http://news.yahoo.com/…/canada_arctic_ice_shelf_5

This is counter to current pop-intelligence. In a scientific Paper, Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley explains that the sun is the most likely cause of our measurable warming.  “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”

Furthermore his data shows a drop in mean global surface temperature anomalies of 0.8 degrees Celsius which “has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20^th century”. 

The big difference is a measure of climate sensitivity.  The debate is about how much a certain mass of greenhouse gasses will change the Earth’s temperature.  Monckton believes that the IPCC has grossly overstated this part of the equation.  His numbers suggest that more CO2 will have little effect on climate change.

Here is a chart showing the history of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures going back nearly 550 million years.  It shows that we are in a much cooler period than the Earth has spent most of its history in and that atmospheric CO2 has has little correlation with world temperature.

Full article:

http://www.dailytech.com/…/article12403.htm

The article goes on to say the Bush administration, known for its brain power and sound science, “has worked to discourage…a link between public health and climate change”. 

The article finally ends by saying “While no one doubts that more people die in a heat wave, the question is whether that death is ‘related to man made greenhouse gas emissions’“.  I would have also liked the question “Is the world heating up?” to be asked.

Link to article:

 http://news.yahoo.com/…/bush_global_warming_1

Full text:

WASHINGTON - Government scientists detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, wildfires, disease and smog caused by global warming in an analysis the White House buried so it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases.

In a 149-page document released Monday, the experts laid out for the first time the scientific case for the grave risks that global warming poses to people, and to the food, energy and water on which society depends.

“Risk (to human health, society and the environment) increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change,” scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency said. Global warming, they wrote, is “unequivocal” and humans are to blame.

The document suggests that extreme weather events and diseases carried by ticks and other organisms could kill more people as temperatures rise.

Allergies could worsen because climate change could produce more pollen. Smog, a leading cause of respiratory illness and lung disease, could become more severe in many parts of the country. At the same time, global warming could mean fewer illnesses and deaths due to cold.

“This document inescapably, unmistakably shows that global warming pollution not only threatens human health and welfare, but it is adversely impacting human health and welfare today,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. “What this document demonstrates is that the imperative for action is now.”

While the science pointed to a link between public health and climate change, the Bush administration has worked to discourage such a connection. To acknowledge one would compel the government to regulate greenhouse gases.

The administration on Friday dismissed the scientists’ findings when it made clear that the Clean Air Act was the wrong tool to control global warming pollution. Instead, the administration asked for public comment on a range of ways to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, airplanes, trains and smokestacks under the 1970 law.

A better solution, the EPA said, would have Congress writing a law aimed just at global warming.

Jonathan Shradar, a spokesman for EPA chief Stephen Johnson, said that while the administrator knows that “the science is clear and that climate change is a significant issue”, Johnson did not want to make a “rash decision under the wrong law.”

“Once there is an endangerment finding, then the Clean Air Act is activated and regulation may begin,” Shradar said.

In December, the White House refused to open an e-mail from the EPA that included the finding that climate change endangered public welfare. The determination was based on an earlier, and similar version of the document released Monday. At the time, the White House insisted on removing all references to the science, according to Jason K. Burnett, a former adviser to Johnson on climate issues.

Burnett, a Democrat, has charged that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office deleted portions of congressional testimony last October prepared by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that made similar assertions on the health effects of global warming. The White House contends the testimony was changed because of doubts about the science.

After the release of the EPA analysis, industry representatives suggested the link between climate change and health was weak.

“The question is not a scientific one. It is a legal and political question, of how much impact justifies the extraordinary use of the Clean Air Act,” said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies.

While no one doubts that more people die in a heat wave, the question is whether that death is “related to manmade greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

This set the stage for allowing residents of DC to own handguns.  Unfortunately, DC believes they are above the law.  Dick Heller, one of the first to try to register his handgun, was denied yet again.  This time it was because his semi-automatic handgun is classified as a machine gun.

DC Law Statute 7.2501.1 defines a machine gun as:

Although, Heller’s gun had a 7shot clip, it could readily accept a larger clip and thus would be a machine gun under this definition (B). 

Furthermore, DC has creates a new set of firearms provisions which effectively make it impossible to own anything except a revolver and to keep it in such as way that it would be useless in an emergency.  The new law can be found here:

Firearms Control Act of 1975 Amendments

And here is how the police are to handle the new regulations:

New Police Regulations

Full articles can be found here:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=74036&catid=158

and here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/14/national/a142106D15.DTL&hw=gun&sn=009&sc=660

Of course John McCain has pointed out that Obama has only been to Iraq one time in 2006 and is making judgements on the war without having seen recent progress. I would point out that neither one of them has put on a helmet and carried an M16 on a “routine” patrol in an insurgent town in Iraq recently either.

Obama supports a 16 month troop withdrawal from Iraq, but at the same time “[Obama] has proposed adding two U.S. combat brigades, about 9,000 troops, to the 36,000 troops already in Afghanistan and said this would be made possible by a draw down of troops from Iraq” So he just wants to substitute one unwinnable war for another.

