Friday, February 16, 2007

Hillary Buys Black People

Senator Hillary Clinton told a majority Black church audience in Harlem back in January 2006

When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I'm talking about...
During a CNN AMERICAN MORNING interview that aired in November 2004, Clinton again used the plantation analogy:

Well, I mean, what can I say? It's just so typical. I mean they're running the House of Representatives like a fiefdom with Tom DeLay as, you know, in charge of the plantation.
For $210,000, Hillary has purchased the black members of the Bible Way Church of Columbia, South Carolina; well at least their votes. Senator Darrell Jackson is the pastor of the BWCC and he sold out to the highest bidder. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, also tried to buy the black vote, but lost out to the rich white lady. Besides, black people can't buy other black people; only only wealthy white folk, like Hillary or Madonna, can buy black people.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Climate Models Seem to be Wrong

In yet another repuke to the Fried Earth scare mongers, Dr. David Bromwich ( a real meteorlogical scientist) has revealed in a new report, the temps in Antactica have not increased as the scare models had predicted. "The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica." His team, the Polar Meterolgical Group, found the temperature of Antactica has been similar to what was measured over the past 50 years with or without snowfall. In fact, over the past 10 years, both snowfall and temperatures have declined contrary to climate modelling.

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.

"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.

"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."

Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."

That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Doc Bromwich seems to be right when he says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." Yeah, especially when all the global cooling is going on. Someone had better tell Mother Nature to get with the program; she's making Al Gore look bad.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Indigo Family Just Got Larger

Much sooner than expected, the large Indigo family has grown. In the past few days we have welcomed into our lives two brand new little people.

From far away Wisconsin, February 10, some nine days early, my niece Erin and her husband, Marcus, were blessed with a baby boy.

Much nearer to home,on February 12 in Sacramento, a precious little girl was delivered to my niece Piper and her husband, Jeremy. Not to be outdone by her slightly older cousin, our newest bundle of joy debuted nineteen days early.

And we are not yet finished. Another little baby is expected in late summer to join his or her big brother in Atlanta.

Amidst the horror, turmoil, destruction, and stupidity that normally is written about in these editorials, sometimes small, but bright rays of pure and joyous light shine through. And for a time, an ever so brief time, the world is very far away and all is right in the universe.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Muqtada al-Sadr Flees Iraq: Fears US and JDAM

Feb. 13, 2007 — The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

Though he is gone for now, many think al Sadr is not gone for good. In Tehran he is trying to keep the Madhi militia together.

In recent months al Sadr has come to the political table to force change rather than using military force to have an impact. Sources say an even more extreme faction within his militia isn't pleased with this turn of events, and is trying to force the cleric to respond to recent Sunni attacks with more violence.

U.S. officials say they are going to watch those member of the Mahdi army left behind in Baghdad. Sources say two scenarios are possible: Either al Sadr will be driven further into extremist mode or he will continue going forward with the political process.

Or, did he flee under threat of THIS --

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Al Gore Not a Sane Man says Czech Prez

The President of the Czech Republic has said that Al Gore is not a sane person for proclaiming global warming is a manmade phenomanon. All the hype surrounding the issue is meant as a provocation.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr. Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.

That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]


The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

UN Hubris v. The Universe: Only mankind changes climate, universe too puny

Global Warming is caused by mankind. That is the political conclusion of the United Nations politians even before the evidence for that conclusion has been presented which is scheduled for release next month. The Communications Director with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says the science report is false.

Marc Morano, speaking with John Gibson on Fox News, said:

The first thing you have to realize is that what the U.N. came out with is not a scientific document, it is a political document approved by U.N. political delegates. The media has been reporting around the world that thousands of scientists have gotten together and this is their report. That is not the case…

This is not thousands of scientists speaking, this is hundreds of U.N. bureaucrats and delegates speaking…

The New York Times last year in April said that few scientists agree that any recent weather events including Katrina, drought, floods, are due to man-made global warming. There's nothing they can point to that's outside natural variability.
Gibson asked about Jacques Chirac of France and the European Union that the EU would heavily tax American exports to Europe if the US doesn’t kowtow to the Kyoto Protocol which dictates limits on the emission of greenhouse gases.

Morano responded:

It's the same Jacques Chirac who called Kyoto the first step to authentic global governance in 2000. That gives you an idea of the agenda behind it and Jacques Chirac is threatening the U.S.

The odd thing about it is, 13 of the 15 EU nations aren't meeting the requirements of Kyoto and the EU nations’ emissions are rising twice as fast as the U.S. The U.S. is actually doing better even though we haven't ratified Kyoto. But they're trying to make the U.S. out to be the evil boogieman in the world.
Many scientists believe the culprit responsible for glolbal warming and cooling to be Sol, the sun. Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv the National Post of Canada

Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming.
Dr. Shaviv further says so much evidence has been gathered over the past decade it is unlikely a solar/climate relationship does not exist. In his studies of meteorites, peer reviewed in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters, he discovered some Earth hitting meteorites had received as much as 10 percent more cosmic ray damage than others. He believes that's enough cosmic ray variation that could change global temperatures by up to 15 percent which is enough to begin or end an ice age or long periods of drought.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.