This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Healing Inch by Inch?
Submitted by Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse.
Earlier today I watched the movie Any Given Sunday with Al Pacino. I've seen it before and love it because I use to play football in high school.
It was the summer of '87 when my high school football coach called me to tell me he needed me on the team as an offensive lineman. I was short relative to the others on the line, but was strong and fearless. I was so happy and honored he called me to be part of the team.
My job on the offensive line was simple. Protect the QB at all times and run a sweep play where I took out the defensive end to clear the path for my running back. We must have run that play hundreds of times and I remember that as painful as it got on my body, I loved the game and the team spirit.
Football was a big deal during my high school years. It still is as the Notre-Dame Cactus were crowned champions last November. One memory that stands out in my mind is a whopping victory we had over Lindsay Place high school.
I can't forget it because we annihilated them and acted cocky throughout the whole game. Our coach, Jacques Gauthier, wasn't pleased with our unsportsmanlike attitudes. The day after, he brought us to the University of Montreal field, which unlike our field was hard AstroTurf, and made us sprint the full length of the field about 40 or more times. It was cold and raining that night.
And boy did we sprint. When everyone started collapsing, puking, sucking up air, the coach whistled us in for a huddle. "The next time you guys want to act like arrogant jerks, remember this practice because I won't be as easy on you". Needless to say, we won lots of games, lost the championship, but never acted like arrogant idiots ever again.
The last time I saw my high school football coach was a few years after I got diagnosed with MS. He was fighting his own battle with cancer and we chatted about life. He died a few years later but I'll never forget what he told me, no matter how hard it gets, you keep moving forward. He was a great coach and a great man.
I don't know why I'm sharing this story but just like football, life is a game of inches. As world leaders get ready to meet in Copenhagen this week, it's unbelievable how much skewed coverage 'Climategate' is receiving.
I happen to agree with Tom Friedman who recently wrote this in an op-ed column, Going Cheney on Climate:
Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.
That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.
As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”
This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.
What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.
But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.
Friedman reiterated this message with CNN's Campbell Brown, drawing an interesting connection between climate crisis and the financial crisis:
They are both based on the same faulty accounting. What we call the great recession has actually been an environmental crisis and an economic crisis coming together. How so? In the financial world, we allowed people to massively underprice risk (risk of subprime mortgages), we allowed them to privatize gains from selling those mortgages, then when it all blew up, we allowed them to socialize the losses...We are doing the same in nature. We allow people to massively underprice the risk of emitting carbon molecules, we allow them to privatize the gains from cheap coal and electricity, and we are socializing the losses by charging all those CO2 molecules on our kids' Visa cards which they will pay for in the form of future climate change.
One other thing on the financial crisis caught my attention this weekend. It seems there is a movement to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. Of course, while this amendment makes perfect sense, the banksters will fight it tooth and nail, effectively killing it before it sees the light of day.
But the inches we need to make a difference in this world are everywhere around us. I urge world leaders, corporate leaders, pension leaders, banking leaders and everyone else to listen to Al Pacino's inspirational speech below and carefully think about doing what's best for the common good. If there was ever a time we needed to band together and forge ahead, now is that time.
»
- advertisements -
just as we always suspected, Goldman made money for nothing and knew they could count on govt to bail them out if their risking ventures went bad
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Tom Friedman? Really?!?! C'mon, the guy is an MSM minion and a shill for bankers' for Chrissakes, not to mention a complete idiot (I'm tired of having to use this word repeatedly, but there are just so goddamn many of them).
I don't agree with him on everything but on the climate crisis, he's absolutely correct.
So Leo why do you agree with Friedman on climate?
Am I also to understand that you are one of the seven people who actually watch Campbell Brown's program?
Because if we get it wrong on the climate, we will witness catstrophic weather patterns that will kill millions of innocent people around the world. That is a risk I'm not willing to take. Also, we need jobs and I think the renewable energy business can provide some of them. As for Campbell Brown, she is cute as hell and decent reporter. I watch her as I digest my dinner.:)
she has a Michael Jackson nose
as for the threat of disaster why not deploy resources to develop the technology to identify and deflect a rogue asteroid
as for the death of innocent millions - if in fact there is climate change and if it is not caused by humans think of the billions of dollars that could be spent to assist those unfortunate innocents to adapt
(I won't bring up the food for fuel issue)
renewable enegry makes sense and once it becomes economically feasible people will gravitate to it - but 80k for a home geothermal system is still a bit steep - the companies that have been going alt energy have done so based on taxpayer subsidies
Leo, you seem to be a man that is more concerned with proof than with authority, so I will show you the proof that CO2 warming is bunk. First up is a set of numbers, mainly that H2O is about 1% of the atmosphere and CO2 is just under .04%. This means that water has 25x the effect in the atmosphere as CO2.