Later he criticizes Bush, saying he “had offered a “blank check” to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in the form of U.S. military aid.” Then right below that, it says “Obama called for tripling non-military aid to Pakistan and said he would co-sponsor a bill to do so.” That’s like three blank checks Mr. Obama.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Tuesday a “single-minded” focus on Iraq was distracting the United States from other threats and he renewed his vow to end the war.

“This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century,” Obama said in excerpts of a speech to be delivered later on Tuesday.

“By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe,” he said.

Obama, who has been accused by his Republican rival John McCain of shifting positions on Iraq, is seeking to lay out his views on the war ahead of a planned trip to Afghanistan and Iraq soon.

Dates of the trip have not been disclosed for security reasons.

The Democratic candidate’s critics have suggested he was wavering on the 16-month timetable he laid out for the withdrawal of U.S. troops because of his recent comment that he might “refine” his policies on Iraq based on consultations with military commanders.

But Obama has emphasized that while he is open to tactical adjustments, the 16-month timetable for withdrawal remains his goal.

“This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize,” the speech excerpts said. “Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them.”

The future of Iraq promises to be a central issue in the November election battle for the White House between McCain, an Arizona senator, and Obama, an Illinois senator.

SECOND TRIP TO IRAQ

McCain criticized Obama for delivering a speech on Iraq before traveling there.

Obama’s visit to Iraq, where he has only been once, in 2006, and Afghanistan follows repeated criticism from McCain that he should visit the area and talk to commanders.

“Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan,” McCain said in written excerpts of comments he will deliver later on Tuesday in New Mexico.

“And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left,” McCain said.

“In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy,” he added.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Monday found Americans evenly divided on the candidates’ positions on Iraq with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama.

The poll showed the public is also evenly divided on whether Obama could serve effectively as commander in chief with 48 percent saying he would be an effective leader of the military and 48 percent saying he would not.

Obama has highlighted the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan as a threat that has been harder for the United States to tackle because of the distraction of the Iraq war.

He has proposed adding two U.S. combat brigades, about 9,000 troops, to the 36,000 troops already in Afghanistan and said this would be made possible by a drawdown of troops from Iraq.

“I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq,” Obama said in the speech. “As president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be.”

He also called for changes to U.S. policy toward Pakistan, saying that President George W. Bush had offered a “blank check” to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in the form of U.S. military aid.

Many Taliban and al Qaeda militants are believed to be hiding in Pakistan along the rugged border area near Afghanistan.

Obama called for tripling non-military aid to Pakistan and said he would co-sponsor a bill to do so.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Eric Beech)

(For more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters “Tales from the Trail: 2008″ online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

http://news.yahoo.com/…/usa_politics_obama_iraq_dc_4

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_hi_te/internet_regulation_17

The biggest problem is in any sort of limit or tiered service when it come to the Internet.  The Internet is now as ubiquitous as any other form of communication including television, newspaper and radio.  Furthermore, the Internet allows people to connect, share and entertain.  By putting limits on the way people use the internet, we limit the way people can express themselves. 

The Internet service provider is becoming one of the most relied upon services.  When Comcast filters “peer-to-peer” data, they are effectively censoring certain types of communication.  While Comcast may stop this practice, it will not stop them from introducing new limiting technologies like data limits, domain limits, or speed limits. 

Cox Communications uses a speed limiting technology to offer a tiered service:

	Premier Tier Speeds up to 20 Mbps download with PowerBoost™ and 2 Mbps upload.		$59.95/month
	Preferred Tier Speeds up to 12 Mbps download with PowerBoost™ and 1 Mbps upload.		$44.95/month
	Value Tier Speeds up to 1.5 Mbps download and 256 Kbps upload.		$29.95/month

This tiered service is just a new way to charge for the current technology.  As the Internet matures, higher-bandwidth applications come on line like UTube and online gaming.  It is my understanding of the technology that they are not so much speeding anybody up, but rather governing the lower tiers to their slower speed.  What is the difference in cost for Cox to offer the “Value Tier” versus the “Premier Tier”?  I would venture it’s not much.

What the media is missing is that the cable internet service providers hold a monopoly and are are looking at new ways of squeezing money out of the consumer for a necessary commodity.

See the video:

http://therealnews.com/id/1702/June 22, 2008/Afghanistan%3A+Lost+in+translation

“Transcript

VOICEOVER: This is what happens in a rocket attack. We’re all in the command center. Charlie Company has been hit by nearly 200 Taliban rockets over the past 12 months.

SOLDIER: You got a problem with that.

SOLDIER: Once we are in the zone we will cover all three grids.

SOLDIER: Gunline! Cancel. Do not load.

VOICEOVER: The Americans are hitting back.

SOLDIER: Platoon! Cancel. Do not load.

