ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Hugo - Idiot Leader of Venezuela

It appears that Hugo Chavez has never taken Econ 101. First, read this article from Bloomberg.

Done? Okay... here is how the NY Times covers the situation. I'll interrupt with my comments throughout - sorry in advance.

February 17, 2007
Chávez Threatens to Jail Price Control Violators

CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 16 — Faced with an accelerating inflation rate and shortages of basic foods like beef, chicken and milk, President Hugo Chávez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country’s expanding price controls.

Wow... that sounds like a great plan. Who is John Galt?
Food producers and economists say the measures announced late Thursday night, which include removing three zeroes from the denomination of Venezuela’s currency, are likely to backfire and generate even more acute shortages and higher prices for consumers. Inflation climbed to an annual rate of 18.4 percent a year in January, the highest in Latin America and far above the official target of 10 to 12 percent.

Aha!!! I've just realized our solution to global warming! Let's start using Celsius instead of Fahrenheit!!!

No doubt that the out of control inflation is the fault of the capitalist gringo's from el Norte, eh?
Mr. Chávez, whose leftist populism remains highly popular among Venezuela’s poor and working classes, seemed unfazed by criticism of his policies. Appearing live on national television, he called for the creation of “committees of social control,” essentially groups of his political supporters whose purpose would be to report on farmers, ranchers, supermarket owners and street vendors who circumvent the state’s effort to control food prices.

Ummm, I hate to break it to the "progressive" nutters that support almost everything that Hugo does, but this sounds strangely familiar... the Soviet Union and East Germany come to mind. And as Hayek points out in The Road to Serfdom, ceding control of economics to the government ultimately results in ceding control of your liberties, since we are all economic actors. In order for the government to control the economy, it must control all economic activities - such as what work you do, what you consume, etc. Marxist Economic liberty isn't liberty at all.
“It is surreal that we’ve arrived at a point where we are in danger of squandering a major oil boom,” said José Guerra, a former chief of economic research at Venezuela’s central bank, who left Mr. Chavez’s government in 2004. “If the government insists on sticking to policies that are clearly failing, we may be headed down the road of Zimbabwe.”
No, Mr. Guerra... it's more real than surreal.

And as long as Hugo remains in power, I also fear that you'll be a basket-case country like Zimbabwe very soon.
For now, Venezuela remains far from any nightmarish economic meltdown. The country, which has the largest conventional oil reserves outside the Middle East, is still enjoying a revenue windfall from historically high oil prices, resulting in a surge in consumer spending and lavish government financing for an array of social welfare and infrastructure programs. Dollar reserves at the central bank total more than $35 billion.

Of course, subsidizing your insanity on petrodollars is great in the short-term... but the bill will come due at some point.
The economy grew by more than 10 percent last year, helping Mr. Chávez glide to a re-election victory in December with 63 percent of the vote. Yet economists who have worked with Mr. Chávez’s government say that soaring public spending is overheating Venezuela’s economy, generating imbalances in the distribution of products from sugar to basic construction materials like wallboard.

Public spending grew last year by more than 50 percent and has more than doubled since the start of 2004, as Mr. Chávez has channeled oil revenues into social programs and projects like bridges, highways, trains, subways, museums and, in a departure for a country where baseball reigns supreme, soccer stadiums.

Can't continue the fascination with that gringo past-time of baseball, right? And diverting funds from oil revenues to social programs might sound like a great idea - even some idiots within the US have suggested as much - failing to reinvest in your revenue generating infrastructure is sure to doom your country's future.
In an indicator of concern with Mr. Chávez’s economic policies, which included nationalizing companies in the telephone and electricity industries, foreign direct investment was negative in the first nine months of 2006. The last year Venezuela had a net investment outflow was in 1986.

Those f-ing capitalist pigs!!! Pulling their money OUT of Venezuela just because they fear that Hugo will go on another nationalizing binge... Who would've thought!
Shortages of basic foods have been sporadic since the government strengthened price controls in 2003 after a debilitating strike by oil workers. But in recent weeks, the scarcity of items like meat and chicken has led to a panicked reaction by federal authorities as they try to understand how such shortages could develop in a seemingly flourishing economy.

Entering a supermarket here is a bizarre experience. Shelves are fully stocked with Scotch whiskey, Argentine wines and imported cheeses like brie and Camembert, but basic staples like black beans and desirable cuts of beef like sirloin are often absent. Customers, even those in the government’s own Mercal chain of subsidized grocery stores, are left with choices like pork neck bones, rabbit and unusual cuts of lamb.

