Global warming from the continuing buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases is almost certainly contributing to the ice retreats, many Arctic specialists now agree, although they hold a variety of views on how much of the recent big ice retreats is due to human activity.

Basically, the so called Arctic specialists agreed that man was to blame for the retreating ice, with the only discrepency being as to how much we should be blamed. A recent report by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center suggests however, that the only people we should be blaming are the “specialists” themselves, who continue to rely on false data:

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC’s Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

This new data will not deter alarmists who will continue to cite erroneous data that sea ice is melting. They will instead declare that the recent rise in sea ice is not an indicator of a reverse in the warming trend, but merely a short term phenomenom due to a change in wind patterns. This, despite the fact that NASA had already blamed the decrease in Arctic sea ice on stronger wind patterns, which pushed the ice shelves into warmer waters.

Over the last decade we have seen cooling temperatures, and increasing sea ice, but don’t let that fool you…. the “science” of global warming has been settled.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on “counting every vote” wants to shut the process down. He’s getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as “duplicate” and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that “very likely there was a double counting.” Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

Despite the acknowledgement that certain ballots were very likely counted twice, the State Canvassing Board seems determined to certify a winner. It appears the one person one vote mantra of the left only applies to Republicans, Democrats are allowed two votes, if it helps their candidate take office.

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken’s campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had “lost” 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge — officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night — the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.

Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he’s benefited both ways from the board’s inconsistency.

How convenient, in one country the canvassing board declared that ballots had been “lost”, which explained why the hand recount showed a loss of votes for Franken. In that instance, they decided to throw away the results of the hand recount, instead choosing to rely on the election night results. In another county there were more ballots than counted votes, in that instance the canvassing board decided to use the numbers from the hand recount, as opposed to those from election night. It is no coincidence that those two decisions led to a net gain of over 80 votes for Al Franken.

Democrats are anticipating the certification of the election results to come today, despite inconsistencies in the recount, and even despite some counties having more votes than there are voters. With the national media paying little to no attention to what is happening in Minnesota, it seems very possible Democrats will manage to steal an election with the applause and approval of the very people who complain about disenfranchised voters.

Researchers at the University of Birmingham found that 630 million years ago the earth had a warm atmosphere full of carbon dioxide but was completely covered with ice.

The scientists studied limestone rocks and found evidence that large amounts of greenhouse gas coincided with a prolonged period of freezing temperatures.

Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed, the university’s school of geography, earth and environmental sciences warned.

While pollution in the air is thought to trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up, this new research suggests it could also have the opposite effect reflecting rays back into space.

Via tigerhawk who quips:

Ah, that clarifies things. We do not know what greenhouse gases will do, only that it will be bad. Apparently, the only optimum level of greenhouse gas is that which prevailed shortly before the invention of the internal combustion engine and electricity. Check. That’s why it is essential that we regulate ourselves into poverty even if there is declining evidence that the planet is warming. It might be cooling!

This recent research only re affirms what I have been arguing for the last two years. The climate change we have experienced over the last 100 years is part of a natural cycle. The reason the earth had an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere 630 million years ago, despite the absence of SUV’s, is because as the oceans warm, they release CO2 into our atmosphere. The plain and simple truth is that warmer temperatures lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

Bell was arrested less than one month after he completed a sentence for his role in the beating of a fellow classmate, Justin Barker, at Jena High School in 2006.

Police said Bell and an unidentified male were spotted Wednesday by store security after they placed $370 worth of merchandise in a Dillard’s shopping bag. After the two separated, Bell left the store, was followed by a security officer, and began running through the parking lot.

Bell’s attorney has a very simple explanation as to why the security officer witness Bell placing the $370 worth of merchandise in a shopping bag:

Louis Scott who has represented Bell in the past said that preconceived notions on the part of Dillard’s employees may have played a role in Bell’s arrest.

“Dillard’s has a tradition of being overly suspicious of young black males,” Scott said.

I wonder how Mr. Scott would define ‘overly suspicious’? Presumably the Dillard’s security guard should have paid no attention to Bell whatsoever, instead focusing on an 80 year old woman shopping in another aisle. After all, it’s not as if security guards had any reason to suspect Bell of having unlawful intentions… unless you take into account that Bell had served time for 3 prior crimes, and was a nationally known figure after having been propped up by Al Sharpton as the face of racial injustice.

“I am predicting that once all the facts are established, he probably will not be guilty,” Scott said. “There has been more put on this young man than anybody can bear — people trying to provoke him, trying to make him react.

“If he was going to break the law, I believe he would have done it before.”