VOICEOVER: This is where they think those rockets are coming from. This is ["MANG-grow-tay"], a small Afghan frontier village just a couple of miles from Pakistan. Taliban fighters sneak across the border and launch their attacks from here. The Americans are edgy as they approach—they’ve been ambushed here in the past. And the people who live here, they’re powerless and terrified, caught between America and her enemies. That’s why they’ve disappeared.

SGT. ADAMS: This is like every other town. Everybody disappeared.

VOICEOVER: The soldiers ask to speak to the village elders, but everything gets lost in translation.

SGT. ADAMS: They’re in their house? Where?

TRANSLATOR: Yeah, they’re—.

SGT. ADAMS: Where?

TRANSLATOR: In the house.

SGT. ADAMS: They’re sick? Is that what he said? What did you say?

TRANSLATOR: No, no. They are not sick. They are in the house.

SGT. ADAMS: Okay. Ask him to go get them. We want to talk to him.

VOICEOVER: As quickly as he appeared, the man is gone. He never returns. Sergeant Adams is desperate to speak to someone. Anyone.

SGT. ADAMS: So that guy, when he told me to get the elders, walked that way, and that kid walked that way. What’s the kid doing? He’s full of shit, that’s what it is. Pretty much just out of respect for the Muslim faith, we’re not supposed to go into mosques, unless they’re shooting from us—at us from. Then we’d go in. I don’t care how many come. I just want one that’s got some sense about him. Ah! That’s him. Yeah.

VOICEOVER: Finally, an elder appears in the distance.

SGT. ADAMS: That guy with the red beard, that’s him. Alright. Come over here. Sit down. Relax.

VOICEOVER: Again, everything here hinges on the translation, the subtleties of Pashtun English.

TRANSLATOR (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION): Come over here and sit with us on this log.

SGT. ADAMS: Yeah. Take a load off.

VOICEOVER: The translators have become unexpected power-brokers in all this, but sometimes they just don’t translate everything they hear.

SGT. ADAMS: Tell him: how has things been here?

VILLAGE ELDER (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION): I can only speak Pashto.

TRANSLATOR (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION): That is ok. How is the security here?

VILLAGE ELDER: There is no security.

TRANSLATOR (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION: No - what I mean is how’s the security situation here?

VILLAGE ELDER: I just told you! There is no security here. We’ve yet to see any security around here.

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): We are fine. They have no problems here.

VOICEOVER: Is it any wonder that the Americans feel battled in these situations and the ordinary Afghans feel ignored?

VILLAGE ELDER: I agree with you on the cooperation; the Taliban are over there - not far away. I would like to tell them a story. In our country, we grow wheat and we have ants. There is no way we can stop the little ants from stealing the wheat. There are so many little ants it is almost impossible to stop them. I’ve told this story to help the Americans understand the situation in Afghanistan. Yes, the Americans built this road and they would do more to help us if we cooperate with them. Of course we know that! And we would like to cooperate with them. It’s just that we can’t!

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): Okay. He’s giving many examples. The main point is that, he said, if you want to get every ACMs [anti-coalition militia], they are behind this road—pardon me, sir, behind this mountain.

VOICEOVER: Adams wants to know when the village elder last saw the Taliban. He doesn’t receive the answer he’s looking for.

SGT. ADAMS: When was the last time they saw them?

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): I ask him. He says one year ago.

SGT. ADAMS: One, year? Oh, for fuck’s sake. Are you kidding me? Hey, hey, tell him he’s full of shit, first of all. One week ago, we took four rockets from a hilltop 800 meters from here. They didn’t see that? Didn’t hear it?

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): One week ago, sir?

SGT. ADAMS: Yeah. It was a week ago, right? What’d he say? What’d he say?

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): They are afraid. Two months ago they [the Taliban] came to our village and took all the young guys and started beating them.

SGT. ADAMS: Ask him if he’s got any guns here. I don’t want to take them; I just want to know why he didn’t shoot them in the fucking face.

~~~

SGT. ADAMS: Like shit. It’s the same thing again. You know, they’re afraid of the ACM, and no matter how many times you tell them or how you tell them, they don’t seem to want to understand that till they put their—. I mean, they’re allowed to have an AK per household. If they put an AK in dude’s face and shot him, knowing he’s a bad guy,[inaudible] an ACM, whatever you want to call it, they will stop coming here. And he won’t understand that. So they basically support the ACM by not supporting anyone.

~~~

SGT. ADAMS: What’s he saying?

TRANSLATOR (ENGLISH): I hate these people, sir! When I ask him something else, they give me wrong answer.

SGT. ADAMS: I fucking hate this town.

~~~

TEXT ON SCREEN: One week later

SOLDIER: The rocket hit the wire. Is it still standing?

SOLDIER: Oh, we just took two rockets that came up from the eastern ridge towards the Pak border.

SGT. ADAMS: About no more than—what? Eight hundred meters away from ["MANG-grow-tay"], the village we were at with the big, fat, red-haired, bearded guy? The guy’s full of shit. I feel like basically cleaning the town out. I don’t know.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10251/