OMFG... I can't believe how idiotic the last two paragraphs are. The reason that there are shortages of basic Venezuelan staples is because of the price controls. Price controls result in shortages (or gluts) in every instance. Two plus two equals four, people.
With shoppers limited to just two large packages of sugar, a black market in sugar has developed among street vendors in parts of Caracas. “This country is going to turn into Cuba, or Chávez will have to give in,” said Cándida de Gómez, 54, a shopper at a private supermarket in Los Palos Grandes, a district in the capital.

José Vielma Mora, the chief of Seniat, the government’s tax agency, oversaw a raid this month on a warehouse here where officials seized about 165 tons of sugar. Mr. Vielma said the raid exposed hoarding by vendors who were unwilling to sell the sugar at official prices. He and other officials in Mr. Chávez’s government have repeatedly blamed the shortages on producers, intermediaries and grocers.

Those in the food industry argue that the price controls prevented them from making a profit after inflation rose and the value of Venezuela’s currency plunged in black market trading in recent weeks. The bolívar, the country’s currency, fell more than 30 percent to about 4,400 to the dollar in unofficial trading following Mr. Chávez’s nationalization of Venezuela’s main telephone company, CANTV, and its largest electric utility, Electricidad de Caracas.

Fears that more private companies could be nationalized have put further pressure on the currency as rich Venezuelans try to take money out of the country. Concern over capital flight has made the government jittery, with vague threats issued to newspapers that publish unofficial currency rates (officially the bolívar is quoted at about 2,150 to the dollar).

Regardless of efforts to stop illicit currency trading, the weaker bolívar has made imported food, fertilizers and agricultural equipment more expensive. Venezuela, despite boasting some of South America’s most fertile farmland, still imports more than half its food, largely from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and the United States.

If it weren't so sad, it's comical how all of this is right out of an Econ 101 textbook...
Supermarket owners expressed relief when the government this week cut value-added taxes on retail food sales and raised the prices on more than 100 staples in an effort to alleviate the shortages. The announcement included an average 32 percent increase in beef prices and a 45 percent increase in chicken prices.

Following Mr. Chávez’s nationalization threat, supermarket owners were cautious in their public statements. “As long as we are complying with the regulations, I don’t believe there will be any type of reprisal,” said Luis Rodríguez, executive director of the National Supermarket Association.

But many were clearly torn, afraid that their stores could be seized if they complained, but at a loss as to how to continue operating. “If I don’t sell at the regulated price they’ll fine me, and if I don’t sell meat I’ll be out of business,” said a butcher shop owner here.

During his television broadcast, Mr. Chávez said his measures would be laid out in a decree, a power that his rubber-stamp legislature just bestowed upon him. He acknowledged that removing taxes on food sales would deprive the government of more than $3 billion in revenues, higher than the military budget, but he said tax increases on luxuries like beach homes and yachts would make up for part of the shortfall.

Mr. Chávez also said he would raise subsidies for state-owned grocery stores. Economists say such subsidies, together with hefty loans to farmers, have allowed the price controls to function relatively well until recent weeks.

But recent expropriations of farms and ranches, part of Mr. Chávez’s effort to empower state-financed cooperatives, have also weighed on domestic food production as the new managers retool operations. So has the flood of petrodollars into the economy, easing food imports and making some domestic producers uncompetitive, an affliction common to oil economies.

“There seems to be a basic misunderstanding in Chávez’s government of what is driving scarcity and inflation,” said Francisco Rodríguez, a former chief economist at Venezuela’s National Assembly who teaches at Wesleyan University.

“There are competent people in the government who know that Chávez needs to lower spending if he wants to defeat these problems,” Mr. Rodríguez said. “But there are few people in positions of power who are willing to risk telling him what he needs to hear.”

Daniel Cancel contributed reporting.

It seems that socialists, progressives, and leftists of all stripes refuse to accept human nature and the immutable facts of economics - There's No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.

It will be interesting to watch as Hugo's country becomes increasingly more impoverished and Hugo's insane calls to nationalize each and every business. No doubt the "progressives" here in the US and Hugo will all blame the problem on the evils of the capitalist world in which Venezuela must operate...