That last quote is certainly my favorite. Bell had only been released from prison for 1 month before being arrested again, and his attorney is claiming that if he were to break the law, he would have done it sooner. That argument will certainly play well in a courtroom… ‘ladies and gentleman of the jury, my client has been a model citizen for almost 30 full days…” It is more likely that this is simply the first time he was caught since his release, not that it was the first time he broke the law. It will be interesting to see if Al Sharpton chimes in on this issue, but my guess is he will remain quiet, despite Bell’s lawyers’ desperate attempt to paint his client as a victim of racial prejudices… for a second time.

Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that’s always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of “for” and “against” donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The mob left, but so did the customers.

Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she’ll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.

I sat on the patio with Wayne and two other El Coyote managers — Arnoldo Archila and Bill Schoeppner — who happen to be gay.

“We always joked around with Margie,” said Schoeppner, who’s been on the job 26 years. “I’m a Democrat and voted for Obama; she probably voted for McCain — so what? If she were a bigot or a homophobe, you wouldn’t have had all these gay people” working at the restaurant or eating at it.

Besides, the donation was personal.

“She didn’t cut a check from the restaurant,” added Archila, a 28-year employee. “The restaurant didn’t have anything to do with it.”

Archila said he and other employees voted no on Prop. 8 and gave money to the legal challenge. As someone who came to the U.S. 30 years ago from El Salvador, Archila said, he’s always cherished this country’s right of free speech and the diversity of opinion.

“You can express yourself as a citizen,” said Archila. “Not everyone has to believe the same things.”

It seems employees of the restaurant, many of whom are gay themselves, see this for what it is. A difference of political opinion, being expressed at an individual level via a miniscule donation. Those who demand tolerance from religious people whom do not believe the government should sanction their lifestyle, see this $100 donation as an opportunity to ruin this woman’s livelihood, even if it means ruining the livelihood of the 89 people she employs. They are obviously looking at the big picture, believing the loss of 89 jobs, even from amongst their own community, is a small price to pay if it deters others from making similar donations in the future.

While the Anti Proposition 8 crowd claims they are only asking for tolerance, it has become clear what they really seek is submission.

Hat Tip Jane Q Republican, via Michelle Malkin.

That being said, I am an incredibly reluctant supporter of the bail-out, not because I think it’s a good idea but because letting a US car company go bankrupt would be an incredibly bad idea. As a result, I would attach a ton of conditions to the money. For example, mileage standards would have to improve big-time. The big three’s reliance on the SUV business model would go bye-bye. Executive compensation would have to be cut until the companies showed a profit (personally, I would propose a package and then subtract the total compensation for the last 5 years for the Board of Directors and Executives from the package total because these guys clearly didn’t earn that money). Major financial cuts at all levels would happen. That means executive fly coach and rent compact cars on business trips. Downsizing from a physical plant and personnel perspective is a must. Simply put, the car companies would still have to face major restructuring. It’s simply unavoidable at this point; the US auto industry would look very different when this is all said and done.

I agree wholeheartedly that executive compensation would need to be slashed as well, and I am of the opinion that under no circumstances should any executive receive a bonus if the company does not post a profit for the year. However it is unfair to demand concessions only from top executives, while the workers continue with the status quo. Bob Corker’s amendment to the bailout proposal would have brought worker compensation at the Big Three in line with those of other auto workers in the United States.

Ed Morrissey summarizes:

Last night, Bob Corker (R-TN) had $15 billion lined up for the UAW’s employers if only the union would agree to renegotiate their contracts to get pay equity with other autoworkers in the country by a date certain. The UAW refused to make that commitment, which any lender or creditor would consider a key point for resolution before restructuring or giving additional loans. The lack of those three words, “by date certain”, showed that the UAW either didn’t understand the stake they had in these negotiations or figured that no one would defy them in the end.

The Big Three won’t compete effectively until they lower their labor costs and produce better management. As Tom Coburn told the Senate, GM and Toyota sold roughly the same number of vehicles over the last year, but Toyota turned a $1.7 billion profit while GM lost around $9 billion. That doesn’t happen by accident. Until these automakers and their unions resolve the structural problems that creates this kind of unprofitability, they are a terrible credit risk and a lousy investment — and neither management nor labor shows much willingness to change for the taxpayer subsidies they now demand.

Failure to reach a compromise would undoubtedly force General Motors into bankruptcy, at which point the bankruptcy judge would either demand a liquidation of GM’s assets, leaving thousands of UAW workers out of a job, or the Judge could restructure the union contracts himself. That restructuring could be much more severe than the concessions that Republicans are asking for, in exchange for tax payer money. Only time will tell, however I believe the UAW has placed the financial security of its members at great risk.

