Hi,

SWEARING ON OUR BIBLE TO UP HOLD OUR “CURRENT CONSTITUTION OF THE USA” AS OF JAN 2009 MEANS NOTHING TO HIM!

Obama and his administration spend every waking hour on how they can “subvert” the current version of the USA Constitution….into a view or version they see for the future of it!

HUGE LEGAL PROBLEM? That is NOT What he “Swore On The Bible  to do and “uphold” on Swear In Day.

Sen. Orrin Hatch Exposes Democrats’ Health Care Reform Abortion Agenda

Obama’s School Speech For Bortion Cookies

Any Democrat who opposes the government option will losesupport from the organization’s 5 million members, according toan e-mail sent by the group to its supporters.

BY: FoxNews

Moveon.org issued a warning Tuesday to any Democrat who might join Republicans to filibuster a government-run insurance option — if you oppose the government option you will lose support from the organization’s 5 million members

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday that the Senate’s version of a health care reform bill will include a so-called public option. Moveon.org issued its e-mail to its supporters threatening revolt one day later.

The group said it surveyed its members over the weekend and found that “93 percent of MoveOn members agreed that any senator who helps block an up-or-down vote on a health care bill with the public option should lose the support of all five million of us — no donations, no volunteering, and no help getting out the vote.”

To ensure conservative Democrats will not oppose the public option, the group is launching an “emergency campaign” to urge them to support an up-or-down vote.

Despite its support, the group added that Reid’s bill is still problematic.

“The ‘opt-out’ version of the public option has real problems,” the e-mail said, adding that “the most conservative states in the country would likely opt out, potentially leaving millions of uninsured folks without access to the affordable health care a public option would provide.”

________

F*&K Y&U: GEORGE SORO’S  ~~ MOVEON>ORG

Obama Plays Golf And Basketball While Both Afghanistan And Pakistan Get Bombed To The Max’

Eight Killed In Roadside Bomb In Afghanistan

Aftermath of bomb blast in city of Peshawar in Pakistan

Just Released: September 25th 2009 ~~ The Action Manage 2.0 Time Management Software

Simple, intuitive, results!

Those 3 words represent what The Action Machine is all about.

The goal behind The Action Machine is simple: To give you a way to visually structure your day in a way that you feel absolutely compelled to take action and get things done, once and for all! When you use The Action Machine, there’s no complicated time-management ’system’ you need to learn or remember.

All you need is:

1. A list of tasks – I’m sure you have plenty of those
2. Time to get them done – If you’re breathing right now, I’ll assume you have that
3. A finger to click your mouse – If you don’t have one, I apologize

That’s it!

In addition to being built around a system designed to motivate you to take more action, the interface helps you get absolutely clear about your day, allowing you to easily visualize your time and accomplishments at-a-glance.

Have fun!

Get More Information On how Action Manage Will Help You Here

About This Video: Click Here For MUST SEE AND LISTEN

Title: British Lord Against Obama

Published: Thu, 22 Oct 2009

Description: Lord Christopher Monckton on his fight against climate-change legislation.

By: Fox Business News ~ Happy Hour

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

Mass. man arrested on terrorism charges

Plot targeted U.S. shopping malls, politicians and military stationed in Iraq

By: Denise Lavoie AP ~ Washington Times

UPDATED:

BOSTON (AP) — A 27-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with conspiring with others to support and plan terror attacks in and outside the United States, including plots to attack U.S. shopping malls and U.S. military in Iraq.

Authorities in Boston say Tarek Mehanna of Sudbury worked with others from 2001 to May of 2008 to provide support and resources in a conspiracy to “kill, kidnap, main or injure” people in foreign countries and to kill prominent U.S. politicians. Story Continues At: Washington Times

MilitaryMoms Of The USA!

After Video Please Go To: MilitaryMoms

Monday, 19 October 2009

Jabar, Iraqi Federal Police officer, hands out books to young girls at a local school in Baquba. The Humanitarian Aid mission was oversaw by the Iraqi Federal Police, with support from U.S. forces. Photo by 1st Lt. Meghan E. Keefe, 37th Engineer Battalion.

BAQUBA — A recent humanitarian assistance mission by Iraqi Federal Police (FP) and U.S. Soldiers here, Oct. 12, gave Iraqi children basic school supplies for the new year.

The 37th Engineer Battalion- Joint Task Force Eagle, based out of Fort Bragg N.C., joined the 6123 FP Training Team, based out of Fort Riley, Kan., and their FP counterparts to address the needs of school children in the area. The U.S./Iraqi mission was an opportunity for the FP to interact with the local population and contribute to their community.

Man ben Zaid Elementary School was the first stop, followed by a visit to Talabar Elementary. There were approximately 100 children waiting the arrival of the humanitarian mission with an air of anticipation and excitement. Col. Jabar, Iraqi FP officer, spoke to the children and informed them of why they were there.

After meeting the FP and learning what was about to take place, the children ran with smiling faces into their separate classrooms to sit, stand, or peek through windows as the FP proceeded to hand out the school supplies.

When the last backpack was handed out, Capt. Timothy Behnke, the JTF Eagle chaplain, of Wales, Wis., thanked the school administrator for the opportunity to meet the children, teachers and staff. Working with the FP and providing them with the opportunity to introduce themselves to local children is essential in establishing a relationship with the community they serve.

Behnke also conveyed that the education of children “is one of the hardest, but most important jobs.”

The teachers and students expressed immense gratitude for the school supplies that they received. The FP were very enthusiastic about the opportunity to distribute supplies to the children.

“It is a good, personal and humbling experience to provide much needed school supplies for Iraqi children,” remarked Capt. Ismael Flecha, of Fair Lawn N.J., the physician’s assistant for JTF Eagle.

(By: 1st Lt. Meghan E. Keefe, 37th Engineer Battalion)

Monday, 19 October 2009 By:  Staff Sgt. Peter Ford ~ Multi-National Division – Baghdad:

Iraqi Soldier Hussein Ali and Sgt. Jeremy Fouts, a security non-commissioned officer from Charleston, W. Va., assigned to B Troop 1st Battalion, 150th Armor Reconnaissance Squadron, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, formulate a plan on how to pass out the school supplies to the children at the Mullah Fayyad Primary School in Yusifiyah, Oct. 15. Photo by Staff Sgt. Peter Ford, Multi-National Division – Baghdad.

BAGHDAD — U.S. Soldiers here interact with the citizens of the Yusifiyah region every day to build stronger relationships and ensure the safety of the community.

“This results in a peaceful community, with people living together in harmony,” said Staff Sgt. Steve Matthews, civil affairs non-commissioned officer with B Troop, 1st Battalion, 150th Armor Reconnaissance Squadron, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, from St. Louis, Mo. “The greatest benefit for me is to see a smile on a child’s face when we give supplies to the children at their schools.”

These goodwill projects developed between the local governments and the Americans not only bring smiles to children but they help out the community and build a solid foundation for a stronger friendship, according to Sgt. Jeremy Fouts, a security non-commissioned officer from Charleston, W. Va.

“The strong friendship makes the community of Yusifiyah a safer place,” he added.

“Yusifiyah is safer because the people are turning criminals in and keeping bad people out of their community,” said Fouts.

The strong bond in the community has caused a reduction of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and improvised explosive devices, Fouts said. The friendship is not only good for the key players in the community; it is good for the soul.

“It makes me feel as if we are doing something meaningful when we take school supplies to local schools,” said Cpl. Joshua Allen, a medic from Heard, W. Va. “Giving school supplies to kids builds long-term relationships, and they grow to love and trust us.”

Many of the supplies are shipped in from the families of the Soldiers, small churches in the United States and humanitarian aid organizations like USAID, said Staff Sgt. Michael Hawf, a native of St. Louis, Mo., and civil affairs non-commissioned officer. Unit commanders meet with the local government to find out what is needed most in the communities and try and accommodate the need with the supplies gathered.

Insurgents and criminals may try to hold sway over Yusifiyah, but the U.S. Soldiers and the community are rallying together to reap the biggest benefit, a more peaceful community with little or no discord.

Monday, 19 October 2009 By fc. Bailey Anne Jester ~ Multi-National Division – Baghdad~

CAMP TAJI – The shift of U.S. forces out of Iraqi cities has created a new set of tasks for troops in the Iraqi countryside, and a newly-formed group is concentrating on infrastructure projects here.

Combining the talents of the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment’s leadership with members of the embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team North and the 1479th Civil Affairs Company to form a Project Working Group, the goal is to highlight projects that benefit the local populace.

During a meeting held at the Tarmiyah Center, Oct. 13, district engineers from Tarmiyah, Abayachi, and Mushada met with members of the group to discuss possible area projects.

Rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq will create validity of the government in the eyes of its people, said Capt. Mary Alice Keller, the 1479th team leader, from Washington D.C.

“The Project Working Group just began in this area,” said Athens, Ala., native, 2nd Lt. Nicholas Bryan, the battalion’s civil military operations officer in charge. “It has been successful in other areas, and I believe that it’ll be successful here too.”

The local Iraqi leaders created a list of 200 projects, but after much discussion and compromise, the list is now down to 70.

“These projects will help keep the people happy,” said Shaykh Ahmed, a Sons of Iraq leader from the Abayachi district. “They have done so much for us, we are very appreciative.”

Chosen projects focus mainly on essential services such as water and waste management, electricity, health services and schools. The idea of the project working group is to help as many people as possible with one project, explained Bryan.

“I am very satisfied with the list of projects that you have asked for, it is a fairly spread list throughout the Qada,” said Lt. Col. Scott Jackson, the battalion commander, to area leaders. “They represent serious concerns in the Qada and the needs of the people.”

The Project Working Group is designed to help fund projects which benefit the people, but that is not the only purpose for the existence of this group.

“We are hoping to get across that we aren’t just here for the projects,” explained Bryan. “We are trying to bolster them to do it on their own.”

The Commanders Emergency Response Program helps fund the projects, but the Iraqi government is required to pay for a portion of the projects. Because the Iraqi government helps fund the projects, they will have ownership as well. This sense of ownership is expected to keep Iraqi leaders involved in these projects after completion and after U.S. forces withdraw.

According to Keller, if governmental officials are a part of the project, they will better respect it; they will want it to be taken care of. With the government’s assistance to support and help their people, it will increase the locals’ trust that their government can protect and take care of them and their families.

“We are very appreciative of everything that the U.S. forces are doing for us,” said A.

Hameed, a city council engineer from the Abayachi district. “They have done so much for us since they have been here.”

The civil affairs team, with the help of Jackson, will decide which projects will best benefit the people and announce their decision at the next meeting.

“This group is more than just projects,” said Bryan. “It will help strengthen the Qada leaders so when U.S. forces pull out of Iraq they have something set up to swing toward.”

* * * * FLASH TRAFFIC: WASHINGTON UPDATE * * * *

Thank you for reading. Please feel free to forward to others.

The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

JunkScience.com
Updated August 2007

Click on the graphic above to retrieve a 600 x 889 pixel version (prints conveniently on A4 page) We admit we didn’t expect the demand experienced for the poster-size graphic of 1300 x 1926 pixels, available for download here (585KB). We are not selling these images but your donations do help us provide the information that you came to this page to read. Please support JunkScience.com Donate US$25 or more and get a free copy of Silencing Science by Steven Milloy (while supplies last).

Following requests from JunkScience.com readers we thought it might be a good idea to pull together a page of questions-and-answers, complete with a few nice little graphics explaining the facts.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of rubbish available on the ‘net giving rather misleading descriptions of Earth’s natural ‘greenhouse effect’ and of the probable consequences of human-generated emissions adding to this effect.

Basic misconceptions that must be addressed include:

Does the Earth’s atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term “greenhouse effect” is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called “greenhouse gases.” An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth’s atmosphere is incorrect.

For a description of physical greenhouses see Sue Ann Bowling’s ASF piece here.

This does seem to cause some confusion so, to highlight the distinction between actual greenhouses and Earth’s inaccurately named greenhouse effect simply note that greenhouse temperatures are maintained by controlling the mixing air inside and outside the greenhouse (if it’s too warm in the greenhouse you open a top and bottom window and let convective action displace warmed air with cool) while Earth’s atmosphere is surrounded by the near-vacuum of space.

So, real greenhouses work mainly by modulating convection while the ‘greenhouse effect’ works by modulating radiation.

Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No, for the same reason that they don’t behave like an actual greenhouse, they simply do not behave as a barrier to convective activity and so aren’t “like a blanket.”

Forgetting about the unfortunate-but-commonly-used terminology for a moment, is the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ bad?

No, it’s necessary to maintain a habitable planet. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon’s mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (380 K, 225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (120 K, -243 °F). The Lunar surface temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon.

How much does the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ warm the Earth?

It’s estimated that the Earth’s surface would be about -18 °C (0 °F, 255 K) with atmosphere and clouds but without the greenhouse effect and that the (we’ll call it “natural”) greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s temperature by ~33 °C (59 °F).

We should note that devoid of atmosphere Earth would actually be a less-cold -1 °C (272 K) because the first calculation strangely includes 31% reflection of solar radiation by clouds (which obviously could not occur without an atmosphere) while ignoring that clouds add significantly to the greenhouse effect. Granted it’s kind of a bizarre to include clouds in one half the calculation and not the other but that is the way it’s commonly done, so, for simplicity, just stick with ~33 °C.

Theoretically, if the planet’s surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 K (77 °C). Atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) circumvent much of the greenhouse effect and significantly increase the “escape” of energy to space, leaving Earth’s surface more than 60 °C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.

Additionally, greenhouse gases are only able to absorb radiation in very specific electromagnetic frequencies and Earth does not radiate limitless amounts of energy in the appropriate bandwidths. This means there is ‘competition’ for available energy and significant greenhouse potential is unrealized (carbon dioxide could absorb more than 3 times the energy it currently does in the atmosphere were it not for competition from clouds and water vapor, clouds alone could absorb 50% of available energy but manage to capture just 14% and so on…).

So, despite there being far more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to achieve the current greenhouse effect, something which has been true since before humans discovered fire, evapo-transpiration and thermals transport heat higher in the atmosphere where radiation to space is increased. This is why Earth remains about 15 °C (288 K) rather than about 77 °C (350 K).

Wait a minute! Those aren’t the numbers I learned!

Ah! Someone who remembers their science classes eh? Well, you got us. Reference works frequently list the planet’s mean surface temperature as 16 °C (289 K, 61 °F); sometimes 15 °C (288 K, 59 °F) is mentioned and yes, these are about the expected temperatures by calculation — in the 1960s and 1970s numbers as high as 65 °F (18 °C, 291 K) were popular but we haven’t seen those for some time. Here we run into a little bit of a problem, however — taking the Earth’s temperature is no trivial task. In fact, even defining precisely what we mean by the absolute surface air temperature is challenging. Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) — the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.

Do greenhouse gases trap the sun’s radiation/’heat’?

Not to any great extent. The Sun, being much hotter than Earth, emits high energy, shortwave radiation while in response Earth emits longwave radiation. The cooler the portion of the Earth or atmosphere, the lower energy intensity, longer wave radiation is emitted (that old white hot, yellow hot, red hot thing).

Greenhouse gases are generally transparent to incoming solar radiation (they let most solar radiation through) and opaque to Earth’s radiation (they absorb and transfer the Earth’s infrared radiation by a variety of means). That said, oxygen and ozone do absorb incoming Ultraviolet (UV) radiation (<0.3µm) and water, ozone, oxygen and, to a tiny extent, carbon dioxide also absorb a small amount of incoming shortwave below the 3 micron (µm) wavelength range (see graphic) and it is mostly the UV absorption by ozone that causes warming in the stratosphere above the tropopause.

The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere (which is based at the earth’s surface and has temperature that decreases with height, extending about 10-50Km or 6-30 miles above the surface) and the stratosphere (which is a stable region of very low levels of vertical mixing above the troposphere).

A representation of relative emission wavelengths can be seen on the following graphic.

Greenhouse gases do not really “trap Earth’s heat” but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. (“Trapping heat” implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever, which is a false notion.) Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth in which they absorb energy and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide.

While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.

Is ‘greenhouse’ the same as ‘global warming’?

Absolutely not. We’ll look at both terms below.

What about ‘climate change’ then?

That’s a different thing altogether. Change is what the climate is always doing and is the result of our planet’s orbital eccentricities, axial wobble, solar brightness variation, cosmic ray flux, etc.. There are also plausible terrestrial drivers of climate change too, including super volcanic events and tectonic movement, but these are not in the realm of anthropogenic (manmade) effects and so we won’t looking at them here.

The global mean temperature over which there has been so much obsession is only one part of climate (for example, how wet or dry the climate happens to be is probably of far greater significance than a simple mean temperature). In fact it’s not even clear that a global mean temperature is a particularly useful metric. Nonetheless Earth’s apparent temperature is the cause of great angst at present so it will remain the focus of this document for that reason alone.

Graphics for a simple understanding of the greenhouse effect

This first graphic meets the criteria of being simple, specifically includes water vapor and clouds as both absorbers and emitters (remarkably few greenhouse graphics do so) and is reasonably proportionate.

Big note here — we were unable to find useful graphics adequately expressing convection, which, as we highlighted above, keeps the planet more than 60 °C cooler than would otherwise be the case.

The next graphic provides an indication of the infrared component of the planetary radiation budget. Note that these are expressed as percentages and that the 100% incoming and outgoing solar energy balance is not the whole story — there is additional energy transfer in progress between the atmosphere and surface, and surface and atmosphere. This is the natural greenhouse effect that makes life as we know it possible on Earth. (Don’t worry if you don’t quite follow the numbers, we’ll provide a “map” view below.)

The following is from Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997). This is expressed in Watts per square meter (Wm^-2) and tells the same story of the incoming 342 Wm^-2 = outgoing (235 + 107 Wm^-2). Note that there is relatively little direct reflection and radiation from surface to space but significant exchange via the atmosphere. Note further that the surface receives almost twice the energy from the atmosphere as it does directly from the sun. The exchange between surface, atmosphere and surface is what is meant by greenhouse effect. (Some might prefer viewing this simplified Earth energy budget)

It might also help novices to conceive of the atmosphere and the natural greenhouse effect as a kind of metaphorical energy flow control valve. There is a lot of energy bouncing around but the amount of energy entering the system and the amount leaving is fairly tightly constrained. The atmosphere is acting as a kind of check valve, slowing the loss of energy to space but the net incoming (324 + 168 Wm^-2) = net outgoing (390 + 78 + 24 Wm^-2).

Okay, if that’s greenhouse, what is ‘global warming’?

While greenhouse is the “what,” “global warming” really refers to the “how much.”

Since Arrhenius began speculating a century ago about low CO₂ levels and ice ages the hypothesis of temperature relation to atmospheric carbon dioxide has drifted in and out of scientific focus. At present it is the focus of a great deal of attention.

Populist overuse and abuse has largely rendered the term “global warming” meaningless and what is really meant is “enhanced greenhouse”. Yes, this is another term but don’t worry, we’ll explain this one easily and quickly.

“Enhanced greenhouse” means the additional delay in energy loss to space induced by the fraction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by humans before those gases are removed from the atmosphere by breakdown and/or biological activity.

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other “minor greenhouse gases.” As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO₂.

The adjacent radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths.

Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the “window” is saturated (or said to be “closed”). Once a window approaches saturation adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing exciting.

This point seems to cause a bit of confusion for some people so perhaps consider multiple shades on a window with each shade blocking half the light coming through. Pull one shade and you reduce the light source by half, pull another and you block half the light coming through the first shade, etc.. The effect of each shade diminishes as you keep adding more until eventually you get no additional effect – you have saturated or blocked the radiation window and it makes no real difference if you double or quadruple the number of shades again.

Well, I heard that carbon dioxide is bad — it’s pollution, isn’t it?

There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you — like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web.

Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat, land that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population.

Commercial growers deliberately generate CO₂ and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO₂ feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into “natural” wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity.

If it’s “pollution,” then it’s pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn’t sound too bad to us.

But we’re responsible for all the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect?

Gracious no! Humans can only claim responsibility, if that’s the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here).

Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere, “disappearing” into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans’ total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps a quarter of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere — we’re simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Assuming that water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it’s various forms is 90% of the total greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect (we know we cited 95% above — see “important distinction“). Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, meaning 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.

Ah, we’ve added 2.5% to the total greenhouse effect then?

Well, not exactly, if it were such a simple accumulation we could easily determine exactly how much Earth would warm from a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ (not much) and certainly that would be an improvement on the silly figures bandied about.

Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does. Clouds, in the absence of all other greenhouse gases, could do likewise — look at it as there already being “competition” for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like.

Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).

If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO₂ alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we’d never see it – CO₂ becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).

Well, how much does carbon dioxide heat the Earth?

Oh my, we were afraid you were going to ask that. Because so many of the atmospheric processes are still being sorted out and quantified this is a non-trivial task. But alright, here goes.

What we can do is plot some of the more common estimates — note that these are something of a curve-fitting exercise on our part because we don’t have the full papers and workings at hand. Stay with us while we run through a couple of rough sketch graphs, following which we’ll try a different approach to see if we can’t narrow the possibilities.

We’ll offer three of the more commonly used and/or discussed estimates for the amount of cooling Earth would experience for a hypothetical zero-CO₂, cloud-free atmosphere

1. Lindzen (5.3 °C clear sky, 3.53 °C with 40% cloud),
2. Charnock & Shine (12 °C clear sky), C&S are the big number guys in the estimation game (both these from Physics Today, 1995),
3. Kondratjew & Moskalenko (7.2 °C, commonly cited but we are not sure why, perhaps because Houghton used their estimate in his book, ‘The Global Climate‘, 1984).

Here these estimates are simply scripted up to produce the following graphs and the numbers are imprecise, merely adequate to give everyone a reasonable look at how carbon dioxide fits into the picture.

Note also that there is still dispute over whether water would (does) act as a positive or negative “feedback” (multiplier effect) since water vapor and droplets (clouds) affect both incoming Solar radiation and outgoing Earth radiation.

Our simple script is logarithmic (remember our example of adding more shades over a window) but does not allow for complete saturation of radiative wavelengths, likely increases in evapo-transpirative cooling, increases in albedo (bright clouds reflecting more incoming solar radiation) nor any variation by latitude and so will progressively overestimate potential warming from CO₂ alone. No matter, it does quite well enough to demonstrate the principle.

You can see how much this little script has overshot the mark since Lindzen states explicitly that a doubling from 300ppmv to 600ppmv of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in only 0.5 °C warming. Rather obviously, Lindzen’s calculations do not suggest a particularly large greenhouse influence on post-Industrial Revolution temperatures and, significantly, this does not include clouds, so CO₂ would really only be a fraction of the total effect shown (Lindzen states 0.22 °C if calculated with 40% cloud cover).

Despite our over-estimation of the numbers on the graph it should be apparent there is only moderate warming potential from carbon dioxide emissions. These have all been plotted simultaneously so you can see the range of estimates for incremental change in temperature driven by greenhouse gases and below we show for a quadrupling of CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas relative to pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

Since some people are not familiar with logarithmic effect, we’ll just point out a few features from the above graphs. Note the diminishing effect in all cases — the first half of pre-IR greenhouse-driven temperature increment in each estimate is achieved by less than 20 parts per million carbon dioxide (20ppmv CO₂), it then took adding thirteen times as much again to repeat the performance (to 280ppmv). The estimated temperature increment range for a doubling of pre-IR CO₂ (graphed as 300ppmv to 600ppmv) is just +0.6 °C to +1.5 °C and for a quadrupling (to 1200ppmv) +1.3 °C to +2.9 °C.

Lots of numbers, which ones fit what we think we know of the Earth’s greenhouse effect?

Let’s try working backwards for a moment.

The Earth’s greenhouse effect is commonly estimated at 33 °C and these calculations simply assume that to be true.

If water vapor accounts for 70% and clouds another 20% (making water 90% of total atmosphere greenhouse effect) then we have 10% left for carbon dioxide and the ubiquitous “other” GHGs.

Lindzen’s 3.53 °C cooling potential for complete removal of CO₂ would then seem to fit the bill fairly adequately at around 10.7% of the total effect (3.53/33), while there’s really not room for the larger estimates. Note, however, that carbon dioxide is generally reckoned to account for between 4.2% and 8.4% of Earth’s net greenhouse effect because water vapor and clouds also behave differently at different concentrations and temperatures (we warned you this wasn’t linear).

On the other hand, if we assume Charnock and Shine are closer to the mark then ~36% of Earth’s greenhouse effect must be driven by CO₂ (12/33). This is intuitively unreasonable since water is both prolific and has absorption windows overlapping those of carbon dioxide to a large extent.

This suggests (but does not prove) that Lindzen is likely to be the nearest estimate from those we’ve plotted above.

Note that if you discount all other possible drivers of global temperature change — meaning that humanity has completely taken over from all natural effects that were operating until that time (highly unlikely) — then the estimate of Charnock & Shine neatly fits observed warming over the period.

If their massive estimate of net greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is true then a worst case doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will still only produce a total warming under 1.5 °C (and we’re thought to be almost half-way there already).

This still does not suggest a major enhanced greenhouse catastrophe.

What about the ‘positive feedback’ they talk about — what’s that?

Positive feedback is a multiplier effect, usually 2.5 times, added to models to make them ‘wiggle fit’ (reproduce previously observed temperatures) with the limited set of parameters programmed.

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere and the initial conditions that must be set, ranging from solar output to the texture of the Earth’s surface and its effect on wind speed, seasons, humidity, cloudiness, ocean currents and so on, models are necessarily vastly simplified compared with the real world and hence need many compromises and fudges.

Since the known physics of carbon dioxide when modeled with measured Twentieth Century changes do not produce sufficient swings to match measured 20^th Century temperature trends a multiplier of 2.5 is used (said to account for increased evaporation in a slightly warmer world which, in turn, produces more water vapor greenhouse effect and more warming…).

Sounds reasonable — we did say water vapor was the most important greenhouse gas

Yes and no. While it is intuitively reasonable that the most prolific and important greenhouse gas could act as a magnifier there is no evidence that it does. In fact water vapor is self limiting because it precipitates out as rain and snow and its effect also varies as cloud, with more bright low cloud acting as a cooling effect.

If positive feedback from water vapor was really a dominant climatic effect then it should be very easy to find, firstly by looking at an unusual event.

Depicted in the adjacent graphic is Earth’s response to the 1997/98 El Niño event. These are anomalies and several of the datasets produce anomalies with reference to different base periods but that is of no particular interest here — only the synchronous warming and subsequent cooling depicted in the atmospheric series (UAH and RSS satellite, HadAT radiosonde balloon) and near-surface land and sea surface datasets (NCDC, GISS and HadCRUT3) of ~0.9 and ~0.5 K respectively.

This warming and subsequent cooling is in addition to the normal seasonal global variation (plotted as variation from the expected monthly mean temperature in each case) and thus provides precisely the situation in which we are interested.

Since the world cooled almost as abruptly as it warmed we can only assume no positive feedback mechanism was invoked and thus Earth is not perilously perched upon some critical temperature threshold beyond which new physics takes over and runaway enhanced greenhouse warming becomes a self-perpetuating nightmare. That test for a multiplier effect surely failed.

Secondly, we know there’s an annual warming, quite a severe one, in fact and that’s the seasonal heating of the hemispheres. Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature:

This is as reported by the National Climatic Data Center, the means 1961-1990 (commonly used as a reference period) work out the same globally but do differ slightly on a regional basis:

There is always the possibility this temperature effect is a seasonal artifact of near-surface measurement so we should check atmospheric measures. UAH MSU data tells us the lower troposphere global mean varies somewhat less than near-surface temperature with monthly averages rising and falling approximately 2.3 °C through the year (there’s no significant difference between UAH and RSS lower tropospheric data).

The Northern Hemisphere (where most people live) cycles an impressive 9.76 °C through the monthly averages as far as lower tropospheric measures are concerned and a whopping 11.6 °C according to land-based near-surface measures.

With global and hemispheric variation to this extent each and every year it is somewhat difficult to view an estimated change of 0.6 ± 0.2 °C over 120 years as being dangerous but it does seem to be the cause of considerable angst.

Nonetheless, the global troposphere warms at least 2 K from January to July every year without triggering any self-perpetuating water vapor-driven positive feedback. Surely a positive feedback should manifest under the influence of a 10 K hemispheric warming and this should be sufficient to overwhelm lack of insolation in the Southern Hemisphere winter inducing global warming and yet this doesn’t happen. So much for ‘positive feedback.

If that’s all the anticipated greenhouse effect, where do the big warming estimates come from?

Ah, this is where it gets rather contentious because the big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists — but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model “natural” climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards.

Moreover, humans do a lot besides emitting greenhouse gases, changing vegetation and transpiration rates through agriculture, for example, and many effects expected to both increase and decrease regional temperatures are not included in these models.

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of “positive feedbacks” (the multiplier effects mentioned above) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner.

There has been some claim we are ignoring “self-evident” positive feedbacks, which we’d be delighted to highlight if only someone could point to any such empirical measure. The bottom line, however, is that the IPCC estimates a trivial 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C warming during the Twentieth Century. Both the GHCN-ERSST Data Set and the HadCRUT2v Data Set record the period of the 19-teens through mid-1940s as having a global trend of +0.13 °C/decade for a net warming of 0.45 °C — leaving a mere 0.15 °C ± 0.2 °C net warming potential for the post-WWII period of significant carbon emission from fossil fuel use.

It is evident, to us at least, that if positive feedback mechanisms exist (entirely plausible) then their effect is negligible or mitigated by negative feedback mechanisms (equally plausible). Unlike modelers, who alter their virtual worlds at whim, we can only measure what the world actually does, and there simply isn’t room in the measured change for the existence of significant unmitigated positive feedbacks.

As an example of how mileage may vary, as they say, we’ve reproduced here a table of comparisons between 108 model guess-timations for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide compiled by Kacholia and Reck, published in 1997.

Note that the range of estimates spans from 0.2 °C to 8.7 °C and that the same modelers get large variations as they play with their model parameters. For example Washington and Meehl show listings of 1.3 °C; 1.4 °C–3.5 °C; 1.6 °C; 4.0 °C and back to 1.6 °C over the course of a decade. This is not highlighted as being egregious or any such thing, just frequent in this list. Charnock and Shine appear in this list (1993) with estimations of 1.5 °C–2.4 °C and we derive their 1995 discussion in Physics Today as 1.46 °C so we’re in the ballpark and they may have reduced their estimate. Lindzen seems to have done so too, listed here from 1982 as 1.46 °C–1.93 °C and stating explicitly in the same Physics Today discussion that he estimated 0.5 °C for clear sky conditions and just 0.22 °C when including 40% cloud cover.

Unfortunately there has been no narrowing of the estimated range of “expected” warming from a doubling of CO₂ — in fact the range has widened even further as ever more players attempt to stand out in a crowded publication field. It isn’t that the physics of carbon dioxide’s radiative properties keep changing, rather that ever more imaginative “feedbacks” are shunted into the positive column to make model output more interesting. The bottom line is that you need to stuff a huge amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere to get much response as more of the absorptive bands near saturation.

The modelers themselves point out that their models continue to suffer significant difficulties:

Why do we suspect the big warming numbers are likely wrong?

Actually, you can play with some parameters and work it out for yourselves. Since the really big guesses made by the IPCC and some truly bizarre output by climateprediction.net (CPN) are at least linear, if not exponential in their response to changes in minor trace gases we can work backwards and below you will find a pair of calculators so you can have a go.

Even before we managed to post this poor old CPN suffered a major embarrassment: Error discovered in the BBC Climate Change Experiment. Now even they know they’re wildly over-guess-timating. The BBC is advising those they dragooned into the project that their model runs will be restarting here. Meanwhile, Red Tops like The Inquirer are mischievously postulating “With around 200,000 PCs running the experiment non-stop for two months, it looks very much as if the BBC experiment is making more of a contribution to global warming than scientific knowledge.” Fortunately, the real world is not so easily perturbed.

Below, at left we have a linear calculator. To know how it works you just have to remember that the Earth is about 15 °C, so that’s the output target you are aiming at producing at the bottom of the calculator. You know that carbon dioxide accounts for something less than 10% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect so your first input is going to be a number less than or equal to that (in fact, we’ve limited the calculator so any greater input will be calculated as 10% and it will ignore any attempted input that is not greater than zero). The second parameter is the guess-timated warming. The output produced will be what the current global mean temperature must be for the linear increase to be as input.

At right we have a logarithmic calculator so you can play with the atmosphere to your heart’s content. The calculator will always assume a base of 33 °C for the starting net greenhouse effect – it’s limited to a max of 10% greenhouse effect from CO₂ and a minimum of 2ppmv CO₂ so you can really have a play with the atmosphere and logarithmic effect. Notice how doubling small concentrations of carbon dioxide gives large responses while the reverse also applies – enjoy! When you are finished we have some more information below the calculators.

How did you go? No? Oh well, try 4.2% of greenhouse effect for a net warming of 1.4 °C for the linear calculator.

Well, why is the planet warming so catastrophically if it’s not CO₂ then?

Who says it is warming catastrophically?

Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we’ve already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth’s temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004.

We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet’s temperature.

If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for “hottest ever in recorded history” should happen just about every year — although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about — so there’s really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

At risk of belaboring the point, the following data is from the merged land air and sea surface temperature data set (based on data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of land temperatures and the Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (COADS) of SST data). This is the Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 – 2005: Global Trend: 0.04 °C/decade (for the arithmetically-challenged that’s 12.5 decades for a total of +0.5 °C since 1880).

The land temperature-only data (less than 30% of the planet and usually measured around cities) yields a trend of 0.07 °C/decade over the same period for a total increment of 0.875 °C.

A lot of people seem to like an idea of a specific temperature number so here’s the National Climatic Data Center’s monthly mean temperature record. Obviously seasonal change throughout the year dwarfs net increment over one and one-quarter centuries.

While we are talking about thermometry and measured near-surface temperatures we must underline that these accumulate to mere estimates and are fraught with difficulties.

Seven-tenths of the globe’s surface is water and historical temperature series from these regions are largely based on sailors tossing a bucket on a rope over the side and then dangling a thermometer in the water hauled aboard, so coverage is basically from sea lanes and measurement somewhat, shall we say, agricultural.

Then there’s the problems introduced by discontinuity in local records as observation points move over time or small towns cease to exist altogether, even gardens or the growth of adjacent trees might influence how air flows around a specific recording point and then there’s changes in equipment to take into account.

Calculating what the temperature is, let alone what it has been, is no trivial task and then accumulating myriad changing locales to a global amalgam leaves much room for error.

We briefly mentioned above that much of the temperature record is derived from measurement taken where people happen to be and thus there is an increasingly urban nature to the temperature record (as rural recording sites have ceased to operate, especially over the last three decades or so). To some extent this is due to meteorological satellites as there is no longer a need to maintain remote observation outposts for the purpose of deriving surface-based weather forecasts, hence the urbanization of the near-surface temperature record. The significance of this is that there is an increasing difference between the temperatures found in the built environment and surrounding land surface – it’s called the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). Berkeley Lab have a good example here.

To what extent UHIE is influencing the global temperature trends we think we are measuring remains uncertain. Although curators of global temperature datasets tend to claim the effect has been eliminated through adjustments to the record, or that it is irrelevant, such claims are not entirely convincing.

There are regions where temperature records have been maintained for much longer than the 1880 commencement usually seen and these make interesting comparators. Additionally, we have some available rural and urban records from similar regions that can be viewed in parallel where we might expect similar trends if urban influence has genuinely been removed from the record. Alongside we have an example of the Armagh Observatory and Central England Temperature trends compared. Since there is no obvious reason carbon dioxide would behave differently in Northern Ireland than it does in Central England we must at least entertain the suspicion other factors are in play.

In addition to relatively subtle disparity in trends between locations we have measurements which are likely less influenced by UHIE, those taken actually in the atmosphere by instrument packs carried aloft by meteorological balloons. At left is the CDIAC radiosonde record from 1958-2004.

At right we have the Alaskan surface record classically highlighting the effect of the PDO phase shift. There is no plausible means by which accumulating greenhouse gas could effectively act as a major warming agent in one year but not in the preceding or subsequent years. There are many other datasets and attempts at measuring the temperature of the Earth ranging from satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) to meteorological station near-surface thermometer records and a comprehensive collection of these can be found here on JunkScience.com.

We would be remiss if we did not at least mention the infamous “hockey stick” representation of global temperature as estimated for Earth’s recent history. The graphic linked at left comes from the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR). The red “blade” section of the graphic is the same data as depicted in red on the graphic linked below, right and serves as an object lesson – always check the scale of depiction.

Notice that the graphic does not show absolute Central England Temperature as does the Armagh comparison above. Of particular significance is that the CET contains abrupt warming episodes of similar or greater magnitude early in each of the previous centuries. While it appears that the CET makes a fair proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures as derived by Jones and Mann this is merely speculative and constitutes no proof. It does, however, suggest great caution is warranted before attempting to extrapolate trends from a mere century or so of temperature data.

What caused the apparently massive temperature leap at the beginning of the 18^th Century? It certainly wasn’t industrialization, that hadn’t happened yet. If such changes appear in the record during recent periods when people can not have caused them then they are by definition “natural” and, if such natural changes are evident in recent history, why are we so fixated on carbon dioxide as a “culprit” driving lesser warming now?

Finally, it is worth wondering why, with some three and one-half centuries of population growth, development and urbanization depicted in the Central England Temperature series, recent “chart-toppers” have managed to elevate top temperatures by a paltry 0.16 °C over those of the early 1730s.

The vast majority of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has taken place over the seventy years since the Second World War and if CO₂ were a significant driver of temperature change we would expect those years to be almost exclusively represented in the highest temperatures and yet fewer than half manage to make the warmest one-hundred list.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc association of carbon dioxide is observed to increase, warmer temperatures are measured, therefore carbon dioxide warms the planet is a very poor basis for the current fixation.

So, humans aren’t affecting the planet or its temperature.

Whoa! We didn’t say that at all.

This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that’s a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects.

The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there’s land use change which can be variable depending on latitude — replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption.

There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true — that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and “global warming.”

Here’s a very simplified graphic on atmospheric absorption. And, at right, there’s a somewhat more detailed graphic.

Right: (a) Normalized blackbody curves for 5780 K and 220 K, plotted so that irradiance is proportional to the areas under the curves. (c) Atmospheric absorption in clear air for solar radiation with a zenith angle of 50 degrees and for diffuse terrestrial radiation. (b) Same as (c) but for the portion of the atmosphere lying above the 11-km level, near the middle latitude tropopause. [From Wallace and Hobbs, p. 332]

Finally, here’s a palm-size reference version for those pub trivia nights.

What are the take-home messages:

• The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
• The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century – perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
• The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
• The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
• The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
• Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
• Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
• Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
• There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures – there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
• Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
• Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

So, now you know.

Suggested additional reading:

• “Global warming,” also known as “enhanced greenhouse” will not cause catastrophe
• Cosmic Rays and Earth’s Climate
• This warming thing… what Watt is what?
• The Real ‘Carbon Footprint’ Calculator
• Supporting data for the Real ‘Carbon Footprint’ Calculator
• If ‘Global Warming’ is real, what could be causing it?
• The pub trivia guide to global warming
• ‘Global Warming’ at a glance
• ‘Global Warming’ Proxies

HOME

Stream videos at Ustream

Nobel Peace Prize Called ‘Left-wing Charade’

By: NewsMax.com 10/18/2009

The Nobel Peace Prize has become “worthless” and should be overshadowed by an award named for a man who truly did achieve peace ? Ronald Reagan, according to former White House official Jeffrey Lord.

Writing in The American Spectator after Barack Obama became the latest recipient of the Nobel, Lord observes: “The decision to give the award to Obama was made by a group of Norwegian parliamentarians dominated by socialists.”

The prize “has become essentially worthless, a charade for left-wing Norwegian politicians to award like-minded liberals and liberalism under the guise that the award in some objective fashion determines an individual’s contributions to peace,” writes Lord, who was a political director in the Reagan administration.

“It’s easy to cite the current story. Obama today, Al Gore yesterday, Jimmy Carter the day before that. . . Reagan? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? George W. Bush? Of course not.

“It’s time for the Reagan Peace Prize. Actually, it’s past time.”

Lord cites a number of Nobel recipients whose efforts at promoting peace ultimately resulted in failure, beginning in 1919 with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. He was honored for his work on the disastrous Treaty of Versailles ending World War I and the League of Nations, which Lord described as “an embarrassing failure.”

“The hard cold facts of history illustrate that the peace through strength policies initiated by President Reagan were a success,” says Lord, now a journalist and author whose works have appeared in publications including The Wall Street Journal and National Review.

“His belief in the importance of human freedom, in directly opposing tyranny and protecting liberty, combined with the maintenance and, when needed, projection of a strong military, ended the Cold War and the ‘evil empire’ that was the Soviet Union.

“Reagan’s strategy freed millions of East Europeans enslaved since the end of the Second World War, which in turn was brought on by the inexcusably wrong-headed, naive if well-intentioned policies of one Nobel Peace Prize winner after another.”

Recipients of the Reagan Prize would be chosen by a panel of conservative Americans drawn from the worlds of politics, journalism, entrepreneurship and entertainment. And it would be presented in Berlin, a “symbol of Reagan’s successes: the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union that built it, and the Cold War that made that Wall and all it stood for possible,” Lord writes.

As for who might win the award, Lord suggests likely candidates would be “the three Iranian dissidents known only by their initials in current news reports, all identified as being sentenced to death for protesting Iran’s rigged elections.”

Lord concludes: “It’s time to award real prestige to those who achieve real peace. It’s time for the Reagan Prize.

NewsMax.com

Not Evil Just Wrong Forum Video ~ Al Gore’s Inconvenient TRUTH NIGHTMARE

6 hours 54 minutes 19 seconds until the release:

Help Us Make History!

Be Part of a World Record for the largest ever simultaneous film premiere

Host a Premiere Become an Affiliate

SIGN UP!

THE FIGHTBACK START

Dear AMERICA,

For years, Brigitte Gabriel and ACT!, along with many others, have repeatedly shined the light on CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), its links to terrorist organizations like Hamas, and its relentless efforts to demonize any person or organization that dared to criticize it.

In spite of the fact that numerous CAIR officials and persons connected to CAIR have been either arrested, indicted or convicted of various charges; in spite of the fact that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial (where 108 guilty verdicts were handed down); and in spite of the fact that the FBI has severed official ties to CAIR due to unanswered questions about its ties to Hamas…

CAIR continues to claim it is a “moderate,” “mainstream” Muslim organization.

You absolutely must read the explosive WorldNetDaily exclusive below (yellow highlights in the article are ours). Here’s just one excerpt:

Please forward this email to everyone you know!

Posted: October 14, 2009
9:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008

In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation’s most aggressive Muslim “civil rights” organization for six months – has produced stunning revelations about the supposedly “moderate” group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents obtained during the secret op.

As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Indisputable evidence now shows CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.

Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation’s capital and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.

That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the undercover investigation – which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.

“Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator P. David Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR’s ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.

Get “Muslim Mafia,” autographed, from WND’s Superstore

The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.

With evidence from “Muslim Mafia” in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick writes in the foreword to “Muslim Mafia.”

Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded “Muslim Mafia” for definitively exposing the “tawdry and possibly illegal inner workings of radical Islam’s most aggressive organization in North America.”

“The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause,” Pipes said.

Undercover

The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.

Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor.

Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.

Chris Gaubatz and CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper working the CAIR booth at the 45th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008

The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

“Muslim Mafia” also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and “destroying Western civilization from within.”

“The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible,” said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.

The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the “Ikhwan mafia” because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood’s criminal activities from authorities.

“These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza,” said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book.

Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in “Muslim Mafia” include:

New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans; Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets; CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported; CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans, however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters; CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources; CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law: The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.

The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam.

The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the “religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow.”

While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.

Certificate signed by Nihad Awad and awarded to Chris Gaubatz for completing his internship

CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers.

The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, “Muslim Mafia” notes.

Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.

(Click here to continue reading this article)

————————————————————————— Visit Our News Page

——————————————————————————————-

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Dear AMERICA,

Did you realize that “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance”?

That’s right, according to Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, who made this astonishing statement in an interview on a British television show (see story below).

Mogahed has made news before.

She was a member of the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project, which called for “engagement” with the Muslim Brotherhood — the organization that has a 100 year plan for subverting and overthrowing the West.

She teamed up with John Esposito to conduct a poll on Islam, then misrepresented some of the results (some called it “cooking the books”) in order to increase the number of Muslim “moderates.”

What makes Mogahed’s demonstrably untrue assertion about shariah even more disturbing is that she made it in an interview hosted by a member of the radical Islamist organization Hizb ut Tahrir.

Hizb ut Tahrir is committed to the overthrow of democracy and capitalism and the worldwide imposition of shariah Islamic law. The organization has been banned as a terrorist organization in several countries — but remarkably, not here in the United States.

For Mogahed to assert that shariah promotes “gender justice” would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

That she has the ear of the White House is yet another chilling reminder of how our nation is being led down the path of forced Islamification that England and Western Europe have already walked.

This is another reason why, over the past few weeks, we have been issuing such an urgent call to action to you, our members. If you have not yet responded to our fall “Call to Action,” there’s still time to help us reach our goal.

Please click here to become a monthly contributing Patriot Partner.

Or you can help by making a one-time gift as a Contributing Member by clicking here. (To make your gift with a check, click here to print out a reply form to mail with your check).

There are ample signs that a large percentage of the American people, once adequately informed about the multiple threats of radical Islam, don’t want an America that looks like England.

Help us reach them. Help us educate them. Help us mobilize them. There is time — but we don’t have ten or fifteen years. We need to act NOW, as if our very future depends on it — because it does.

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/
6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

“The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

“The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial “Hadd offences”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,” but added: “Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week’s broadcast, she described her White House role as “to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Rush Is 100% right on this one…The Truth Is The Truth…Even If You Do No Accept It As The Truth!

Rush Limbaugh On Barack Obamas Nobel Peace Prize ::: First Accomplishment As President

Watch the League’s Newest TV Ad: Don’t Cut Our Medicare Senator Max Baucus!

Dick is urging you to support our TV campaign in this final push, please Donate Here Now.

Urgent Message From Dick Morris Provided By: NewsMax

The Senate Finance Committee will soon be voting on the Obamacare plan to radically overhaul our healthcare system. Then the full Senate will take up the matter.

We need your urgent help to stop Obamacare.

Dick Morris, the Fox News analyst, says we can still defeat Obamacare.

Dick is the chief strategist at the League of American Voters.

He says the coming votes will be very close.

In the past week, we have been airing a 15-second TV ad in Maine, Arkansas and North Dakota, 3 crucial states, exposing the Obama plan which will cut up to $500 billion in Medicare for Seniors.

We are clearly having an effect.

But we need to do more, and be prepared as this bill goes to the full Senate and House.

Dick is urging you to support our TV campaign in this final push, please Donate Here Now.

Also read Dick’s latest column below that reveals our strategy.

Bob Adams
Executive Director

SNOWE AND LINCOLN WILL DETERMINE EVERYTHING

By DICK MORRIS

Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.

The Democrats need Snowe’s vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package. On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it’s OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.

Lincoln’s vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.

If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.

Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln’s vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.

Once Obama’s plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.

However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president’s defenses.

All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine — and their families — want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?

Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?

An Urgent Note from Dick Morris:

I have persuaded the League of American Voters to run ten second advertisements in key states that show an elderly person saying: “Senator _________: Please don’t cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare.” We need to get these ads on in the key states.

We need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!

Please click here to donate and give generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!

Donate Here Now.

Thank you.

Dick Morris

Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.

League of American Voters    |    722 12th Street N.W.    |    Fourth Floor    |    Washington, D.C. 20005

* * * * FLASH TRAFFIC: WASHINGTON UPDATE * * * *

ISRAEL IN DANGER OF BEING BLINDSIDED BY TWO GRAVE THREATS

By: Joel Rosenberg

More on weblog: * New poll finds 61% of Americans support attack on Iran
* Link to Joel’s new “Epicenter Team” on Facebook

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(WASHINGTON, D.C., October 7, 2009) — Thirty-six years ago this week, Israel was hit by a massive and devastating surprise attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism.

The warning signs that Israel’s enemies were gearing up to deal the Jewish State a death blow were there. Her leaders simply didn’t properly assess, interpret and respond to them. By God’s grace, Israel was saved from the brink of utter ruination. But it was close, and painful.

Today, Israel is once again in grave danger. By Iran’s nuclear threat, to be sure. But Israel is actually in danger of being blindsided by two new threats.

The first threat is the real and growing possibility that the United Nations will shift the nuclear spotlight away from Iran and on to Israel in an effort to force Jerusalem to disclose and dismantle its alleged nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel does not openly acknowledge having atomic weapons. But the U.N. Security Council could pass a resolution forcing Israel to allow international inspectors in. If Israel refused to comply, she could be subject to diplomatic isolation, crippling economic sanctions, and even international enforcement (that is, a coalition of nations ready to go to war over the issue, just as the U.S. led a coalition in 2003 to force Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction.)

This is a scenario I’ve been warning about for years, including in my 2005 political thriller, “The Ezekiel Option.” But this is no longer fiction. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei publicly raised this as a serious possibility Monday, saying, “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses.” The Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens also had a must-read column in yesterday’s paper explaining how this scenario could come to pass in the not-too-distant future.

Keep in mind: President Obama is making global nuclear disarmament his top foreign policy priority. He just chaired a U.N. Security Council meeting to push this agenda. It is increasingly conceivable that he will try to force Israel to “play by the same rules” as everyone else and disarm unilaterally, even though Israel has never threatened to “annihilate” a neighbor. As I imagine in “The Ezekiel Option,” such a resolution against Israel could be introduced into the U.N. by Russia. The coalition against Israel could be led by Russia and Iran. Should this happen, we could begin to see the prophecies of Ezekiel 38-39 come to pass in fairly short order. While it is too early to conclude that is what is happening now, it is not too early to intensify our prayers for the peace of Jerusalem, according to Psalm 122:6.

The second threat is the real and growing possibility that…

[To read the rest of the column, please go to the weblog.]
LEARN: To read the rest of this column — and to track the latest news and trends from Israel and the epicenter — please click here
LEARN: To purchase a copy of the “Inside The Revolution” documentary film on DVD from Barnes & Noble (35% off), please click here
PRAY: Join 108,000 other subscribers to Joel’s email alerts and receive the latest news and analysis from the Mideast, Joshua Fund project updates and prayer requests.
GIVE: Would you help The Joshua Fund bless Israel and her neighbors by making a tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100, or a monthly commitment? Please click here.
GO: Visit www.insidetherevolution.org to watch or listen to the 9/11 National Town Hall event and to find more resources on how you can go share the love of Jesus Christ with a Muslim and strengthen the Church in the Middle East.
GO: Join Joel’s “Epicenter Team” on Facebook for updates on where you can go see Joel speak and for prayer updates

THE JOSHUA FUND ACCREDITED BY NATIONAL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ORGANIZATION

The following is a press release issued by the “ECFA” on September 18, 2009:

The Joshua Fund Accredited by National Financial Accountability Organization

WINCHESTER, Va. — The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) announced today the accreditation of The Joshua Fund of McLean, VA.

ECFA accreditation is based on the ECFA Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardshiptm, including financial accountability, transparency, sound board governance and ethical fund-raising.

The Joshua Fund joins a growing number of churches and evangelical organizations across America, supported by over 35 million donors that have earned the right to display the ECFA seal. When an organization is accredited by ECFA, it demonstrates its willingness to follow the model of biblical accountability.

“We are pleased to include in our membership a ministry committed to assisting the poor and needy in Israel in the name of Jesus Christ,” said Dan Busby, president of ECFA.

Founded in 2006, The Joshua Fund (www.joshuafund.net) was founded to encourage Christians to pray knowledgeably and consistently for Israel and the Middle East. The Joshua Fund works with local, national, and international government officials, business executives, and religious leaders to help provide food, clothing, medical equipment and other relief supplies to those who are poor and needy, as well as to recent victims of war and terrorism.

To learn more about The Joshua Fund and their stewardship opportunities, visit ServantMatchtm, ECFA’s program that matches God’s servants with the stewardship options of ECFA members based on ministry sectors and categories. It is ECFA’s newest online feature that allows you to quickly and easily find giving opportunities.

ECFA, founded in 1979, provides accreditation to leading Christian nonprofit organizations that faithfully demonstrate compliance with the ECFA Standards pertaining to financial accountability, fund-raising and board governance. For more information about ECFA, including information about accreditation and a listing of ECFA-accredited members, visit www.ECFA.org or call 1-800-323-9473.

– end of press release –

——————————-

As always, we will do our best to keep you up-to-date on the kinds of projects we are doing, and brief you on how those projects are proceeding. We will also let you know about the kinds of projects we are developing for the future. In no way do we want to pressure anyone to give financially. We fully believe the Lord will provide for the needs of the people we seek to serve. But if you or others wish to help, we gratefully welcome your support, and all financial gifts are tax-deductible in the U.S.A.

If you would like to make a contribution to the on-going work of The Joshua Fund please make your check payable to “The Joshua Fund” and send to:

The Joshua Fund
18940 Base Camp Road
Monument, Colorado 80132-8009

DESIGNATED GIVING: If The Joshua Fund is successful in raising our financial goal for a specific project for which you have designated your donations, all excess funds for that project will be applied to related projects or to the general fund of TJF.

Thanks so much and may the Lord richly bless you and your family as you bless Israel and her neighbors in the name of Jesus — especially at this critical moment in the history of the epicenter.
To make a one-time, tax deductible gift of $250, $500, $1,000 or more to The Joshua Fund, please click here
To visit The Joshua Fund’s weblog — which includes project updates and prayer requests — please click here

A virulent hostility toward religion is threatening the very fabric of American liberty and prosperity: That’s the alarm former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his wife, Callista, are sounding in their thought-provoking new documentary, Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage.

In an exclusive Newsmax TV interview, the former House speaker contends that American culture has been marked by “a steady increase in hostility to religion over the last 70 or 80 years, in ways that are a profound challenge, both to Western Civilization and to America as we know it.”

Christianity appears to be the primary target of the attacks, Gingrich says.

See Video: Newt Gingrich talks about the threat to Christianity in our nation’s schools – Click Here Now

Special: Get Gingrich’s new video and see trailer Click Here Now

Gingrich says, “When you look at efforts to drive the cross off of public lands, efforts to drive [out] Nativity scenes. . . there are a number of places in America now where there is a great bias in favor of teaching children about Islam than there is about Christianity. You actually have schools today that will have a class on Islam but refuse to have a class on Christianity. I’ll let you decide whether that’s a bias.”

With top-drawer cinematography complementing the real story of democracy’s birth pangs, the DVD manages to avoid sounding the drumbeat of religiosity or politics.

“What we try to do is really put America in a historic setting,” says Gingrich, himself a former college history professor. “These movies are not theological, they’re not ideological.”

The new DVD takes off where Gingrich’s New York Times best-selling book Rediscovering God in America and its companion DVD by the same name left off. Much More Of This Aritcle Continues Here At NewsMax.com

GLENN BECK INTERVIEWS JOEL ONHMADINEJAD’S ESCHATOLOGY

Glenn Beck interviewed me Tuesday afternoon on Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s End Times theology and how it is driving Iranian foreign policy.

Here’s The Transcript:

GLENN BECK, Fox News Channel: OK. I want to talk to you about something that nobody seems to ever notice when they talk about Iran. When we’re talking about Iran, we’re talking about people, the leaders that are called — they’re called 12ers. They believe in the 12th imam, the Mahdi. This is one spooky dude. Twelvers are so dangerous that the Ayatollah Khomeini banned them and said we got to kill `em all because they’re crazy, the Ayatollah Khomeini said that. Now, everybody has been talking about how Iran launched its most advanced missiles earlier this week, but here is what you should be paying attention to. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, he says this at the end of all of his major speeches, including last Wednesday at the U.N., he said this.

PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (through translator): Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the universe, and peace and blessings upon our masters and prophet Mohammed and his pure household and his noble companions. O, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK, hasten the return of the 12th imam, the Mahdi. That’s not a good idea.

Joel Rosenberg, the producer of  the “Inside The Revolution documentary film based on the best-selling book of the same name. Joel, it’s not a good idea to hasten the return of the promised one, because the promised one only comes after the world is washed in blood, right?

JOEL ROSENBERG, PRODUCER, “INSIDE THE REVOLUTION”: That’s right. As I describe in the documentary film, and in the book, “Inside the Revolution,” this is a serious theological argument made by Shia Muslims — not all of them…

BECK: Yes.

ROSENBERG: . but certainly by Ahmadinejad, that you need to bring chaos, carnage and even genocide into which the Islamic messiah comes and establishes justice and peace.

BECK: So, if I can explain this — and correct me if I’m wrong. If I can explain this — if you’re a Christian and you believe in the end times, you know all the tribulation that’s going to suck beyond belief for a long time and then Jesus comes. It would be like a Christian saying, “Hey, let’s make it suck really hard right now, because then Jesus will come.” Not a good idea, but that’s the Mahdi — oh, I’m sorry — that’s what Ahmadinejad believes: hasten the return. Let’s just make it as bloody as we can. So when he says, “Oh, Israel, you’re going to be vaporized,” he believes that he is going to be fulfilling prophecy and it’s going to be good for the Islamic world if he does that, right?

ROSENBERG: That’s right. In Ahmadinejad’s twisted world, he believes essentially he is the John the Baptist for the coming of the messiah. But you’re right — in this case, to bring the messiah requires launching genocidal wars against the Judeo-Christian world.

BECK: Right.

ROSENBERG: And destroy the Judeo-Christian world, and this is why he is using the word “annihilate,” He’s saying annihilate the United States and Israel.

BECK: OK. The 12ers believe that — and you hear this all the time – – that the United States is the anti-Christ, and the little anti-Christ is Israel. That’s because we believe the anti-Christ is a person. They believe the anti-Christ is a force, right?

ROSENBERG: Many Muslims do.

BECK: OK.

ROSENBERG: There is some division on that.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: I’m talking about the 12ers, specifically about the 12ers.

ROSENBERG: You know, the great Satan.

BECK: OK. So, the Mahdi, when he comes crawling out of the well, he is supposed to create a global government. He persecutes the Christians and he has them either submit or he cuts their heads off, right?

ROSENBERG: Right.

BECK: OK. That sounds like fun.

ROSENBERG: Yes. In fact, what’s more, the Islamic messiah is supposed to come with Jesus.

BECK: Right.

ROSENBERG: Jesus is the deputy, the lieutenant, and forces people to convert or die.

BECK: Well, yes, he’ll testify to the Mahdi and he’ll say, “Hey, by the way, you guys misunderstood. I’m not the son of God. This is the man right here.” Correct?

ROSENBERG: Right.

BECK: OK. They seem to me to be a lot like end times prophecy, war, rumors of war, signs of natural wonders, et cetera, et cetera. It seems like the same thing that plays out in the Book of Revelations. Are they connected at all, at least in the minds of the 12ers?

ROSENBERG: It’s a mirror image. So, there is a lot of similarities, to be sure, but, of course, the difference is that Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 24, Verse 14, that this good news — that God loves you and will accept you and forgive you and save you — this good news must be preached to the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end shall come. So, followers of Jesus Christ think they’re supposed to bring good news and peace and the messages of salvation through the cross before Jesus comes.

BECK: Right.

ROSENBERG: But the 12ers believe you bring death, destruction and horror, and then the end shall come.

BECK: OK. So, the Ayatollah Khomeini and the revolution of ‘79, he said these 12ers are too crazy for even him. What happened, because — is Ahmadinejad the only one? Are there a lot of them? It’s my understanding that the government now is full of these people. Is that true?

ROSENBERG: That’s right. Well, the Ayatollah Khamenei, the current supreme leader, was a disciple of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

BECK: OK.

ROSENBERG: Apparently, it’s turned out that he has been a secret closet 12er, because he clearly believes the same thing as Ahmadinejad. Why do we know this? There’s been a lot of statements by Khamenei, but the key is, this rigged election.

BECK: Yes.

ROSENBERG: . Khamenei could have gotten rid of Ahmadinejad if he wanted to. He has pulled back on several key issues over the years, but on this issue, end times theology.

BECK: He doesn’t.

ROSENBERG: . he’s given him free rein.

BECK: OK.

ROSENBERG: And now, a new term.

BECK: All right. So, I want to make this clear. I’m not saying these things are true. What I’m saying is, our government — they only seem to take the violence from these crazy Christians, you know, and people at tea parties, they take that deadly serious. But they don’t think that people like Ahmadinejad believe in this stuff. It’s important, if you’re even going to negotiate — maybe they’re bluffing, maybe they don’t — but it’s important that you understand this, and I don’t think our government, I don’t think Bush understood it, and I don’t think Barack Obama understands it. Agree or disagree?

ROSENBERG: I agree with that, and that’s the problem is that Ahmadinejad in that U.N. speech last week was more explicit about his end- times theology than any other time in the last five years that he has been giving these speeches.

BECK: What did he say? What did he say?

BECK: He actually gave several paragraphs of describing something called entezar. That’s a Shia Islamic eschatology notion of having the patience to wait for the coming of the messiah, and he went on at length on this.

Moreover, on an NBC News interview on Sunday Ann Curry did, it was broadcast on an alternate network, but she actually asked him, Ahmadinejad, about this, and he said that he’s in direct communications with this Islamic messiah. That’s the first time that I have heard in these last five years, him go on the record in this case with an American reporter, though NBC did not actually report the story, but they did broadcast it, but to say that he is in direct communication with this mystical Islamic messiah, that’s why this is important.

BECK: OK.

ROSENBERG: Islamic eschatology, end times theology is driving Iranian foreign policy, and the White House, members of Congress, certainly the U.N. are not paying attention.

BECK: OK.

ROSENBERG: . to this urgency that they have to bring about the end of days.

BECK: All right. Joel, thank you very much. We’ll talk again. I have to tell you, when I was over at another network, I remember watching this at the U.N., and hearing that, and hearing the translation just a few years ago, and I went who’s the promised one and why should we hasten him? We did our research, and it’s — it’s frightening if these people believe it. If they don’t, we sure should learn what they do know and what they don’t know and what they believe and what they don’t, because it would change the way we sit down at the table with them. A very dangerous situation in the Middle East.

Please Visit Joel Rosenberg By Clicking Here

Dear AMERICA,

As we reported to you recently, a new Pew Research poll shows American attitudes about Islam trending toward accepting the narrative that organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) are peddling.

This narrative includes the propositions that Islam is and historically has been a religion of peace and that Muslims are the victims of a great deal of discrimination in this country.

Not coincidentally, this faulty narrative is being peddled in many of our public schools. Small wonder more and more Americans are falling for it.

Several months ago the ACT! for America Mission Viejo (CA) chapter completed an eye-opening report about the disinformation and outright propaganda showing up in public school curricula and textbooks that deal with Islam.

But some of that pales in comparison to the Orwellian “newspeak” that has recently been handed down by California’s education establishment with respect to teaching Islamic studies.

For instance, as reported in the Investors Business Daily editorial below:

This astonishing example of historical revisionism is just one more reason why we communicate such a sense of urgency to you about the rapid advance of radical Islam and creeping shariah here in the United States. Our window to build the organized resistance to defeat this is not twenty or thirty years long – it is more like five to ten at best.

Over the past two decades college campuses have become hotbeds for pro-Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-American indoctrination. This has now made its way into our public high schools and middle schools.

If an entire generation of American students are successfully indoctrinated with lies, such as that shariah Islamic law established that men and women were entitled to equal respect, the chances that we can successfully roll back the rising tide of radical Islam dim immensely.

As Hitler is reported to have said to the adults in Germany, “I care not what you think…I have the children.”