The Democrats’ efforts to preserve our Internet freedom through net neutrality legislation needs more help, according to U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who held a press conference today in order to recruit more sponsors for his net neutrality bill and petition more citizens to make their views known on the topic. But after listening to Markey and the other folks on the call, I think that now, more than ever, Congress needs to stay out of legislating net neutrality.

The trouble with highly technical issues like network neutrality is that they’re complicated, and Congress isn’t an ideal place to solve complicated — and constantly evolving — issues (unless we let the telco lobbyists write the legislation). Net neutrality isn’t a political issue, it’s an economic one. The key is ensuring that telecommunications firms don’t discriminate against certain kinds of traffic, especially traffic coming over the Internet that might compete with products the ISPs already offer, as well as that folks trying to offer a web-based service don’t have to pay a toll to offer it to consumers. The benefits of such openness accrue to consumers as well as to companies trying to build businesses on the Internet.

Given how complicated it is to manage a network, and to figure out how to deliver all of the packets flowing over the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission is a far better organization to address this issue. Through the notice of proposed rulemaking issued last week, the FCC is putting in place a multimonth process that will seek input from engineers, the aforementioned telco lobbyists, consumers and even the civil rights groups. That conversation will be far more nuanced and subject to less grandstanding than the debate in Congress. For a good example of those nuances, check out our new GigaOM Pro piece (subscription required) on net neutrality, which both acknowledges that traffic discrimination will have to take place, and debates how that should work.

Hey Bonner & Associates- here’s what astroturf looks like!

Today’s Congressional hearing shone light on the fraudulent letters sent to three congressmen on behalf of Bonner & Associates just days before the vote on the House energy bill (ACES) this past summer.  In short, we investigated astroturfing. The unfortunate tactics employed by the opponents of clean energy to blatantly co-opt and misrepresent members of already marginalized communities- the NAACP, seniors, and women, amongst others – and undermined genuine grassroots efforts.

In the same way that big tobacco once masqueraded the toxicity of cigarettes, Bonner & Associates led elected officials to believe that the groups most effected by the unjust realities of climate change and dirty energy were against passing provisions in the House to stop climate change and create clean energy jobs.

While politics have never been pretty, there are certain lines you just don’t cross. Until today.

Three action factory fellows showed what today was really about: the coal lobby and their astroturf operation.  The few supporters of Bonner and Coal were sitting just to our right, undoubtedly sweating as Jack Bonner and Steve Miller (President of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) were tirelessly grilled by Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Jay Inslee.

We couldn’t help but smile every time Rep. Inslee interrupted Jack Bonner, requesting for the umpteenth time that he simply answer the question about whether he told his employees to lie. Steve Miller was similarly full of hot air as he stumbled between “ums” and “uhs”, attempting to dig himself, and the coalition he represents, out of a significantly deep pit of lies.

Watch Jack Bonner lying under oath here and read more on Mother Jones:

It was suggested to Mr. Miller that in retribution for his company’s deceitful actions (and equally as harmful inaction) that he make an office visit to Senator Inhofe-a climate legislation obstructionist-lobbying for progressive climate legislation in the Senate. Or perhaps run a full page advertisement in a political publication supporting energy independence instead of clean coal technologies that don’t even exist. Hilarity ensued as both Bonner and Miller were left speechless by these suggestions, and the coal lobbyists to our right looked nervously at their feet.

While the legal penance of the Bonner & Associates “hoax” has yet to be determined, the action factory fellows visibly exposed the astroturf efforts of these companies, complete with signs reading “Coal Lobby Poisons Democracy”.

Until we can actually keep CO2 safely sequestered, we should keep the same big coal lobbying efforts locked away – and nonexistent.

In the same week that the Prime Minister and Alberta government officials announced billions of dollars in carbon capture and storage investments, a former advisor to President Barack Obama told an Ontario audience that Canada has fallen behind the United States in its push toward green technology, and would benefit from increasing its support for the sector.

“We probably, to some extent, are in similar circumstances — with Canada having done more during the period of 2001 to 2008, and I think the United States now is taking the lead,” John Podesta, president of Center for American Progress and co-chair of Obama’s transition team, told reporters after a speech at a clean tech conference hosted by Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a not-for-profit foundation that was established by the Government of Canada in 2001.