Now for the kicker. CO2 absorbs far less radiation than H2O, i.e. water not only has a higher concentration, it also has a higher activity per concentration than CO2. Here is the proof for that:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/geos105/Images/IRAbsorption.JPG
If you look at the CO2 and H2O graphs, you will notice that there is more light obsorbed by water, and that the water absorption peaks overlap the several of CO2 absorbtion peaks.
Thus to tie it all together, water: has a higher concetration; absorbs a broader spectrum; and absorbs much of the same range as CO2. Therefore water is the real enemy in global warming.
For more sciency goodness, check here: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
My God, this is your groundbreaking, earth-shattering proof? Quick, call the scientists at NASA and tell them they're all idiots for confirming global warming is not a hoax!
Did you even look at those graphs? I thought that since you dabbled in the stock market that you would at least be able to read them. I guess that you are too set in your ways to be able to look at something objectively and say whether it is true or not. As far as NASA goes, for several years there were rumors of people getting let go because they weren't "on board" with the admins global warming policy, but I am sure that you didn't care to listen to that either. This saddens me.l
coupla thoughts...
1. The ice cores settle all doubt. Temperature varies. We are leaving the little ice age. Usually, warm is better than cold. Only 10,000 years ago during the ice age, sea levels were much lower, so it stands to reason that many port cities are going to have to make some changes.
2. CO2 is not as important as many other factors. CO2 is good for plants and food. CO2 is a 500 year lagging indicator.
3. Man made desertification is orders of magnitude more dangerous to man than CO2.
4. Don't invest in Gold. Invest in a back yard self sufficient solar source of heat and/or energy so you can go off grid if the power fails. All it would take is a few more years with no new power plants, or a nuclear conflict in the Mideast, for oil or electricity to become scarce.
5. The AGW forces are mortifying in their contempt of science, truth, honesty, and the financial results of cap and trade. As a scientist, I am mortified. I can't believe such cheats and lies are permitted, and when challenged, go unpunished. This is despicable. Friedman is at the top of the list. Nothing he says from now on means anything. His cred is gone.
6. If this junk law comes in, congress in 2010 can undo it by changing the EPA budget to 0 and by eliminating the penalties for CO2 production.
haha going Going Cheney on Climate:
It worked great with Iraq... Chaney and Tom Friedman
These people should be put in prison and their personal wealth should be confiscated by govt to pay for 1% doctrine misadventures.
End justifies the means.
-sky
You buy insurance for perceived risks, sure ... but do you pay $1,000,000 to be insured from being asphyxiated by cow farts?
Leo related topic what are your thoughts on Diane Francis and her article in Canada's newspaper the Financial Post?
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
What I liked about the article is that it takes extreme environmentalism to its logical conclusion.
Separately how do you feel about the likes of JPM and GS as the dominant forces in the Carbon Trading realm?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M
How do you feel about being PunKd by another lefty hypocrite? In this case, Diane Francis - MOTHER OF TWO. You people never cease to amaze.
http://dianefrancismylife.blogspot.com/
Absolute rubbish, neither Friedman nor Leo understands anything about the obvious scientific and economic absurdities of the APG religion.
Leo the thing about Climate change and I am in
your camp as far as that goes, is that both sides
are so sure that they're right that the middle ground
has been lost. I'm finding there is no opportunity for
constructive dialogue on this matter. Do I agree
climate change has and is happening yes do I think
that Cap andTrade is flawed and ripe for manipulation
yes. We can't maintain the status quo for vary long and
we either try and change willingly or Peak Oil will change
it for us. Unfortunately Peak Oil is another issue with
no middle ground.
You comment about Peak Oil, so how do you feel about Nat Gas or Nuclear?
Nice piece Leo. It's OK to stray from the norm on Sunday morning.
I have been looking at solar and wind for a while. I have never liked the numbers. They appear to be the only viable alternatives, so a decent bet.
I once cornered the market for single channel CB radios. They were a very hot product. Until one morning and we found out that someone had invented a multi channel CB. Kaboom. Technology killed us.
Wind and solar may be the same. The infrastructure cost is very big and the payback slow. If we are going to make a big change in the way we produce energy it has to be from hydrogen. Solve that riddle and we are on 'easy street'.
I still think solar and wind will be very useful. You have to stop the governments of the world and data centers of the world gobbling up all the silicon first though for solar to have a good chance. It's amazing how much you learn about weather though when you start analyzing the data. If there's not good solar in area theres good wind and vice versa. The problem is you have to have both for true independance and it has to get popular enough to become better engineered. Unfortunately our engineering resources have all been co-opted to create the most nonsensical technology imaginable as they steer us to becoming a part of what "THEY" really need.
It's an investment. You either pay for your energy all at once or rent it. The markets are NOT going to be able to outstrip this energy independance investment. If I wasn't worth so damn little I'd be totally solar and wind myself. But I use DC computer and throw out a small panel now and then to assist the charger. Hot water is the most troublesome aspect of it all. But I LOVE DC COMPUTING. I used to be able to run 3 or 4 hours on my old less efficient system using inverters when the power went out but since it's all pure DC now I get 10 to 17 freaking hours of computing off my single small battery bank. And that's not even using a DC panel. I gotta get one of these.
http://www.12volt-travel.com/22-12volt-hd-lcd-tv-with-builtin-atsc-digit...
320 dollars for a panel with the proper power supply to use DC. 170 if you buy it with the piece of crap rotten die in a couple years AC power supply. See what I mean about how they work so hard to make change possible by integrating and "establishing" stupidity.
Bruce,
Roughly a year ago, a buddy of mine told me he too was skeptical on solars, and said the answer to our future energy needs is nuclear energy. I think you should pay close attention to quarterly earnings reports from all solar companies. Demand is picking up and many companies are on the verge of profitability. I am also seeing some top hedge funds like Citadel, SAC Capital, Renaissance Technologies, Tudor Invesment Corp., and Soros Fund Management, accumulate sizable positions in this sector. This is a double-edge sword because it means volatiltiy will remain high as they manipulate share prices. My strategy has not changed. Every time they bring the sector down, I accumulate more shares in my long-term, tax-free retirement portfolio.
the big hedgies, don't buy solar, because they believe in it, or want to own it. they will pump it with bullshit, and sell, before the suckers, figure out, they've been had. look at financials, look at reits, look at priceline, abercrombie and fitch, the airlines. its a game leo, you might score a touchdown, and then you might get tackled, and lose the game. don't bet your future on one game global warming, give me a break. how about we focus on the pollution of our environment. only a rodent pisses in his own nest the key to profitability with solar, will be volume, unless they can sell a shitload of them, they will be trying to survive, by raising prices, not a good business model, in this environment.
Every time you reply, you show me that you know absolutely nothing about the solar sector. A few companies are already profitable and many are on the verge of profitability. This isn't 1999 internet hype, pie-in-the-sky, this is going to be much, much bigger. So please stop posting nonsense, stop huffing and puffing, do your homework and provide links to facts.
As for the big hedgies, I know exactly what their nasty tricks are, which is why I endured huge swings in my portfolio, adding to my positions every time they brought the sector down. If you can't stomach volatility, don't get into solars.
Ok Ok what do we do when the sun goes down.........
One of the main problems with these alternatives is that you need convential backup which doubles if not triples the capital cost
Although I believe that parabolic solar mirrors may have some role in areas where there is a large amount of energy used for air conditioning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Cl...
The problem is that, just like tree rings or ice cores, readings from thermometers or electronic ‘thermistors’ are open to interpretation.
The sites of weather stations that were once open countryside become built up areas, so trapping heat, and the type of equipment used changes over time.
The result is what climate scientists call ‘inhomogeneities’ - anomalies between readings that need to be ‘adjusted’.
But can we trust the way such ‘adjustments’ are made?
Last week, an article posted on a popular climate sceptic website analysed the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia.
This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.
In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.
The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.
Now, in line with CRU and IPCC orthodoxy, it was 1998.
At the CRU, said Davies, some stations’ readings were adjusted by unit and in such cases, raw and adjusted data could be compared.
But in about 90 per cent of cases, the adjustment was carried out in the countries that collected the data, and the CRU would not know exactly how this had been done.
Davies said: ‘All I can say is that the process is careful and considered. To get the details, the best way would be to go the various national meteorological services.’
The consequences of that, Stott said, may be explosive. ‘If you take Darwin, the gap between the two just looks too big.
The title says it all:
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server And what's Russia's number one export?here is a link to the above article and here is a sub title (the entire article is well worth reading
Yes, emails came from here - but we didn't do it, say Russians Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZbyJItR5Oil, and of course it means that Putin was funding those hackers to extract e-mails and make them public. Conveniently, Russians were smart enough to hack the system, but not smart enough to post them on piratebay (or any other site) through a chain of proxy servers to cover their involvement.
Thanks Boris, you nailed it!
HAHAHAHA!! PunKd! Dude, the files were copped off of UAEs servers and REPOSTED on a Russian site. The only Q is: Was it an intentional leak of the FOIA aggregate file, or a dumbshit IT stooge not protecting it properly.
Leo, I was actually ironic when I was writing it. In fact, files being hosted on the Siberian server tells you nothing about the country of origin of the hackers. Smart ones use servers of the third countries to either undertake their attacks or post files (like in that case), because it significantly complicates the task of prosecutors to establish any credible (in legal terms) evidence. Now, imagine if Scotland Yard was to believe that thess were Russian hackers and wanted to prosecute them. That in turn would require investigators to request permission from Russian authorities to come and extract data from this server, which (bear in mind particulary warm relations between Britain and Russia) would take months at best. By the time investigators reach server in Siberia, the logs from this server can easily be overwritten with newer data (there's a limit to which servers keep historic records). The former still applied if you are hacker (or a whistleblower) from anywhere else in the world, because posting files on Russian server gives you a plausible deniability, plus creates immense complications for prosecutors to establich a credible evidence for the court.
There's another reason why I would doubt it was Putin or anyone else from Russia - country has already signed Kyoto protocol, so I see no reason for doing so unless it benefits russians. And it does, because CO2 emission quotas for Russia are fixed on the level of the late Soviet Union, when industrial production was at its peak, which means that for the time being Russia can sell its emissions to anyone else and cash in very well. Why Putin would want to destroy such a nice cash cow?
Evertime the department of homeland security tries to hack me they come at me from south america or mexico. I'm not doing anything hiding anything. I just like to watch them freak the FUCK out when they can't see me.
Kyoto was a bust and I'm afraid that Copenhagen will one too. For me, these emails prove nothing. They are a distraction that threaten to derail important discussions on the future of our climate.
What about the past of our climate, eh?
Mostly ice ages 80 to 90 thousand years long interspersed with warmer "interglacial" periods typically lasting less than 10k years. The current interglacial period is long overdue to become an ice age, but nevermind the well established geological record of climate.
Vegas hookers
The Russians are irrelevant in the article, McIntyre got the data from Mann himself and it was all cooked, he then showed how they used the "trick" to "hide the decline". Further they mixed and matched cooked data without reference to the point that they produced the now famous and quite laughable hockey stick graph. All the emails(from Russia with love) did was corroborate the fact that the CRU people were actively committing fraud as many had thought.
Wow Leo, great comeback with well articulated facts. Your "bring it on" comment is like a fat guy about to run the 100 yard dash against a track star. Big bravado before the unraveling of stupidity.
Amost as brave as an anonymous coward hiding behind his computer screen. -)
Oh great, Don't put too much of your money where your mouth is.
Let me suggest a "technical analysis" to go do on ice core temperature data from Greenland and Antarctica, stretching back not just a few hundred years as the warmers like to do, and not just a couple a thousand like the anti-warmers prefer(because it was a lot warmer a thousand years ago than today, sans industrial CO2), but quite literally tens and hundreds of thousands of years. The really alarming possibility arising from such a technical analysis is that temperatures will DROP and find a "new support level" that is a hell of a lot colder. To wit, most of the last half million years of earth's history is a series of very long ice ages interspersed with short "interglacial periods" of about 10k years in length. The current interglacial period has been going on for about 10k years and then some.
Based on this technical analysis, I humbly suggest that anything we can do to forestall another ice age hitting will be beneficial not just to mankind but also to most of the other species and their habitats. Canada was buried under miles-thick ice last time around, messieurs. Even a 1% chance of an new ice age falling upon is is a risk we must insure against, n'esce pas?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-c...
If burning all the fossil fuels we can find on open pyres would do it, then so be it. However we might ought to look at ways to, you know, harness all that released energy to our benefit, while we are at it. Just sayin'
pps I'd really hate for Zero Hedge to turn into a religious fervor site.
inch by inch, starting with this crap contribution, it has started moving in that direction.
ps--just watch how the revenue raised is really spent.
the whole thing is a scam.
the only reason the USA is going to go for it now is because the government needs another revenue source, massive in scope and hitting everyone.
Do you own TAN...would you own FAN any other areas ?
I am not buying the TAN (ETF), preferring to focus on these Chinese solar stocks. Those of you who only buy American companies, can do so buy focusing on these American solar stocks. there are other ways to lay solars (GE, 3M) or via semiconductor stocks like MEMC.
Thank you...China stocks(solar)acting much better than U.S....find value in US solar?
would you own FAN wind power
Chinese solar stocks are outperforming for a reason: China is taking the lead on the US in renewable energy. As far as wind, i simply do not know enough about it to comment. In general, I would avoid illiquid ETFs and focus on a few stocks in this sector.
I appreciate it....great day
My gosh you are an incredibly naive little worm, aren't you. This might just be the worst possible time in generations to invest in solar. Do you know what an AP Index is? Do you know what the current flux reading is, and how historical the current lows are? Do you have a cloud investment to recommend? Oh yeah - there is a movie out called "Collapse" I think will give you wood. It's a documentary with a Peak Oil doom prophet sitting in a bunker whispering sour nothings into your ear. I think you'll love it long time. Look it up.
To all ZHers attacking me,
BRING IT ON! I'll fight you all inch by inch. Only fools believe that global warming is a conspiracy theory promoted by Al Gore and climate scientists. Whether you like it or not, my predictions have come true. We are going to witness a paradigm shift in energy over the next two decades. I am putting my long-term money where my mouth is - solar stocks. The big hedgies love manipulating this sector, but every time they bring it down, I accumulate more.
So bring it on! I'll ignore all the stupid comments and take you all on one by one!
Put your mouth somewhere else.
Leo-
Perhaps your investment play on chinese solar has impacted your capability to reason - remember not to fall in love with your product. That is logical if you have promoted chinese solar, you would not want to admit that you have been duped and are now emotionally insisting that it is everyone else that has been duped. Let's not let truth get in the way of a good narrative?
To state if it ("has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.") is one of the poorest, weakest arguments I have ever read. We have gone quickly from warmmongerers stating that there is unequivocal proof that we will all burn in a hell of our own making through global warming and that CO2 was the culprit (100% probability) to a few analytical people investigating the source coupled with a few leaked emails to learn that there is 0% chance of material AGW. Notice that the argument has fallen back from 100% to a 1% probability - even though 1% is not scientific.
Zero is indeed the probability of material AGW based on the source data and the hypothesis that CO2 was the independent variable and temperature was the dependent variable. Man is not the center of the universe, and we revolve around the sun - its cycles are responsible for the majority of temperature fluctuations (shown in the geological record) along with water vapors using a lag factor (takes time to heat) while CO2 levels lag temperature (it in fact is the dependent variable). For the love of God, or whoever you serve if you wish to know the truth, please watch this informative video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
I could apply the 1% theory to anything and argue that we should spend billions on it, but perhaps you didn't get the memo - our time and resources are limited. We could all begin building bomb shelters in our backyards because of a stated 1% chance that asteroids will fall and take out a large segment of the population (exact same argument). Our time and resources are finite. Scare tactics are the tool of tyrants and terrorists - the actual definition is to use fear for political ends - global warming, global terrorism, global swine flu (what they all have in common is they require a global government solution) PRS.
Scientology was created by L Ron Hubbard on a dare that he could create a religion that people would follow - I am afraid AGW is of the same genre. In fact, earth and sun worship is an old pagan religion popular with druids and egyptians, AGW rhymes with it.
I actually believe coal exhaust is harmful due to the small particles that can get into the lungs, but not from CO2 - let's go after real pollution like this and mercury. We don't need a false pretext for acting in the collective best interest of our citizens if we need a new innovation S curve, or we have reached peak cheap oil, population and economic growth threaten future resources, or if the cost of defending foreign oil pipelines are too high. To admit these though is to open the door to suggestions that we are in the middle east for oil, and perhaps politically that is not acceptable.
Why is credibility of the President and Congress at an all time low? Because we know that they think we are stupid, and so they decide to tell falsehoods on a number of key national security issues while continuing to advance their agendas. Do not submit to the bankers wishes on the carbon trading TAX designed by Ken Lay of Enron (who is now in Prison), Goldman Sachs partners, and Al Gore. Do not surrender US sovereignty to a corrupt international government body on the basis of a lie. If a treaty is signed that contradicts the constitution, it must be challenged by the Supreme Court.
Leo, I will never read another one of your posts.