President-elect Barack Obama is being urged to strengthen enforcement of fair housing laws to ensure that the mortgage foreclosure crisis doesn’t disproportionately hit minorities and the poor.

A bipartisan commission pointed Tuesday to waning prosecutions of fair housing complaints, particularly under the Bush administration.

“The system doesn’t work,” former Housing and Urban Development secretary Henry Cisneros said at a news briefing on the 85-page report prepared by the commission, which was co-chaired by Cisneros and former HUD secretary Jack Kemp.

Cisneros said stronger HUD enforcement is needed in the interim until a separate agency can be created, saying, “This is the only way to address serious problems of housing segregation and discrimination that led us to our current foreclosure crisis.”

For those of you who are still uncertain as to how the housing crisis began, Henry Cisneros has offered you an explanation. Discrimination, and segregation are to blame, as those evil banks offered loans to unqualified borrowers. Mr. Cisneros, along with this “bi-partisan” commission, seem to forget exactly who was to blame for forcing lenders into these communities to begin with. Banks did not open doors in low income communities because they wanted to take advantage of the poor and minorities, while risking billions of their own money on loans. Few remember that it was during the Clinton Administration that the subprime market was created, and it was done so at the urging of Bill Clinton himself.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

Liberals continue to blame de-regulation for the current economic crisis, while ignoring the fact that it was largely the fault of government regulations. It was the Clinton administration which forced banks to make these loans to low income and minority borrowers, to avoid the perception of discrimination in the housing market. Now that those loans have defaulted, discrimination is once again the scapegoat.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of conspiring to get financial benefits through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to fill the vacancy left by Barack Obama’s election as president.

According to a federal criminal complaint, Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper’s editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

The affidavit said Blagojevich discussed getting a substantial salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.

The Smoking Gun has the affidavit filed by the FBI which details the charges. During a discussion with ‘Advisor A’, Blagojevich was recorded saying:

“…unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], shit, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying?” Later saying “I’m going to keep the Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.” Later Blagojevich was quoted as saying the Senate seat “is a f#cking valuable thing, you don’t just give it away for nothing.”

It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows Illinois politics that Blagojevich was arrested, what should surprise Americans however is the arrogance of this man discussing the sale of a Senate seat on his office phone, while being under investigation for corruption. The criminal probe of Blagojevich began over three years ago, and he was fully aware of the investigation. What would lead him to believe that his phone conversations were not being recorded?

Scientists have discovered a lotion that can save the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons — a product vastly superior to the standard-issue decontamination powder.

Naturally, the Defense Department wants to scrap the powder and switch to the more-effective lotion.

But there’s a problem: After being lobbied by the companies making the powder, several members of Congress pushed through two earmarks worth $7.6 million that forced the military for the past two years to keep buying the inferior product.

The product, known as M291, is made from a resin sold exclusively by a Pennsylvania chemical company, which is then processed into powder by a New York company, then assembled into individual kits at a facility in Arkansas.

Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Ed Morrissey digs a little deeper:

In fact, Congress has allocated over $43 million in earmarks to the manufacturer of the resin, Rohm and Haas of Pennsylvania, since 2000. Of the $43,013,800 Congress set aside in pork for R&H, only $16,000 had any competition at all. The rest of it came through no-bid contracts built into earmarks.

And why? Not because R&H had a superior product. As the Seattle Times notes, R&H had an inferior product that the DoD wanted to replace because of the risk to our troops in the field. Instead of allowing the Pentagon to make its own determination or at least to put the contracts up for a competitive bid process that would have allowed R&H to make the case for its product, Congress intervened to force the inferior product onto the troops.

For those of you who still feel that the earmark process is a necessary tool, please mull over this article, and take a moment to reconsider. While it is true that some earmarks have been used for worthwhile causes, such a road and bridge construction; there are countless others which resemble the above scenario. Too many of our politicians, both Democrat and Republican, use earmarks as a means to raise campaign contributions, at the expense of the American people (or in this case American soldiers).

Is the Governor being fitted for a tinfoil hat? Does he believe that Obama was actually born in Kenya, as some contend (to general disdain from the media)?

Or does the Governor somehow believe that nonwhite (or even half-nonwhite) Americans are not real Americans?

Under normal circumstances I would say that in time we would get an answer as to what Richardson actually meant by his comment, however in this instance, I do not expect the media to pay attention. The question of Obama’s place of birth, as noted by American Thinker, has brought disdain from the media, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so because the questions have no merit, but because the media invested so much money to elect Obama, they would look like fools if it were true that he was not even constitutionally elligible to hold the office.