied in sworn testimony to Congress and may be interfering with the Congressional investigation in the scandal.

-  Obama can celebrate his victory in removing Moammar Gaddafi. So can Al-Qiada.  Across Libya Al-Qaida flags are popping up. At Benghazi’s courthouse, which played a prominent role in the Libyan revolution, residents are flying the late terrorist’s Osama bin Laden’s colors.

Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18.  Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.

The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”

It galvanized the environmental movement that led to the bear’s controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, and it is now protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.

“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.

“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May.  “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”

Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

“I think these sorts of things tend to mushroom, and the interpretation gets popularized,” Gleason said.  “Something very small turns into this big snowball coming down the mountain, and that’s, I think, what happened with this paper.”

Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.

Monnett now manages $50 million in studies as part of his duties as a wildlife biologist with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada’s University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office.

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general’s office.

Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which posted the interviews the inspector general’s office conducted with both scientists on its website.

PEER calls Monnett’s work “groundbreaking research,” and says the investigation is a political attempt to “impugn his observations on polar bears’ vulnerability to retreating sea ice.”

“With each interview, it becomes more outrageous that government funds are being spent on this crackpot probe while paying Dr. Monnett’s salary to sit at home,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER.

“This seven-page paper, which had undergone internal peer review, management review and outside peer review coordinated by journal editors, galvanized scientific and public appreciation for the profound effects that climate change may already be having in the Arctic,” PEER said in another statement in support of Monnett.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department has already declined to pursue any criminal prosecution in the probe, but the scientists still face possible administrative action for any wrongdoing, the inspector general said in the memo.

With investigators suggesting his research is collapsing, Monnett was defensive in the interview, and asked for the inspectors’ credentials to question his work or second-guess his calculations.

For example, there was some confusion as to whether it was three or four dead bears used in the calculation to determine the ratio of survival, and whether Monnett assumed that four swimming bears seen the week earlier were the same polar bears recorded as dead in the next survey.  The statistic in question was the percentage of bears likely to survive when swimming in a storm—Monnett estimated it to be around 25%, whereas investigators put the number at more than 57%.

“Is there a potential we made a mistake, and the peer reviewers didn’t catch it?  Possibly,” Gleason said.

If the scientists had reported the 57% figure, investigator May said, “how people were taking this and exaggerating the results, probably may not have happened in terms of the world taking your study as attributing [the drownings to] global warming.”

After nearly two hours of Monnett defending his work to investigators, Ruch from PEER asked the officials to explain what allegations are being made against Monnett.

May said they are examining the “wrong numbers,” “miscalculations” and “scientific misconduct.”

“Well, that’s not scientific misconduct anyway,” Monnett said.  “If anything, it’s sloppy.”

“I mean, that’s not—I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to change it,” Monnett said.

“I sure don’t see any indication of that in what you’re asking me about,” Monnett said.

The actual survey Monnett was conducting when he observed the dead bears in 2004 was the migration of bowhead whales.  Investigators questioned how he later obtained data for a table listing live and dead polar bear sightings from 1987 to 2004.

“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.

“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.

Asked whether he had any documentation to back that up, Monnett said that he did not.

“Science is about making the best case you can to test your hypothesis,” Monnett said.  “You assemble your arguments and your data, you put it out there, and you see who’s going to knock it down.”

“And surprisingly, nobody, you know, knocked this down in any way.  Everybody was just kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah, four dead polar bears.  Okay, that’s kind of cool,’ ” Monnett said.

Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science International, Inc., reviewed Monnett’s paper as well as the inspector general’s interviews for HUMAN EVENTS and said that the authors made unwarranted assumptions and large extrapolations based on a single event.

“They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned, they assumed that they had drowned.  There were no statistical tests, just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error,” Ramey said.

“The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar bears, when it was not,” Ramey said.

“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said.  “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent.  If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

“I think it’s very illustrative of the problems with government research on endangered species, and raises the question as to whether government should be in the business of science,” Ramey said.

Numerous studies contributed to the bear’s listing as a protected species, including the paper on polar bear drowning, which was cited in the Federal Register’s proposed rule.

In making the announcement May 14, 2008, to protect the bear under the Endangered Species Act, the Interior Department said the listing “is based on the best available science, which shows the loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.”

The Interior Department said it would modify regulatory language “to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.”

As part of the Endangered Species Act listing, the department said work would continue with scientists to monitor polar bear populations and trends, as well as the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.

“Power, money, authority and recognition come with listings on the endangered species list,” Ramey said.

Investigators conducted a second interview with Monnett on Tuesday.  PEER said in a statement afterward that his “2006 peer-reviewed journal article on drowned polar bears remains the focus of the inquiry.”

Myron Ebell​, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the government is expected to “spend trillions of dollars to save the world from global warming on the basis of what a few scientists say.”

“There needs to be due diligence, and we need to challenge and investigate every single claim.  The public expects that,” Ebell said.  “But we find over and over that shoddy science has been put forward, and in some cases, dishonest and manipulated science, and they say, ‘Trust us,’ ” Ebell said.

“It’s extremely irresponsible.”

Courtesy:  Human Events

__________

With new data collected from a NASA‘s Terra satellite, the previous model may be proven as a hoax. Hypothesis based on the satellite’s findings show that planet Earth actually releases heat into space, more than it retains it. The higher efficiency of releasing energy outside of Earth contradicts former forecasts of climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA‘s Aqua satellite, studied a decade worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show…There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” said Dr. Spencer.

By cross examining data with other Climate Change models, he concluded that carbon dioxide is just a minor part in global warming. His studies have garnered media attention and that the data are going against the beliefs of global warming alarmists by disproving their theory.

Contributed: IBT

___________

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Courtesy: Yahoo News

________

Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.

Whatever the outcome, the investigation comes at a time when climate change activists and those who are skeptical about global warming are battling over the credibility of scientists’ work.

Members of both sides, however, said that it was too early to make any pronouncements about the case, particularly since the agency has not yet released the details of the allegations against him.

Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the case reinforces the group’s position that people should be more skeptical about the work of climate change scientists.

Even if every scientist is objective, “what we’re being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of” climate change claims, he said.

Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she’s not alarmed by the handling of the case so far.

Grifo said the allegations made in the complaint filed by Ruch’s group are premature and said people should wait to see what, if anything, comes of the inspector general’s investigation.

Beyond the climate change debate, the investigation also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe.

The group’s filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.

BOEMRE, which oversees leasing and development of offshore drilling, was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling.

The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests. A congressional report last year found MMS Alaska was vulnerable to lawsuits and allegations of scientific misconduct.

The agency announced steps to improve.

On July 18, BOEMRE told the longtime Anchorage-based Monnett that he was being put on leave, pending the investigation, according to the complaint. BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.

Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.

His wife, Lisa Rotterman, a fellow scientist who worked with Monnett for years, including at BOEMRE’s predecessor agency, said the case did not come out of the blue.

Rotterman said Monnett had come under fire in the past within the agency for speaking the truth about what the science showed. She said the 2006 article wasn’t framed in the context of climate change but was relevant to the topic.

She feared what happened to Monnett would send a “chilling message” at the agency just as important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.

“I don’t believe the timing is coincidental,” she said.

Rotterman said Monnett’s work included identifying questions that needed to be answered to inform the environmental analyses the agency must conduct before issuing drilling permits.

“This is a time when sowing doubt in the public’s mind about whether those findings can be trusted or not, that makes people think, I don’t know what to believe,” she said.

Monnett coordinated much of BOEMRE’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint.

Schwartz, based in Washington, D.C., said other agency scientists would manage the studies in his absence.

According to documents provided by Ruch’s group, which sat in on investigators’ interviews with Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that he and researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.

At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. There were other witnesses, according to Ruch, and low-resolution photos show floating white blobs.

Monnett and Gleason detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology. In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances.

Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore mentioned the animal in his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

The complaint said agency officials harassed Gleason and Monnett, and that they received negative comments after the journal article. Gleason took another Interior Department job; he didn’t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

In May 2008, the bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, provided by Ruch’s group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: “well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations.”

Monnett said that alleging scientific misconduct “suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don’t see any indication of that in what you’re asking me about.”

Courtesy: AP

______

1.  While Egypt burns, Obama realizes that being a community organizer sure didn’t prepare him for this.  Like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s lack of leadership and inability to recognize the impact of what is happening will risk that Egypt will go the way of Iran.

2.  Another federal judge has ruled that the ObamaCare law is… well, unconstitutional.  No surprise there.  What did come as a surprise… or should I say “comedy” was the Obama response to the ruling.  They dared to call the court an “activist court”.

3.  The man who predicted that we would be without snow by 2020 now says that all this snow and cold weather is a result of global warming.  It’s so hard to believe anything Al Gore says anymore.

4.  The New York City Council has taken another step toward complete rule of your life.  First came the banning of trans fats, then came the ban of certain sugars, then the threat to regulate sodium, and now… the city council has banned smoking outdoors- no longer can a smoker light up at the beach or park.  I wonder if it’s still legal to have a cook out.

5.  Democrats have achieved what we thought would be the impossible- 43 million Americans are now dependent on foodstamps.  Let’s remember, liberals weigh success by the number of people who they can enroll in government assistance and not by the number they can help to get off.

_______________

-Reports by AccuWeather claim that January will be the coldest in 25 years- This should be a moment of celebration for global warming activist Al Gore.  No doubt he will emerge from hiding to claim credit putting a halt to Earth warming and stopping an eco-disaster.

-Preliminary Census figures claim that 1 of 6 Americans are living in poverty.  That’s over 50 million Americans and a majority of those are 65 and older.

-Blue Cross & Blue Shield of California has said that they are increasing health-care premiums from 35-50% citing the health-care Bill.

-New numbers from Gallup show that just 31 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats in 2010 — a five-point decrease from a year ago and the lowest percentage measured by the polling firm in 22 years.

-Moderate Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012 fear getting swept out of office just like their colleagues did last year, Politico reports. Senate Democrats are now wanting to shift to the right. “I’m already running into it,” Reid’s top deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Politico in late December. “People say, ‘I’m up in two years.’ And I understand it. It’s part of being a senator and a candidate yourself.”

-Liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne is calling for the media to hold the newly-sworn in Republican House majority accountable for their “expansive rhetoric” as well as “how their ideas translate into policies that affect actual human beings.”- Seriously? She wants to be a journalist now after a 2 year hiatus? Perhaps, E.J. can take the lead by holding Obama accountable for his “expansive rhetoric”. She’ll first have to pull her lips away from his ass.

_________________