Ursus Maritimus, the great white Polar Bear is in danger of becoming, not extinct, except to the degree that any species anywhere (including man perhaps) is in danger of becoming extinct. But the Polar Bear is is becoming another symbol. A symbol of the left's attempt to make global warming a dread catastrophe.

The polar bear is an off-shoot of the famous brown bear, the grizzly (Ursus Arctos) along with other Brown bears probably share a common ancestor until about 20,000 years ago. This can be discerned from changes in the molars of the polar bear. It should also be noted that the polar bear can mate with the brown bear (and has) indicating that the polar variety is probably a subspecies of the brown bear.

A little less than two years ago this was reported:

A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."

Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.

He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.

In another article, published just 6 months later the claim is there is a serious decline due to "global warming"

So, since February of '05, the big fuzzy white bear has gone from a 25% increase to "nearing extinction?" Balderdash.

But really, lets take a look at what the reality is. The reality is that there are a number of differing populations of polar bears. One may decline, others increase. One article noted above indicates a decline in the "condition" of momma bears in the Hudson Bay area while a side article notes that "increased ice" in the Baffin Bay area has threatened narwhals who need holes in the ice to breathe.

The U.S. has indeed indicated that it wants to put polar bears on the endangered list, but is this good science, or more hysteria? Lets look at the numbers:

Estimates of the size of the population of polar bears in the Chukchi Sea are lacking, but the catch per unit of effort during research tagging there may suggest an increase, as do observations and kills by coastal residents. Uspenski and Belikov (1991) believe there are more bears in the Chukchi Sea now than in the past despite the absence of a reliable population estimate.

Thus, the good news of apparent increases in numbers is accompanied by increased challenges for management. Those challenges can only be met by a better understanding of the dynamics of the polar bear's ecosystem. In the Chukchi Sea, there is a pressing need for development of new methods for determining numbers and trends. This need appears more urgent in view of the likelihood that the ban on polar bear hunting in Russia, in effect since 1956, will be lifted. The bounds of optimum sustainable population levels are not known in the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, and interactions between polar bears and their prey and polar bears and sea ice, which establish these levels, are not understood. If managers are to keep polar bear numbers at optimum sustainable population levels in the face of increased harvests and other local and global perturbations, they will need more accurate and precise population estimates and an understanding of the ecosystem forces that limit polar bear population size.

A 2005 estimate was that there were between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in all populations.

In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.

There are other voices however and one wonders why the emphasis on this animal rather than others. One explanation:

Polar bears are cute. Just ask the marketing executives at Coca-Cola which used animated polar bears to hawk their wares in recent years. Bears, pandas, lions and elephants are "charismatic megafauna" -- meaning basically cute animals that people care about. If you want to sell a product, or a cause, just tie it to one of these animals and you've got the attention of millions of people; kids and adults alike.

Thus, environmental alarmists have made much of research claiming the Arctic's great white bear faces extinction from human-caused global warming. Snails, snakes and spiders withering in the sun just don't pack the same emotional punch as a cuddly, furry polar bear slipping beneath the melting ice.

Fortunately, a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim global warming threatens polar bears survival.

Mr. Legates critiques the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that proclaimed Arctic air temperature trends strongly indicate global warming, causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Mr. Legates says, the Assessment ignored data that undermine these claims.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are cooling and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since measurements began in 1987. In addition, records from Russian coastal stations show the extent and thickness of sea ice has varied greatly over 60- to 80-year periods during the last 125 years. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the air temperature in 2000.

Ice core data from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea also show that even if there is warming, it has occurred before. In Alaska, the onset of a climatic shift -- a warming -- in 1976-1977 ended the multidecade cold trend in the mid-20th century returning temperatures to those of the early 20th century.

In addition, a study commissioned by Canada's Fisheries and Oceans Department examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice coverage, concluding, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."

The above referenced article concludes:

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.

According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

As for the rest, 10 populations -- comprising about 45.4 percent of the total -- are stable, and the status of the remaining six is unknown. Conclusion: based on the available evidence there is little reason to believe the current warming trend will lead to extinction of polar bears.

These bears have survived for thousands of years, during both colder and warmer periods, and their populations are by and large in good shape. Polar bears may face many threats, but global warming is not primary among them. Global warming alarmists are like the wizard of Oz, asking the public fear the spectacle, but not to pull back the curtain and unmask them for the charlatans they are.

So, Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est? I think not, but then I'm a global warming skeptic. The true believers will use the polar bear issue to the hilt, not because it is true, but because cute cuddly white bears have a definate anthropomorphic quality and the charlatans aren't above pulling on heart strings to get your attention. Fear tactics only work when the populace isn't aware that that is the method being used.

UPDATE: One of our commenters who calls himself GW (but is really Mark York incognitio) typically likes to point out that "government" scientists, in particular "BUSH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS" (you do note the sarcasm here don't you yorkie?) upholding his claims of a major catastrophe two weeks from when ever he says it will happen. (snark) Well, here is a "Government Scientist" from Canada that flat out desputes Yorkie:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Flannery is one of Australia 's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.

The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.

All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs — sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.

One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor

Posted at 06:00 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1963 words, total size 13 kb.

Posted at 05:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Allow me to paint a word picture for you:

You enter a room, quietly close the door behind you and sit in the rose colored easy chair next to the lamp on the south side of the room. Looking around, you take in your surroundings. The room is warm, and comfortable. You glance around looking at nothing in particular finally noticing a brightly colored square of paper on the coffee table. You pick it up and try to think of the name of the color. Forrest green you decide. No, wait, perhaps a deep emerald green. Yes, that's it. You take the paper to your spouse and note the deep shade of green, scintillating in the light. Your spouse looks at you in confusion and says "No sweetheart, that is scarlet red." Confused, you ask your children and they too say red. For a week, everyone you ask says "red," but you still see green."

So too it is with politics. It doesn't matter a whit if you are a conservative or liberal, a communist or libertarian, a socialist or anarchist. Your perspective is colored by your world view. Now, to say that some world views, some political systems are more, shall we say, realistic than others ought to be a no brainer. And so it is. I am amused by liberals that proclaim that they are "Proud Members Of The Reality Based Community" as if by proclaiming that, they are the only purveyors of truth, justice and the American Way! Of course, the entire purpose of the Reality Based Community canard is to provide an internal boost to what must be a very lonely position, say that of seeing a green square of paper when most everyone else sees red.

My real problem with liberals is that they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Their reality is not based in reality, but is completely colored by their perception, and too often, it is not a pretty sight. Take education for example. The liberal position is that we need a federal bureaucracy, more teachers unions, more money, longer school days; we need to fix the broken "structure" of education. It doesn't seem to matter that the so called structure is the same as it has been for the last 75 years or so and that it worked pretty well in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's and with the advent of the professional educator the so called structure seemed to break down yielding 4 year olds being charged with sexual harrassment, a multitude of "pride" days and high school teachers being terminated for teaching real as opposed to say "culturally correct" history.

The coloring of politics has also entered the vaunted main stream media or MSM as we bloggers call it. I know, I know, the soi disant reality based community (shall we abbreviate this as RBC for the rest of this article?) maintains that the MSM is owned by corporations and thus must be "conservative" but that is reflective of their world view; all corporations are money grubbing conservative organs of the state who protects corporations via tax structure forcing the weak and the poor to feed their hard earned dollars to the fat cats. Of course, the "real" reality is that newspapers are owned by corporations but staffed by graduates of schools of journalism and anybody that believes that those schools are not "generally" bastions of left leaning thought are not only not thinking, they are not using one scintilla of their supposed brain power.

Thus, we get headlines like posted in the L.A. Times: "Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high". The headline is the political view of an organization viewing casualties and other stories from Iraq through the liberal prisim, but it is the "green square of paper" we talked about above. The reality is (courtesy of Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette):

Barring a New Year's Eve plane crash, 2006 looks like a slightly better year in Iraq for US casualties

...the year total of 816 as of Saturday morning, is on course to be slightly lower than last year's 846 U.S. fatalities.

The number of U.S. wounded also declined this year, from 5,947 in 2005 to 5,676 so far this year.

(We should also note that the majority of troops wounded in Iraq returned to duty within 72 hours.)

Now, has United States policy played into this? Sure, somewhat. Back some time ago an arrest warrant was issued for Moqtada Sadr:

An Iraqi judge has released an arrest warrant for Moqtada Sadr in connection with the death of a moderate Shia leader, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003, just two days after the fall of Baghdad.

Moqtada Sadr strongly denies any role in the murder.

His supporters have also clashed with followers of Ayatollah Sistani.

He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran.

Iran? Iran, you say? What does that have to do with the criminal liability of George Dubya? Well, it should show those in the RBC that the violence in Iraq is not necessarily the fault of GWB, but rather the involvement of Iran in an act of state supported terrorism. The same will go for the Syrian version of Wormtongue (with all due apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien). That the RBC cannot see this because it is a red square of paper should not be surprising. All they can see is the green because of their own inability to understand that their perception is not the so called real world.

There will, no doubt, be those who would challange this understanding, but that is OK, it is, again, their perception. The reality is, despite what the majority of the left would think, that the sectarian violence in Iraq is sponsored by two states, Syria and Iran. Oddly enough, those with clear eyes can see that, can see that Moqtada Sadr is a puppet with a famous name (his father, a revered S'hia cleric, was reportedly assassinated by Saddam's orders).

So, if you do indeed have the ability to think, to reason beyond your own perceptions, think through who benefits from an unstable Iraq? Who is rapidly running out of the ability to bring their oil to the market because they have ignored their infrastructure from the beginning of the so called mullahocracy:

"They need to invest $2.5bn (£1.28bn) a year just to stand still and they're not doing it because it's politically easier to spend the money on social welfare and the army than to wait four to six years for a return on investment," he said.

"They've been running down the industry like this for 20 years."

Posted at 03:07 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1391 words, total size 9 kb.

Executions bother me. A lot! For moral and religious reasons, I am anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia because, except in war and self defense, I feel that God has given us life and we should be loathe to take it. For this reason, I am also against capital punishment and that sets me apart from many of my fellow conservatives. The pending hanging of Saddam Hussein is no different. As Rick Moran called it; "A Sad Ending To A Sad Chapter In History".

And yet, I do not feel sorry for Saddam Hussein, for he is as worthy of the death sentence as anyone has ever been. But we should also take a look at what Moran has termed the

... difference between his regime and the regimes of dozens of others around the world is only a matter of degree – thousands dead or tortured instead of hundreds of thousands. It says a lot about humanity at this stage of our evolution as a social species that we can be so sanguine about the murderous depredations of a Robert Mugabe or a Islom Karimov simply because the body count hasn’t achieved the elevated status of a Saddam or a Kim Jung Il. We in the civilized world can tune out the cries for succor from the oppressed rather easily – international law, free flow of oil, international commerce, even the War on Terrorism – take your pick. One excuse is as good as another.

Sixty years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps, and 30 years after the Cambodian killing fields, the promise of "never again" is ringing hollow. The tragedy of Darfur has raged for over three years now, and still reports pour in of villages being destroyed by the hundreds and of the brutal treatment of civilians spreading into neighboring countries.

... there has been scant mention in the media of the plain fact that it was Mr. Annan, when he was head of the United Nation's peacekeeping office, who could have prevented the slaughter of 800,000 Tutus and their sympathizers in Rwanda in 1994.

Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, head of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, urgently pleaded with Mr. Annan to intervene before the killings began, because Mr. Dallaire knew of the preparations for the genocide. Mr. Annan refused to act, or to say anything publicly.

This appalling complicity in the horrors that followed has been documented in a book, "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories From Rwanda" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1998), by Philip Gourevitch.

The lethal silence of both Mr. Annan and President William Jefferson Clinton was also reported, in unrefuted detail, on a "Frontline" broadcast titled "The Triumph of Evil." The show was made in collaboration with the BBC and broadcast on PBS on Jan. 26, 1999.

It would seem that tyrants come and go, and tens of thousands, nay, millions have died as a result of civilized society's refusal and/or inability to come to grips with the brutal regimes of the world. And the murder goes on.

If the UN had done its job in 1991 through 2003, would the Iraq war have been necessary? Would Saddam now be facing the gibbet? Had Chamberlin recognized the futility of appeasing Hitler, would so many have died in a world wide war? If it were not necessary in the subjugation of Hitler's Nazi Germany, would Roosevelt have made common cause with the likes of Stalin? Would we have made common cause with Iraq because of our fight with the mad mullahs of Iran? I don't know the answer to these questions, though I have my thoughts. I do know that there are many, many more tyrants like Saddam that deserve hanging. Wouldn't it be better for all if the UN were a real United Nations and slapped down every tyrant that dares to raise his ugly head and attempt to stand with civilized nations? Who knows? And until we, as a world, are willing to stand for real human rights and not just a set of nattering nabobs who are more interested in only decrying the real or imagined violations of the "western world" as opposed to the real violators.

We have a chance to reform the UN now, to set forth principles of human rights that stand for something. It will not be easy, there will be those who favor inaction and the status quo over the tough choices. There will be those who will use programs such as "Food for Oil" for their own enrichment and hypocritical blathering about "the children" when they care not a whit for the children but are vastly interested in lining their own pockets.

It will take tremendous political courage to stop the slaughter, it will take uncommonly brave men and women ready to take up arms and let the dictators of the world know that their time has come, that they can no longer wantonly brutalize their own people. It doesn't matter if its stoning gays in Pakistan, the willful slaughter of Christians and animists in Africa, engineering pogroms in Russia or China or any other violation of the rights given by God to all of us. We need to start, now, not tomorrow. We need to put into practice what Annan said (as opposed to what he has done for all these years) "the promise of "never again" can no longer ring hollow. It will take our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to end this scourge. If many of us, as a people, can deplore the starvation and death by dehydration of a Terri Schiavo, cannot we also agree that the brutality of tyrants must come to an end?

Posted at 01:49 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1012 words, total size 6 kb.

Sorry for the VERY late notice, but GM's Corner is moving to 8:00 PM Central Daylight Time on Wide Awakes Radio...

Posted at 01:50 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Gerald Ford, the "Man Who Pardoned Nixon" and perhaps one of the more courageous Presidents because of that, knowing the vilification he would receive and doing it any way has died. He was 93.

I remember being dejected when it was discovered what a creep Spiro Agnew was and he resigned in disgrace. Then, a ray of hope. Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President. The joke (promulgated by LBJ) was that Ford couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. But America knew better, and knew that Ford was an honest man, a strong man, a real leader. Ford was approved by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on Dec. 6, 1973. Following Nixon's resignation, Ford assumed the Presidency and was sworn in as Nixon's plane headed westward.

The initial popularity of Ford soon nose dived one month later as he pardoned Nixon, a decision he stood by all these years. And, truth be known, was probably the right decision, but it was Ford's decision to make and no one elses. Ford believed he was saving the country from a criminal trial that would have had more focus than it really deserved. Ford standing up to the "powers that be" who wanted Nixon's head on a silver platter has to be a mark of political courage seldom seen and as the election of 1976 proved, would cost him.

Ford's decision to seek a second term in 1976 was not all that controversial, but being challenged for a second term by Ronald Reagan was. Reagan did not get the nomination, but he gave it one heck of a good shot and did get it in 1980. The struggle in the Republican party was matched by an equal struggle in the Democratic party and which saw a political unknown reach for the prize. Jimmy Carter got the Democratic nomination and beat Gerald Ford in the 1976 election. Carter ran as a "born again" christian, got a great deal of publicity from an interview in Playboy magazine, was perceived as "honest" and had a "tremendous" record as Governor of the State of Georgia, both of which are, to this individual false.

It should be obvious to anyone who can think their way out of a wet paper sack, that the better man did not win in 1976.

Gerald R. Ford, born July 14, 1913 died December 26, 2006. Requiescat in Pace

More Coverage at:
Right On The Right
Gribbit's Word
and Ms. Underestimated
at Hugh Hewitt and a round up at The Thunder Run

Posted at 01:10 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

From YNet News:

The UN Security Council decision to place sanctions on Iran has "ruined Christmas," according to Iranian state media.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) said in an editorial on Tuesday: " On the eve of the auspicious birthday of Jesus Christ when all Muslim and Christian believers extend best wishes to each other on the onset of the new year, leaders of Christian states took an unacceptable action toward Iranians by passing a resolution against (Iran's) national nuclear program which surprised every individual in Iran ."

The IRIB described the sanctions as "surprising," as "the Islamic Republic of Iran has designed the national nuclear program for civilian use and all Iranian nuclear sites are under (the) supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

Awwwww, poor 'lil tykes.

Hat Tip to Glenn Reynolds

Posted at 02:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

Thank you AOW and Merry Christmas my very dear Friend.

Posted at 05:59 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

One person's loss is another person's gain: Rumsfeld Moves Up
Let's hope that he uses enough players to win.

Posted at 04:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Polar Express Painting by Chris Van Allsburg

What would Christmas Eve be with out the joy's of childhood? The Polar Express, The Night Before Christmas, with visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads. Well, this Christmas Eve, yours truly, GM, The Velvet Voice himself will be reading the Polar Express to all the good little boy's and girls. So, tune in to Wide Awakes Radio on your computer, gather the kiddies around with hot chocolate and cookies (and maybe even a sugar plum or two) and listen in. 7:00 PM Central time, this Christmas Eve, Sunday, December 24th and join your kiddies in the joy's of Christmas Magic. (And if you haven't bought this book for your kiddies, you have missed some wonderful expressions on their little ol'e faces.)

Ho, Ho, Ho!!!

Posted at 02:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

But funny as all get out!!!!

The Best Car Commercial EVER!!!! more...

Posted at 02:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

In case you missed this on CNN (yeah, right), do you ever wonder exactly what it was that Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives involving his and the Clinton administration's failures or cover-ups in fighting terrorism. Do you remember when Berger said that taking the documents was an "honest mistake?" Let's see from a recent release.

Berger Hid Archive Documents

President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

...Officials told The Associated Press at the time of the thefts that the documents were highly classified and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports.

...Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets. "He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said. He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office. ...The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

Honest mistake. And, O.J.'s killing his wife was an "honest mistake." Yet, the major media will give the Democrats another pass on this, which is why the Democrats are so brazen about their crimes. Berger should have been given serious prison time rather than a misdemeanor charge for lying during the 9-11 investigation and weakening our war on terror. He was supposedly our National Security Advisor under Clinton. What would have been done to a Republican in a similar case?

And, I supppose that Clinton and the Democrats will go on accusing President Bush entirely for 9-11, now that they have destroyed and sanitized the complete record on themselves. What information are we missing? We'll never know.

Posted at 09:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Chickweed is taking over my yard. It's because of global warming. There's a new crack in my driveway. Global warming. The pass slipped through the perspiring hands of the receiver. Coach, it was global warming, I tell you.

A new motorway south of the Swedish-Norwegian border and Strømstad collapsed during the night, and experts fear the same thing can happen to Norwegian roads. They blame climate change.

Yeah, tell that to the insurance company. Is there no end to what people will blame on "climate change?" Maybe Norway needs to get some better engineers and road builders.

What problems has global warming caused you today? Well, blame it, anyway. Government needs the crisis to take over more control of our lives and businesses.

P.S. The referenced paper has some pretty neat pictures of the Northern Lights. Normally, I would say that the sun is responsible, just like it is for our climate, but let's attribute this one to global warming, too.

Posted at 08:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Filed under Global Warming

In a recent post on Global Warming Woody posted a spoof of the "irrational" panic driven belief systems of the global warming true believers. One commenter, going by the initials GW (Global Warming? - Mark York, have you slipped through the ban once again?) made the comment:

Read and back up your work. Who says and why? Giv eme 500 words with links that show beyond any doubt I'm wrong. Hint: you as a layman knowing nothing stating an opinion doesn't count. It is "overwhelming" even if I didn't say it in those words. The experts back me up. Pony up or shut up.

The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.

The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

It drives people on the left crazy, or should I say crazier, when reasoned people don't take them seriously. (Why should we?) They'll argue and pull out all sorts of articles and research in attempts to convince others that they are right, I mean correct. It is especially funny when we make tongue-in-cheek comments and post entries ridiculing their positions, but they take the remarks dead seriously. I have done this over-and-over and they just don't get it. Such was the case, also, with G.M.'s entry on the relationship between global warming and the number of pirates in the world. The guys on the left actually tried to have an intellectual argument to refute that! They're nuts! They will argue and try to prove us wrong, when we're just making a joke. That is like watching the movie "Airplane" and doing a critique on Leslie Nielsen as a drama actor. Guess what. He's not being serious in that movie. Sometimes, as in this case, we're just having fun. Lighten up!

So GW, Let's summerize the info at the top from The Referance Frame. WMO says last few years are warmest, but if placed on a chart, actually show a cooling phase with 2006 being the coldest. Stock up on you long johns GW, you are going to need them. OH, and by my count, this is 676 words. Challenge met, proof put forth, the ball is in your court.

Posted at 12:42 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I tried to post this above, but got an error message:

Merry Christmas, GM. I tried to send you a recorded messay, but I don't know what the hell I'm doing with this new technology.

Posted by: Always On Watch at Thursday, December 21 2006 01:30 AM (YadGF)

2 GM, one of the things I don't quite understand about the global warming theorist is to suggest that we are going to end up under water, completely.

Even though 2/3 of an iceberg are under water.

I guess my point is, that water expands when frozen. If one were to fill up a glass with ice, then fill it up with water 90% of the way, then let it sit, would the level of water in the glass increase or decrease?

Posted by: Louisiana Conservative at Thursday, December 21 2006 02:55 AM (OBZ+v)

3 LC, actually ice floating in water will not change the water level as it melts. Archimedes figured this out in his bathtub just before he was spotted running naked through the streets of Syracuse few years ago (well, maybe more than a "few" years go).

The problem comes with non-floating ice, primarily glaciers over land (especially Greenland and Antarctica). Were these to melt and flow into the oceans faster than new snow and ice deposition, the mean sea level would indeed rise. The rate and extent of such sea rise is a matter of dispute among GW advocates. However, not even Al Gore is predicting baptism by total immersion.

Posted by: civil truth at Thursday, December 21 2006 06:23 AM (qp2n7)

4 GM..happy holidays!.hope u received my mail...seems people will be arguing this theory for decades! Happy holiday my friend to u and yours!!!

Posted by: Angel at Thursday, December 21 2006 06:28 AM (DJjEq)

5 LC, wait a minute, when I wrote my last sentence, I thought you mean the whole world when you wrote we.

However, looking again at your name, I wonder if you meant the State of Louisiana when you wrote we. If so, I haven't studied the calculations that would determine whether Louisiana would theoretically be covered by water if all sea and land ice melted. In any case, even if the most extreme GW predictions were to turn out to be true, my understanding is such a meltdown won't happen in our lifetimes. So don't get out the lifeboats quite yet.

Posted by: civil truth at Thursday, December 21 2006 06:39 AM (qp2n7)

6 Here's another link to Gore's
Inconvenient "Truths".

And, just for fun, the global warming alarmists most recent "cause" of global warming, cow flatulence. I'm eating all the beef I can in order to eliminate this problem. (I can't get the link to post due to "questionable content." The word "fart" maybe.

I suppose Mr. or Ms. Troll would have us unquestionningly accept any piece of drivel some "scientist" feeds us. Any good scientist knows tht trying to prove yourself wrong is one of the most critical steps in scientific investigation.

BTW - I'm working from home today. My 10 year old daughter is watching TV in the next room. I'm not sure what prompted her but she just yelled out, "Democrats stink!" Makes a Dad proud. :-)

Posted by: DADvocate at Thursday, December 21 2006 07:52 AM (AIolm)

7 such a meltdown won't happen in our lifetimes.

I'm certainly not worried about global warming during my lifetime. None of us should be. On the other hand, if you have gran' kids... well...

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Thursday, December 21 2006 08:08 AM (dlFaD)

8 I'm too worried about the problems passed to us by our grandparents. We can't solve real current problems now if we're worrying about potential future problems a hundred years from now.

Posted by: Woody at Thursday, December 21 2006 10:02 AM (v5VVJ)

9 We can't solve real current problems now if we're worrying about potential future problems a hundred years from now.

I disagree. I do think we can do both at the same time.

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Thursday, December 21 2006 10:48 AM (dlFaD)

10 Is it getting warm in here?

Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, December 21 2006 12:55 PM (Nc9gL)

11 I humbly offer this rebutting of Al Gore that uses science and, gasp!, scientists to disprove many of Gore et al.'s preaching -

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

It is a thing of beauty.

Posted by: jcrue at Friday, December 22 2006 02:26 AM (ZDQoM)

12 Well you've shown us how a shell game works. Now how do we get rid of this infernal music? 2006 had the hottest summer ever, so there's your first problem. It's a balmy 80 degrees here and almost Christmas. The again it snowed in Denver, so when compared you get the same nothing as ever shown by local comparisions. The mean temp is compared worldwide. I challenge the claim made on that blog.

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 02:38 AM (EQiSh)

13 jcrue, thank you for that link. It's worth reading and bookmarking.

P.S. I enjoyed reading your posts at your site. http://jcrue.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 02:41 AM (v5VVJ)

14 Yeah Lumo the writer of that blog is out to lunch according to his peers.

"Warmer and Cooler
Based on data from 1983-2003, surface warming trends in the Arctic have been eight times greater than trends over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. The sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade. However, while average temperatures are increasing throughout the Arctic, there are several places where there appears to be cooling. "

Source NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html


Sorry Charlie. They rate higher. Those numbers are false in The Reference Frame.

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 03:08 AM (EQiSh)

15 GW, regarding the music, you can join us and enjoy it (currently, the Hallelujah Chorus) or you can click stop on your tool bar at the top, stop on the play button of the music, or mute your sound through the control panel or a short-cut on your bottom tool bar and miss a wonderful piece of work that Handel himself said was divinely inspired. It might have more meaning if you read the words. Have a Merry Christmas.

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

The kingdom of this world is become
the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and of His Christ;
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings,for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
and Lord of Lords, for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,
and He shall reign for ever and ever
and He shall reign for ever and ever

King of Kings for ever and ever.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

and He shall reign for ever and ever,
for ever and ever,
King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords,
King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords,
and He shall reign for ever and ever,

King of Kings,
and Lord of Lords.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 03:10 AM (v5VVJ)

16 GW: "surface warming trends in the Arctic have been eight times greater than trends over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. The sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade."

so, in 100 years we have an average increase of the ice melt to about 130 days... add to that the normal ice melt time of about 100 days and we are up to 230 days or 2/3's of the year... patently false. Too, 100 years ago we didn't see the CO2 we are supposedly seeing... so, what caused the ice melt then GW? Come back when you have facts not suppositions.

Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, December 22 2006 03:17 AM (4J2lB)

17 GW, I'm losing all respect for the Goddard NASA people like Gavin, who are on a mission to push their ideas rather than consider all points. In reading his site, I have never seen so much excuse making and rationalization for previous false claims and bad data and so much editing out of opposing information.

Here is a balanced report:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 03:17 AM (v5VVJ)

18 GW: Yeah Lumo the writer of that blog is out to lunch according to his peers.

Then Lumo is in good company, along with Galileo, Fermi, Einstein, Darwin, etc. That is the problem with you folk methinks.... You consistently mistake consensus as fact... sigh... go back to science 101

Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, December 22 2006 04:35 AM (4J2lB)

19 Thank you for the kind words, Woody!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Posted by: jcrue at Friday, December 22 2006 05:25 AM (ZDQoM)

20 You've never taken that course from the looks of it. The handful of fakirs who deny measured results are few and on someone's payroll. Hint: like my guys it isn't NASA. Get yourself some real scientists and we'll talk. Channel Galileo and the rest because they refute everything he says.

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 06:10 AM (h2jqw)

21 Should be "unlike" my guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 06:13 AM (h2jqw)

22 Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

NOAA

Funny, every government agency on Earth disagrees with you and your so-called sources. Why do you suppose that is? A plot against the "real scientists"?

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 06:17 AM (h2jqw)

23 Hmm...link problems today.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 06:21 AM (h2jqw)

24 I'm not going to argue whether or not warming is occurring. The climate warms and cools and warms and cools. I'd argue whether we could do anything about it though. And Kyoto is a farce, so discount that right off the bat.

Posted by: Oyster at Friday, December 22 2006 06:35 AM (T0EX+)

25 GW, private enterprise has just as much right to research and publish its findings on global warming as do government employees who steal time from the taxpayers to pursue their left-wing causes and to obtain more funding.

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 06:52 AM (v5VVJ)

26 The funding chase fallacy. These scientists work for Bush. How can they find false conclusions, even if he wants them? The trouble is your private so-called scientists can pass an introductory math class. No legitimate scientist beleives the crap you guys are citing. That's because it's incorrect mathematically.

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 09:14 AM (ACMn1)

27 The findings to recap aren't peer reviewed by amyone in the field private or public. Published on a web;og without something else behind it, doesn't count. it doesn't count because without a filter anyone can say anything. Just like here.

Posted by: GW at Friday, December 22 2006 09:16 AM (ACMn1)

28 GW, plain and simple, anthropologic global warming has not been proven to be the significant factor in temperature rises, and the outcomes of global warming have been extremely exaggerated. "Your guys" have financial interests and peer pressure to accept global warming claims. Global warming has become the "emperors new clothes" that many pretend to see to avoid punishment.

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 02:27 PM (v5VVJ)

29 "GW, plain and simple, anthropologic global warming has not been proven to be the significant factor in temperature rises"

Unforunately it has. Just because you don't believe it is irrelevant. The only distortion is this sort of propagandistic claim. There simply is no so-called pressure to produce a desired result on my end but there is in yours. Why are your deniers like Pat Michaels on ExxonMobil's payroll?Who is dictating to NASA to concoct bogus results in favor of AGW? This is a Real conflict of interest. Where's the conflict in the government? Since the president is a denier himself? This has to be the best example of failing critical thought available. My view is it's genetic and you guys didn't get the gene. No worries. In the new year the dimmer switch will be turned off. Let there be light!

Posted by: GW at Saturday, December 23 2006 01:44 AM (fLkwI)

30 It is in fact proven:

"The SAR concluded: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. That report also noted that the anthropogenic signal was still emerging from the background of natural climate variability. Since the SAR, progress has been made in reducing uncertainty, particularly with respect to distinguishing and quantifying the magnitude of responses to different external influences. Although many of the sources of uncertainty identified in the SAR still remain to some degree, new evidence and improved understanding support an updated conclusion.

There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.

There are new estimates of the climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, and new detection techniques have been applied. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years.

Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century. However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century.

The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The anthropogenic sulphate aerosol forcing, while uncertain, is negative over this period and therefore cannot explain the warming. Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely to explain the warming.

Detection and attribution studies comparing model simulated changes with the observed record can now take into account uncertainty in the magnitude of modelled response to external forcing, in particular that due to uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. Furthermore, most model estimates that take into account both greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols are consistent with observations over this period.
The best agreement between model simulations and observations over the last 140 years has been found when all the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed.

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Climate Change 2001

You should read before you speak. This is why Internet bloggers are better at propaganda than anyone, but not much else.

Posted by: GW at Saturday, December 23 2006 02:13 AM (fLkwI)

31 GW: This is why Internet bloggers are better at propanganda than anyone, but not much else.

Propaganda? Do you mean like you did above by re-referencing GW skeptics as GW deniers, an intentional propagadist tactic to make opponents appear worse?

Your so-called proof is still short-term linking of human activity with temperature changes without considering all variables and meeting accepted scientific methods of verifiable proof. GM's linking of pirate activity to GW meets your standards.

Posted by: Woody at Saturday, December 23 2006 02:29 AM (v5VVJ)

32 Tis the season for the gift of education. Long may it rein.

"With each passing year the evidence has gotten stronger — and is getting stronger still," said John M. Wallace.

1995 was the hottest year on record until it was eclipsed by 1997 — then 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Melting ice has driven Alaska Natives from seal-hunting areas used for generations. Glaciers around the globe are shrinking so rapidly many could disappear before the middle of the century.

As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.

"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.

The truth about global warming

Posted by: GW at Saturday, December 23 2006 02:32 AM (fLkwI)

33 The real truth about global warming

The real truth about Al Gore

Sorry. I don't fall for mass hysteria.

Posted by: Woody at Saturday, December 23 2006 04:32 AM (v5VVJ)

34 To recap your response: Cartoon and Google: wingnut.

Posted by: GW at Saturday, December 23 2006 01:06 PM (h2jqw)

35 "without considering all variables and meeting accepted scientific methods of verifiable proof."

Pfffffttttttt!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah and a cartoon does!

Posted by: GW at Saturday, December 23 2006 01:08 PM (h2jqw)

36 Oh, you must have changed your mind about cartoons, because over at RealClimate I commented on a post that they had praising editorial cartoonists who supported global warming, none with science credentials, while attacking legitimate climate scientists who disagreed with them. In that thread, you supported the cartoonists over the scientists. Or, maybe you forgot.

Posted by: Woody at Monday, December 25 2006 05:04 AM (v5VVJ)

37 The "legitimate" scientists aren't. They have a conflict of interest e.g. on ExxonMobil's payroll. Perhaps you don't know that? In addition they're a distinct minority, and their positions and numbers are disproven. One can claim anything. Backing it up is another matter. Your guys can't, but I don't know what incident you're talking about frankly. It's possible a cartoonist can actually understand the issue since you have to know what's wrong before you can know what if anything is funny about it. South Park apparently isn't one of those.

Posted by: GW at Tuesday, December 26 2006 02:29 AM (W655d)

38 Link removed by administrator.

Yorkie, if you want to comment have the huevos to do so in spite of being banned, don't just put up a link to a Global Warming Toadie Site

Posted by: publius at Tuesday, December 26 2006 05:21 AM (2rLw5)

39 It looks like facts are tough for you to accept? e.g. conservative lobbyists and business advocates funded by ExxonMobil account for all of the deniers of global warming. Painful to witness actual bias isn't it? I don't know who Yorkie is, but that link is valid and true. Or do you deny that too?

More pain: Polar bear listed

Posted by: GW at Wednesday, December 27 2006 01:38 AM (h2jqw)

40 York, aka GW aka publius: ...conservative lobbyists and business advocates funded by ExxonMobil account for all of the deniers of global warming.

First, I'm a skeptic...not a denier. Next, where's my check from Exxon?

Serious problems that I have with people who make global warming claims are the extreme exaggerations and hype of consequences, the linking of unrelated, naturally occuring, and historical changes to Earth, the insistance that mankind is primarily responsible, the constant corrections and retractions that they have to do with their own "definitive" data, the left-wing, anti-capitalist politics that they have injected, the conflict of interests that they have with study grants, the ignoring of realistic human and dollar costs to attack a problem immediately that first needs more study and whose proposed solutions have questionable merit, and, finally, their rabid attacks against skeptics showing that they fear debate and being exposed as frauds. That's all.

Posted by: Woody at Thursday, December 28 2006 01:19 AM (v5VVJ)

41 "the linking of unrelated, naturally occuring, and historical changes to Earth, the insistance that mankind is primarily responsible, the constant corrections and retractions that they have to do with their own "definitive" data, the left-wing, anti-capitalist politics that they have injected, the conflict of interests that they have with study grants, the ignoring of realistic human and dollar costs to attack a problem immediately that first needs more study and whose proposed solutions have questionable merit, and, finally, their rabid attacks against skeptics showing that they fear debate and being exposed as frauds. That's all."

This is a problem with your understanding of science and reality in general. You just made a false statement. There are no conflicts of interest on our side. Just truth, albeit inconvenient for you and your ilk to grapple with, but it's great to see Secretary Kempthorne acknowledge this reality of global warming. That must mean he thinks your science is junk. It is. It's going to be a tough two years here in the bunker, and beyond as your squirrelly views are recognized as nuts and rejected. That's all.

Posted by: GW at Thursday, December 28 2006 09:34 AM (EQiSh)

42 Sorry. Truth has beauty, power and necessity. I am from Lithuania and also am speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Upright vacuum cleaners are better for carpet flooring." Thanks 8-). Upright vacuum cleaner comparison.

Posted by: Upright vacuum cleaner comparison at Friday, August 07 2009 06:01 AM (bZ8te)

43 Good evening. The art of dining well is no slight art, the pleasure not a slight pleasure. I am from Belgium and learning to speak English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "But we had either broken other consultants about his surprised residues for dispatches, the stay, pleasure family, hard center and complimentary great trees to ride him as his beach's clear prosecution." With respect 8-), Distance education masters.

Posted by: Distance education masters at Wednesday, November 11 2009 04:43 PM (ULlLm)

44 Hi all. We learn something every day, and lots of times it's that what we learned the day before was wrong. I am from Tunisia and now study English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "In some toothbrushes, this may use following adequate things of sister meantime, coming button presence from the next-day, etc, flovent. over the parabolic warm expectorants, our concerns size performed until he had no more ser of consequences, flovent." With best wishes , Flovent hfa 110 mginhaltion aerosol.

Posted by: Flovent hfa 110 mginhaltion aerosol at Friday, November 20 2009 11:25 PM (ULlLm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Republican state lawmaker is seeking to strip U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's name off a DeKalb County road, saying she "has brought embarrassment to the state of Georgia."

McKinney's former campaign manager, John Evans, called Walker's resolution a "mess." And as for Walker's claim that McKinney has caused embarrassment to Georgia, Evans said: "He must be talking about white folks or uppity black folks."

Posted at 10:00 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.