Daniel Drezner is also commenting...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Friday, February 16, 2007

The University of Illinois TBD

From today's St Louis piece of trash Post-Dispatch:

U. of Illinois bars Indian symbol
By David Mercer
Friday, Feb. 16 2007

URBANA, Ill. (AP) -- The University of Illinois will drop its 81-year-old
American Indian mascot, Chief Illiniwek, following the last men's basketball
home game of the season on Wednesday, officials said.

The move makes the school eligible to host postseason NCAA championship

The NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek -- portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home football and basketball games and other athletic events -- an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events.

American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning. Supporters of the mascot say it honors the contributions of American Indians to Illinois.

Illinois still will be able to use the name Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said.

It is unclear if the school will get a new mascot.

HOLD IT!!! What does Illinois stand for? Wikipedia to the rescue:
The state is named for the Illinois River which was named by French explorers after the indigenous Illiniwek people, a consortium of Algonquian tribes that thrived in the area.

So, you see... Illinois is actually a French white European bastardization of an actual Native American name.

I demand that we rename the entire state! And Barack Obama should denounce his state's racially insensitive past and current use of the term Illinois.

Perhaps it could be known as the State of No Topology. Or the great State of Flatness.

Of course, the Native Americans are not pissed about Illiniwek... it's only a handful of Leftists who object.

From Wikipedia again:
In the past few years, opinion polls on the subject have not been much help in defining Native American opinion on the subject. In 2002, a Peter Harris Research Group poll of those who declared Native American ethnicity on a U.S. census showed that 81% of Native Americans support the use of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports, and 83% of Native Americans support the use of Indian mascots and symbols in professional sports. However, the methods and results of this poll have been disputed. [6] A separate poll conducted by the Native-run newspaper Indian Country Today in 2001 reported that 81 percent of those polled "indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."

A non-binding student referendum on Chief Illiniwek was conducted in March 2004. [7] Of the approximately one third of the student body who cast ballots, 69 percent of the voters favored retention of the Chief.

Illinois is the one school that could be considered to have reverence for their mascot... he is not seen during the game, only at half-time in a very solemn ceremony. He is not a caricature of a Native American - it's a traditional costume and dance. Compare Illiniwek's representation to the mascot of the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, or the Washington Redskins and you'll see what I mean.

No doubt that Illinois will follow suit with what their counterparts at Bradley (in Peoria, Illinois) did - invite people to suggest a new mascot. Here are the finalists for Bradley:
Bradley Athletics Mascot Suggestions: Braveheart, Clock, Firefighter, Gargoyle, Military Figure, Squirrel, Superhero or no mascot.

Go Bradley Clocks!!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

And thus begins the long slide of Barack Obama

From the Chicago Sun-Times today:

DURHAM, N.H. -- In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted."

Following his Springfield launch on Saturday, Obama wrapped up a three-day swing in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, ending at a University of New Hampshire rally where he assailed the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."

In this case, that would be Obama, the Illinois Democrat.

As I said in my yearly predictions, Barack will peak as a presidential candidate in 2007. While he may excite the media they are a fickle bunch, and will be just as happy when he falls. It's a story when he's on the rise, and a story when he's falling.

Besides, anybody that has a Messiah Watch out for him in the media can't be seen making any mistakes.

He hasn't peaked yet, and he did do a good job of rolling back from his statement, but it's just an example of a rocky road ahead of him.

My thinking is that he's not really running for the Presidency anyway (otherwise why keep repeating the phrase "I'm in it to win it?") Instead he wants the VP pick. It gives him instant credibility for the next open primary no matter who wins, and allows him to press the flesh among the national party apparatus.

My father thinks Bill Richardson fills that bill however, and that is already pre-ordained that if Hillary!TM wins, Richardson''s already got the nod.

We'll see.....

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Monday, February 12, 2007

More money for adult stem cell research!

Just look at what Adult stem cell research can provide!

Women have grown their own breast implants through pioneering stem cell treatment, it emerged yesterday.

Scientists harvested the stem cells from the women's own fat and encouraged them to form breast tissue.
and I absolutely loved this line:
British surgeons said yesterday they were convinced by the technique and found it "appealing".
Yeah I'll bet you did.

Funny, I don't remember Michael J Fox mentioning this when he was talking about how adult stem cells weren't good enough when he was pushing for embryonic stem cell research.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The "Benefits" of a Higher Minimum Wage

fewer slack-jawed teens being employed.

That was the goal of the increase in the minimum wage, right? Because, as economists have predicted, that would be the impact. This story out of Arizona proves that There's No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.