“The Canadians would be well served by keeping up with what’s going on in the United States with respect to this push towards clean technology,” said Podesta.

Meanwhile, the federal and Alberta government officials announced a $1.6 billion investment in two carbon capture and storage projects in Alberta, with industry partners Shell and TransAlta.

The Center for American Progress is on record as supporting carbon capture and storage, and in particular its inclusion in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the so-called Waxman-Markey bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, but will not become law until a similar bill is passed by the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Senate environment and public works committee will start hearings tomorrow on a climate change bill proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry.

The FCC finally moved the network neutrality debate forward Thursday, voting to begin developing open Internet regulations. The topic has become quite interesting over the past week, as strong-willed proponents and opponents of net neutrality turn up campaigns to influence law makers prior to voting on any net neutrality principles that may become law.

The debate is actually quite simple – should the government regulate, or not regulate the Internet? That discussion revolves around the six principles of network neutrality proposed by the FCC:

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

• would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
  
• would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
  
• would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
  
• would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
  
• would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
  
• would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The Pro Argument of Network Neutrality

Oddly, former adversaries Google and Verizon issued a joint statement regarding their position on net neutrality. Both companies have significantly changed their positions since the debate originally hit the headlines in 2005, with a highlight of the joint statement:

“For starters we both think it’s essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform — where people can access any content (so long as it’s legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.
Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector. But the Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripes can decide which services they want to use and the companies they trust to provide them…

…This kind of “innovation without permission” has changed the way we do business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most of these changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of economic growth and job creation.”

This oddly puts Verizon in opposition to the other main anti-net neutrality supporters such as AT&T, Cox Communications, and Comcast.

Certainly companies like Google have come a very long way from 2005 when the debate was clearly one of who pays whom, for what kind of service, and who has the right to determine the quality of services over basic Internet infrastructure. In the early days content providers wanted a level of government regulation to ensure the Internet transmission and network providers did not have control over the end user experience, and objected to statements by AT&T’s then CEO Ed Whitacre who stated in an interview with Business Week:

“How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

This set off both a furor among Internet users, as well as a new movement to ensure the “telcos” did not ever again have an opportunity to restrict or limit free access to their networks. Arguments ranged from identifying the US taxpayer and AT&T customers paying for basic infrastructure our of Universal Services Fund/USF (meaning the US taxpayer is actually the owner of much of AT&T’s USF-funded infrastructure), to AT&T subscribers being forced to use AT&T preferred content providers based on their control of the network.

There are many organizations representing both users and Internet industry companies supporting the idea of network neutrality. The current law in the house is sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) who introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) in July 2009.

The Con Argument

Not surprisingly, the Con argument is dominated by conservatives in both the government and corporate communities.

John McCain (who is also accused by the Huffington Post as having received more than $800,000 in campaign funding by AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast) rejected the FCC’s vote, and offered a new proposal called the “Internet Freedom Act.”

“Today I’m pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” McCain said in a statement. “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.” (CNN)

The only thing missing in the above cliché-filled statement is a series of pictures of crying babies, unemployment lines, and California wildfires. The bottom line here is that politicians, bending to pressure or contributions from opposition parties, will use any words available to tug at either emotions or heart strings, regardless of the presence of factual data to support the position.

AT&T allegedly sent notice to all their employees, including union members and families, to write their representatives in favor of knocking down network neutrality. Perhaps that is a natural activity in the political process, however bandwagon appeals without supporting fact will not give the American people the broadband environment needed to compete in the global market placed.

Let’s look at both arguments in detail. Do a Google, Bing, Yahoo, or other web search on the topic of Net/Network Neutrality. You will find a lot of web references, news stories, blogs, and opinions on the topic. Much of it anarchistic noise, much of it very valuable information.

Hunter Newby, CEO of Allied Fiber, asks the question “What if the United States falls further behind Europe in deployment of broadband networks? What if we lose track of the need to wire each and every community? What if the United States falls so far behind Europe and the rest of the world due to politics preventing innovation that we can never economically recover?”

There are those who still believe the carriers, such as Verizon, AT&T, broadband wireless providers (such as Clearwire), and the cable companies should concentrate their efforts on delivering connectivity to each and every addressable community in the United States. Facility-based carriers (those who own the physical cable) should concentrate on providing bundles of “big, fat, dumb, communications pipes.”

Comments on Net Neutrality are Now Open with the FCC

The great thing about the US system is that no national law is ever a unilateral decision. We have a wonderful system of due-diligence through the congress and senate, with support from the executive and judicial branches of government.

The Federal Communications Commission under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski has opened discussion and the period of comment on the FCC guidelines. The period for comments is open until 14 Jan 2010. Some links for those interested in the topic include:

FCC Seeks Public Input on Draft Rules to Preserve the Free and Open Internet
NPRM: Word | Acrobat
News Release: Word | Acrobat
Genachowski Statement: Word | Acrobat
Copps Statement: Word | Acrobat
McDowell Statement: Word | Acrobat
Clyburn Statement: Word | Acrobat
Baker Statement: Word | Acrobat
Staff Presentation: Acrobat

The question arises, “what if we, as Americans interested in the future of the Internet, American innovation, the American economy, and our future generations actually took the time to read through the issue of Network Neutrality? What if we used our research as a basis for making our own decision on which side of the debate we fall, or if there is yet another strong argument to consider?”

It is a difficult topic, with a lot of noise and clouds shrouding the core issues. Weigh-in, let us know your opinion.

John Savageau, Long Beach

The consequences of global warming in the United States will be significant even in the case of deep reductions in future heat-trapping emissions. The current and anticipated impacts — including sea level rise, more frequent heat waves, regional drought and flooding, and more intense tropical storms — pose a serious threat to our health, environment, economic well-being, and national security.

While Congress works to curb carbon pollution to avoid the worst effects of global warming, America must look at adaptation measures that will protect communities from harm caused by global warming that is already set to occur.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D – Mass), is holding a hearing on October 22, 2009, entitled “Building U.S. Resilience to Global Warming Impacts.  Chairman Markey states in his published opening remarks that:

In a new report that I requested, the Government Accountability Office assesses the current steps our country is taking to address the impacts of global warming. They find that federal efforts thus far have been largely ad hoc. To effectively address the impacts, we need a strategic plan that sets our priorities, improves the information available to decision-makers, and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments.

With only four witnesses scheduled, John Stephenson, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office, Eric Schwaab, Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Stephen Seidel, V.P. for Policy Analysis & Gen. Counsel, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, the hearing has the potential to be dwarfed by the two days of hearings next week on the Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Bill over in the Senate.

The GAO is proposing that the U.S. government develop a “national strategic plan,” since it found that very little is being done, particularly at the federal level, in “adaptive” plans.

The plan should, among other things, (1) define federal priorities related to adaptation; (2) clarify roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among federal, state, and local governments; (3) identify mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current and potential climate change impacts into government decision making; (4) address how resources will be made available to implement the plan; and (5) build on and integrate ongoing federal planning efforts related to adaptation.

(Ed. Note: the GAO has now put on line an “e-supplement” to the Report that it issued at the Hearing this morning, which contains 101 pages of additional information supporting the Report’s findings).

Eric Schwaab, representing the State of Maryland, a state that is particularly effected by the impacts of Global Warming, stated that already

Maryland is currently losing approximately 580 acres per year to shore erosion; and alarmingly, thirteen, Chesapeake Bay islands once mapped on nautical charts have already disappeared beneath the water’s surface.

Mr. Schwaab, who correctly points out that the states are “at the front lines of planning for climate change,” ask for certain efforts to be made at the federal level to recognize the states’ efforts, provide for “intergovernmental coordination on adaptation,” and (of course) provide funding to states.

Stephen Seidel of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change offers four recommendations in developing a “federal adaptation program.”  One, each Federal agency should develop a climate change “strategic plan” for what it needs to do to build greater resilience to climate change into its programs and mission.  Two, Mr. Seidel suggests that the Federal government create a “National Climate Service” that would offer the “intergovernmental” support that Mr. Schwaab desired.  Three, Mr. Seidel recommends that any adaptation program have the appropriate structure within the Executive branch.  Finally, (and most importantly, since this is something that can be done relatively easily), the Federal government should mandate adaptation considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The final witness, Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute suggests three things to “build U.S. resilience to global warming impacts.  First, he recommends that the U.S. should shift its focus from mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions toward an adaptation agenda, since, as Mr. Green states, “we do not, at present, have the technologies needed to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions without causing massive economic disruption, and without preventing the developing countries from developing, and lifting their billions of people out of squalor and poverty.”  Second, Mr. Green suggests that the U.S. “remove the misguided incentives that lead people to live in climatically fragile areas such as the water’s edge, drought-prone locations, flood-prone locations, and so on.”  Finally, he points out that the U.S. must look at its infrastructure:  “another government action that leads people to live in harm’s way is the failure to build and price infrastructure so that it is both sustainable and resilient to change.”

With all of the hoopla about the Climate Change bill(s) and the potential failure of the world’s nation to reach any sort of agreement at Copenhagen, this seems to be an issue that should be rising up most people’s priority lists.  How are we going to adapt to the changes that have already occurred and to those that we have predicted to occur, but lack the technology or the political will stop?

I noticed this post up at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

Steve recently disproved the hockey stick graph which is the cornerstone of all global warming alarmism. The hockey stick graph is based on the “Yamal” data set. It conceals the well-known Medieval Warming Period and shows a sudden spike in temperatures in the last few decades. In his latest post, Steve compares the tiny cherry-picked “Yamal” data set to a larger “Polar Urals” data set from the same geographic area.

You can click through to his analysis, but I will just show you one graph to give you an idea of what he found.

Wow, notice how the cherry-picked Yamal data set (in black) makes the Medieval Warming Period disappear, and adds a hockey stick upturn at the end. And notice how the larger non-cherry-picked Polar Urals data set (in red) reveals the Medieval Warming Period and no hockey stick upturn. Here is a good summary of how things went wrong with the hockey stick graph.

4500 weather records set nationwide in cold start to fall season

In other news, Watts Up With That notes that over 4500 new snowfall, low temperature, and lowest maximum temperature records where set in the USA this week. (Click to see the map with all 4500 records)

Here’s the breakdown:

Source: Hamweather Climate Center and NOAA/NWS

How green jobs policies have failed in Spain and Germany

Obama is planning to do “green” our economy, based on evidence like the fake hockey stick graph, and in spite of the extremely low temperatures we had in the summer and the fall this year. But how well has green jobs programs worked in Germany?

Big Government features a post evaluating of “green jobs” programs in Spain and Germany.

Consider the results of the green jobs policies in Spain.

Excerpt:

Yet in Spain, the economy suffered when efforts to create green jobs destroyed nearly 110,000 jobs in other industries according to a study released last month from Spain’s King Juan Carlos University.  It suggests that the Democrats’ plan for economic renewal through ‘green collar’ jobs may hurt the economy far more than it helps. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, a professor of applied environmental economics, explains that Spanish citizens currently suffer from higher taxes, more public deficit and ever-increasing energy prices—all the result of the government’s efforts to create a green economy.

This report from the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung think tank explains what happened in Germany.

Excerpt:

German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.  To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

You can read more about Obama’s radically leftist science czar and radically leftist former green jobs czar to understand why Obama is doing this. He is surrounded by radical extremists.

By Elisa Wood

October 15, 2009

Waxman/Markey’s climate change bill is about 1,400 pages.  Its length and complexity, alone, provides fuel for its opponents.  Would it stand a better chance of enactment if it encompassed less?

For example, would it have been wiser if Congress pursued cap and trade one year and a renewable energy standard another? I’ve asked this question a lot during interviews the past few weeks, and received a range of responses. But what I found most enlightening, at least from an energy efficiency perspective, was a webinar offered by Bill Prindle, vice president at ICF International. http://www.icfi.com/markets/energy/webinar/webinar-archive.asp.

Here’s what I took away: Energy efficiency helps the carbon reduction cause. But the carbon reduction cause doesn’t do much for efficiency.

Most versions of cap and trade programs now on the table do not recognize the value of demand-side resources in reducing emissions.  Credit goes to emissions reductions at the power plant level, not at the retail customer level. So while my new, efficient heat pump will cut my energy use and therefore carbon emissions, this action is not acknowledged anywhere in a cap and trade system. Cap and trade offers no financial reward to the consumer or business that invests in energy efficiency measures.

In a perfect world, lawmakers would rethink cap and trade to encompass demand-side efficiency. But it appears that political and technical obstructions make that difficult. This is bad news – and downright odd – given that energy efficiency is widely acknowledged to be the cheapest way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

So what’s to be done?

Prindle describes the need to enact polices that complement cap and trade. This is where a national renewable energy standard comes into play. Within Waxman/Markey, the standard requires not only a certain percentage of renewables in a state’s energy mix, but also certain amount of efficiency – a so-called energy efficiency portfolio standard. With a standard in place, efficiency increases, energy use declines, and fewer greenhouse gases are emitted – without any cap and trade influence. As is often the case, the states have already jumped out in front of federal policy:  19 now have such energy efficiency portfolio standards.

A bill with just a cap and trade scheme, one without a portfolio standard, eliminates a powerful way to reduce carbon emissions. So perhaps the 1,400 pages of Waxman/Market are justified. The verdict, of course, is out on whether or not Congress will pass an energy bill this year. Much has been made of the complexity and length of health care reform legislation. Expect the same when, and if, the energy bill comes under public scrutiny. We’ll see what pages make it beyond the cutting room floor.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

This article from The American Thinker is the only article you’ll ever need to read about global warming. (H/T ECM)

It summarizes how we got to this point, the goals and role of the United Nations in global warming alarmism, and the latest finding by Climate Audit about the hockey stick graph and its curious use (abuse?) of data sets.

What the article is about:

For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.  But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.

Here’s a graph of global temperature, taken from a UN IPCC publication in 1990:

And here’s what you should note about it:

And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores and historic documents bear that position out.  Indeed, it’s abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, over 14,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate has undergone multi-century swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable rapidity.  And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past millennium.

The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous epoch — the Dark Ages — to levels several degrees warmer than today.  A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850.  This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three (The Maunder Minimum 1645-1710).

And then the need for bureaucrats to control people’s lives reared its ugly head:

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”  In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.

Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response — who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.  So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention.

The article cites climate scientist Stephen Schneider as follows in 1989:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

And then adds:

Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.

And that is how the United Nations began to invent the hockey stick graph, which is the latest prop supporting a made-up crisis to overturn capitalism while simultaneously providing the meaningless lives of the secular-left elite with a false sense of purpose and moral superiority. The hockey stick graph is based on the data that was debunked recently by Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre. And now maybe we can stop worrying about global warming for good.

The rest of the American Thinker article is here and it continues to tell the rest of the story of the hockey stick graph, focusing on the role of the United Nations and IPCC researchers. This is the best article on global warming I have ever read, and it is snarky all the way through. I don’t know how the author managed to find all of those incredible quotes from the global warming alarmists planning their myths. Print and read!

My recent posts on the hockey stick graph

• MUST-READ: Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• CRISIS: Famous global warming hockey stick graph is a hoax
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming

Take a gander at king of thieves Bernard Madoff’s political contributions.  Then explain to me how the Republican Party is the party of greed.

The top three donations to the Democrats all dated 03/18/09, by the way, are in fact three separate donations (totaling over $75,00).

Contributor	Candidate or PAC	Amount	Date	FEC Filing
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$-25,000 primary	03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$-25,000 primary	03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$-25,000 primary	03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$-25,000 primary	03/18/09
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr. New York, NY 10021	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	$-10,000 primary	02/27/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$25,000 primary	09/12/08
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr. New York, NY 10021 Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	$5,000 primary	08/20/08
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR	MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN (D) Senate – OR JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON	$2,300 primary	04/24/08
Madoff, Bernard L. New York, NY 10021	SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R) House (NY 19) SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC	$-2,300 primary	12/05/07
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman	LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D) Senate – NJ LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE	$300 primary	07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman	LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D) Senate – NJ LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE	$5,000 primary	07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman	LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D) Senate – NJ LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE	$2,300 primary	07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L. New York, NY 10021 Bernard L. Madoff Investment/Chairm	SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R) House (NY 19) SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC	$2,300 primary	07/10/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr. New York, NY 10021 Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	$5,000 primary	05/24/07
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$25,000 primary	05/04/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr. New York, NY 10021 Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$5,000 primary	10/17/06
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST. SEC./CHAI	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$25,000 primary	09/30/06
Madoff, Bernard L Mr. New York, NY 10021 Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$5,000 primary	09/22/05
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC	DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D)	$25,000 primary	05/09/05
Madoff, Bernard New York, NY 10021 Madoff Investments/Chairman	MATHESON, JAMES (D) House (UT 02) MATHESON FOR CONGRESS	$250 general	10/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021	FROST, MARTIN (D) House (TX 32) MARTIN FROST CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE	$250 general	10/15/04
Madoff, Bernard New York, NY 10021 Self-employed/Banker	HOOLEY, DARLENE (D) House (OR 05) HOOLEY FOR CONGRESS	$250 general	10/15/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY FRIENDS OF SCHUMER	$1,000 general	08/18/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY FRIENDS OF SCHUMER	$1,000 primary	08/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L Mr. New York, NY 10021 Madoff (Bernard L.) Investment Secu	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$5,000 primary	07/08/04
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Madoff Investments/Chairman	MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D) House (MA 07) MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE	$2,000 primary	06/17/04
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Madoff Investments/Chairman	MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D) House (MA 07) MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE	$2,000 general	06/17/04
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS	LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D) Senate – NJ LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE	$1,000	02/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L New York, NY 10021 Bernard L Madoff/Chairman	GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D) President GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC.	$2,000 primary	09/23/03
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS	WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D) Senate – OR WYDEN FOR SENATE	$2,000 general	03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS	WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D) Senate – OR WYDEN FOR SENATE	$2,000 primary	03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY FRIENDS OF SCHUMER	$1,000 general	04/08/02
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY FRIENDS OF SCHUMER	$1,000 primary	04/08/02
Madoff, Bernard L. New York, NY 10022 Bernard L. Madoff P.C./Chairman	RANGEL, CHARLES B (D) House (NY 15) RANGEL FOR CONGRESS	$1,000 primary	08/30/01
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$2,000 primary	11/03/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SEC	FOSSELLA, VITO (R) House (NY 13) COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT VITO FOSSELLA	$1,000 primary	04/20/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INC	OBEY, DAVID R. (D) House (WI 07) A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY	$1,000 primary	03/10/00
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 CHAIRMAN	CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D) Senate – NY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC	$1,000 primary	01/13/00
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$2,000 primary	12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A	$2,000 primary	12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10021 MADOFF SECURITIES	CORZINE, JON S (D) Senate – NJ CORZINE 2000 INC	$1,000 primary	08/24/99
Madoff, Bernard Mr. New York, NY 10021 Bernard Madoff Investment Securitie	BRADLEY, BILL (D) President BILL BRADLEY FOR PRESIDENT INC	$1,000 primary	04/26/99
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY VICTORY IN NEW YORK	$1,000 primary	10/30/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF PC	RANGEL, CHARLES B (D) House (NY 15) RANGEL FOR CONGRESS	$1,000 general	10/23/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021 SELF-EMPLOYED	D’AMATO, ALFONSE M (R) Senate – NY FRIENDS OF SENATOR D’AMATO (1998 COMMITTEE)	$1,000 general	09/21/98
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022	CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D) House (NY 07) CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS	$-500 primary	08/26/98
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10022 BOND BROKER	CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D) House (NY 07) CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS	$500 primary	08/04/98
MADOFF, BERNARD NEW YORK, NY 10021	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY SCHUMER ‘98	$-300 primary	06/29/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY SCHUMER ‘98	$1,000 general	05/22/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10022 BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT	SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D) Senate – NY SCHUMER ‘98	$1,000 primary	05/22/98

When you take a look at who the nation’s biggest scumbags and crooks actually support, it should set to rest the lie that the Republican Party is the party that advanced these people’s greedy self-interests.

Take a look at Norman Hsu, who was a major Democrat fundraiser – and a major Democrat scumbag.  Take a look at Hassan Nemazee.  The Democrats have all sorts of slimeballs who make Jack Abramoff – as bad as he was – look like a chump change operator.

And you maintain that the REPUBLICANS are the party of greed and fraud?  And you want to give DEMOCRATS total power to control everything?  We’re about to see that actions have consequences.

Take a look at your corrupt new Chicago president.  Senator Barack Obama was the largest single recipient of corrupt and collapsed Fannie Mae campaign contributions over the last 20 years – even though he had only been in the Senate for four of those 20 years.  There is no question that Fannie Mae was at the epicenter of the subprime mortgage disaster (see here for a concise summary of the AEI article) that created the financial meltdown in 2008.  Even the liberal Newsweek acknowledges that “Fannie Mae defanged laws that could have prevented the subprime mess.”  And how did they do that?  By supporting lawmakers like Barack Obama who took their side.

Conservatives repeatedly tried – to no avail in the face of united Democrat opposition – to stop the monster (that Democrats supported, and received support from) from growing and then collapsing and taking the economy along with it.

Now Democrats are on their way to rebuilding the monster so that we can have another collapse down the road.

Obama was also right at the head of the line in campaign handouts from corrupt and collapsed Wall Street player Lehman Brothers.  Lehman Bros. was one of the worst players in the subprime game that made them so much money before exploding – and imploding the economy.

Obama had all sorts of “subprime buddies.” Obama was getting huge money from all of the very worst of the worst Wall Street players who brought us down.  You should seriously take a look at all the greedy and Wall Street entities and executives who piled money into Obama’s hands and ask yourself why they funded him.

Democrats are yelling for regulations as the “solution” to the problems caused by the free market.  But before you fall for that load of malarkey, just realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – and fell under the direct oversight of the government.  The reason Democrats want to have so much authority over the economy is so they can benefit from all the cozy and profitable relationships that accrue from the finance world coming to politicians for special treatment favors.

Did Barney Frank’s regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stop their collapse?  Hardly.  In 2003, when George Bush first tried to create regulations that may well have prevented the 2008 collapse, Barney Frank represented the overwhelming Democrat opposition when he said:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And just before Fannie and Freddie – which controlled half of the nation’s total mortgages – collapsed, Barney Frank (who had direct authority over the GSEs as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) said:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

You can watch Democrats fiddling while Rome burned on Youtube:

The Democrats’ “regulations” amounted to the foxes being put in charge of keeping the chickens safe.

And we’re currently seeing an explosion of frankly quasi-fascist interrelated influence between the White House and giant Wall Street entities under the president who has been bought and sold by the same people who destroyed the economy.

If you want the truth today, you have to go out and seek it.  Because the media today is as dishonest and as much of a propaganda tool for Democrats as TASS and Pravda used to be for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Check out the story from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. (H/T Commenters ECM and James)

Basically, the story has to do with a data set that has been used to support the alarming hockey stick graph that shows temperatures rising abnormally in the last decade or so. Well, it turns out that the hockey stick is only possible because the sample size was reduced from 65 samples to 10 samples. When a different set of 34 samples is used from the same general area, the hockey stick disappears!

The cherry-picked data is in red. The larger sample is in black.

1) Notice how the the number of samples in the cherry-picked set in red normally has the same number of samples as the black data set, then suddenly the red set has a greatly reduced number of samples. Why were some samples excluded from the red data set?

Why does the sample count in the cherry-picked set decline at the end?

2) Normally, the red and black data sets track together perfectly – but in the last few years, the cherry-picked set with fewer samples starts to diverge from the larger sample shown in black. So the red cherry-picked data set is useful in order to make the hockey-stick that the environmentalists prefer to use when arguing for more research money and government regulation of commercial and individual activities. The black data set with more samples doesn’t show a hockey stick graph, so it is no good to global warming alarmists.

Look! A crisis! We should give Democrats more research money and government loans for their companies!

Unbelievable. And this folly is symptomatic of the delusions that animate the left in their moral crusading. First overpopulation, then peak oil, then global cooling in the 1970s, and now global warming. Is there any limit to their insanity? Do the facts have no relevance at all to their worldviews?

Watts Up With That has more here.

I don’t see how this is different than refusing to look through a telescope to see that the earth goes around the Sun. This is just religious dogma on the left being embraced in order to feel morally superior to others, to have a sense of meaning in an otherwise meaningless life of selfishness, and to delude your neighbors into thinking that they should be controlled by their betters. It’s childish.

UPDATE: Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

Story from the Wall Street Journal.

A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000.

The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive Inc. follows a $465 million government loan to Tesla Motors Inc., purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Tesla is a California startup focusing on all-electric vehicles, with a number of celebrity endorsements that is backed by investors that have contributed to Democratic campaigns.

[...]Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, confirmed that the former vice president backs Fisker and purchased a Karma.

[...]Fisker’s top investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a veteran Silicon Valley venture-capital firm of which Gore is a partner. Employees of KPCB have donated more than $2.2 million to political campaigns, mostly for Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions.

See even though Al Gore knows less about science than my keyboard, he still understands profit and greed. Now may be a good time to review Marsha Blackburn’s efforts to get him to come clean about the relationship between greed and global warming alarmism.

This post was stolen from IHateTheMedia! (H/T ECM)

Snow in Wyoming and Colorado: ‘Fall was cancelled and we’ve gone straight to winter’
Source: Coloradan.com

Earth approaching low sunspot records; Solar activity linked to cooler temps
Source: Topeka Capital-Journal

Hurricane Season Has Been A Dud – So Far
Source: CNSnews.com

That the Arctic is warming faster is a fallacy
Source: Engineering News

UN Climate Summit Leaves Large Carbon Footprint in NYC; ‘Each foreign leader has a convoy of vehicles’
Source: CBSnews.com

Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.N. climate meeting was propaganda: Czech president
Source: Reuters.com

Here’s another story from Watts Up With That about a Clemson University study saying that hurrican strength is down this year. (H/T ECM)

If you are a skeptic of global warming, and you ask for the raw data, then you will be denied access to it!

Story from National Review. (H/T ECM, Brian)

Excerpt:

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist… politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

[...]In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Free and open debate?

Here is the story from the NOAA News. (H/T Watts Up With That via ECM)

Chart:

Excerpt:

• For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.
• A recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states, where Michigan experienced its fifth, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota their seventh, Nebraska its eighth, and Iowa its ninth coolest summer. By contrast, Florida had its fourth warmest summer, while Washington and Texas experienced their eighth and ninth warmest, respectively.
• The Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota region experienced its sixth coolest summer on record. Only the Northwest averaged above normal temperatures.

I’m pretty sure that this indicates a long-term trend towards catastrophic global warming!

Watts Up With That reports on a debate between Greenpeace and an actual climatologist.

The contenders are:

• Miguel Soto, Greenpeace Spain forests campaigner
• Joe Bastardi is one of the lead forecasters for AccuWeather

Story from Watts Up With That.

Record cold temperatures for July 2009

(Click for larger image)

A huge number of states recorded record low temperatures:

Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania experienced their coolest July on record. Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Michigan each had their second coolest July on record, while Minnesota and Tennessee had their third coolest July on record.

But a few states were warmer than normal:

[...]Alaska posted its second warmest July, Arizona had its third warmest, while New Mexico and Washington had their ninth warmest.

That doesn’t sound like global warming to me. How is the left supposed to impose socialism now? We’ll need another lie!

Click here for more stories on global warming.

New study from The Heritage Foundation, my favorite think tank! (H/T Hot Air)

This image tells all:

Job losses per year if cap and trade passes.

Summary of the effects: (adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars)

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
• The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.

FYI, current GDP is around 14 trillion per year. The current labor force is around 130 million (non-farm).

Colorado Gov Bill Ritter, testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 21, 2008 refused to endorse the Waxman-Markey global warming climate change bill.

Some democrats are waking up to the fact that the cap and trade bill will hurt more than it helps. Way to go Gov. Ritter! Watch out for Obama’s attack dogs now that you went against one of his policies!