I'll interrupt with some comments throughout the story... I apologize in advance.

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona
Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers

Chad Graham
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

Wait a second... this wasn't supposed to happen! Nancy Pelosi said it wouldn't!
And teens are among the first workers to go.

Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.

Actually, companies aren't maintaining that the min wage increase was intended to help breadwinners of the working-poor - the politicians were the ones that made that assertion. I suppose that the preceding should be written as an explanation as to why companies are firing teens first - because companies certainly don't want to hurt bread-winners of the working poor. Interesting impact on the choice of retaining employees - I wonder what the impact is on hiring new employees, since presumably there is little difference between an unskilled teen and an unskilled "breadwinner."
Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.

"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' "

Frankly, I think this is a great lesson to his mostly teenage workforce. No doubt they championed the increase...
For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce.

The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment.
Hmmm.... 3 employees let go out of 25 total for Pepi's Pizza, not including reduction in the number of hours. I would say that's more than a 3% decrease in employment.
It also cited comments by noted economist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.

"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.

No... that sounds too rational. Surely employers don't give a damn what the cost of labor is at any given time. If the cost of labor increases, how can it be that they'd be more cautious as to what skills they're paying for?

And now for the most humorous part...
Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."

It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit.

Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.

Serves this dolt right... supporting an increase without understanding basic economics.

And when he talks about being more efficient, he's talking about higher skilled workers. He can't tolerate hiring an unskilled worker and hoping they learn on the job - they've got to deliver for the $6.75 that they're being paid.

Oh - and don't forget that the minimum wage increase is like a tax increase on all of us, since it results in increased prices. And also note that it's extremely regressive in nature - the wealthy can afford the increase in ice cream prices at Mary Coyle's Ol' Fashioned Ice Cream parlor - or in the price of milk, butter, eggs, etc, etc.
While most of the state's 124,067 workers between the ages of 16 and 19 made well above $5.15 per hour before the change, the new law has created real-life economic opportunities.

Liliana Hernandez brings home noticeably more under the new law. The 18-year-old, who attends Metro Tech High School in Phoenix and works part time at Central High School, is saving the extra money, maybe to put towards buying a used car.

Hernandez said she deserves the raise just like any other Arizona worker even if she still lives with her parents.

"I'm doing the best I can and working hard like everyone else," she said.

In the months leading up to last November's vote, advocates of the new law maintained that it would help Arizona create a "living wage" for some of the poorest workers.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated that 145,000 Arizonans would receive a pay raise. That was how many made $5.15 to $6.74 per hour.

There are 124k teens working in Arizona. 145k workers making something under the new minimum. So, the net effect of this law is to increase wages for 21,000 non-teens who make something below $6.75 per hour?
At one press conference, a mother described how she was unable to afford basic school supplies for her son.

Don't worry... you still won't be able to afford basic school supplies. Or ice cream at Mary Coyle's... Or pizza at Pepi's.

John Weischedel, a senior at the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa, knows he is lucky to be making $8 per hour at an auto dealership and learning technical skills. So are most of his friends who make $9 or more per hour while still attending high school.

After the minimum-wage law went into effect, "a couple of my friends got laid off - they worked in fast food," he said. "They're going to wait until they're out of high school to find other jobs."

That's right. Because the minimum wage is now high enough that employers cannot afford to hire people without experience.

I demand that we increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. It's the only solution. It's a crime that someone who is willing to work hard in this country can't make $30,000 a year.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth, Parth 1,763

Part 1,762 here

Algore is keeping the faith in his Global Warming, despite this being the third year in which he gives a "major global warming policy speech" when it's freezing around the country. (He should really move his major global warming policy announcements to August, but no one can say that Algore is bright person or skillful politician.) Unfortunately, the science is starting to push his theory into the realm of the Flat Earth theories.

From London's Sunday Times
, excerpted in full...

February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Of course, this guy is just on the payroll of ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Halliburton (HALLIBURTON!!!), and the Carlyle Group. Nothing to see here. Also, when the global warming scientists refused to admit in the Medieval Warming Period (see our post here which shows the unabashed lies that were disseminated about that), they simply smeared the scientists who were stating the facts as shills for the Coal & Oil industry. Interestingly, they even objected to an unbiased, scientific inquiry into their methods. Sounds more like religious dogma than science to me.

Continue on with your Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Gore.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler