|
 |
5/19/2008
Fred Dooley: Flat Earth
“They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe that the world is flat.” Hmm. That’s supposed to be me! – per Al Gore in his latest 60 Minutes rant on global warming skeptics.
Funny, I thought he was talking about people who thought that global warming was settled science.
Global warming is a frequent topic for debate on my blog. My position on the issue: The science is far from being settled and advocates like Al Gore use scare tactics to promote an agenda - rather than actual science.
If you look at the conclusions of dual Nobel Peace Prize winners, they don’t even agree, so I’m not quite sure how anything is “settled.” Global temperatures indeed have not gone up in the last 10 years and are expected to decline over the next 10 years. Yet if we listen to Ted Turner, we’ll all be cannibals due to a complete destruction of our food supply caused by global warming in 30 years or so. (Turner may be right about the concept, but he has the cause wrong. We won’t have any food because we’ll mandate it all to be turned into fuel in order to win the votes of Iowa corn farmers.)
One of the most illuminating examples of how global warming science and advocacy mesh, comes from the experience of Dr. Christopher Landsea.
In the wake of hurricane Katrina a number of “noted” scientists held a huge news conference in which they warned the masses that increases in frequency and intensity of hurricanes were caused by global warming. I’m sure you saw that news conference; every major news outfit covered it in their rush to scare us into watching them.
There is a side to that story you may have missed.
That group of noted scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hired Dr. Landsea to conduct a study to determine if there was an actual link between increased numbers and intensity of hurricanes and global warming. The IPCC chose Landsea because he was one of the world’s foremost climatologists specializing in hurricane activity.
The problem is after the IPCC hired Dr. Landsea they ran right out and claimed the scientific link before any actual research was done. Timing being everything, the IPCC struck while the iron was hot in the wake of Katrina. That is a textbook example of public relations. However, it had little to do with any science.
Everything I ever learned about the scientific process said that one must be objective, allowing the study to produce the results. This group claimed a conclusion before any work was actually done. (Think of Democrats who already think they have won the White House before any votes have been cast.)
Dr. Landsea raised an objection but was told by the IPCC to shut his mouth. Putting principle ahead of rhetoric, Dr. Landsea resigned from the study.
So, every time someone like Al Gore tells you how the science is settled, think about the reality of this situation. This whole subject of climate study is fluid, evolving and far from settled. Advocates like Gore and Ted Turner use scare tactics to promote an agenda. And they’re winning. Last week, advocates got a non-endangered species, polar bears, listed as endangered as a tactic to promote their radical environmental agenda.
Environmentalist Nigel Calder gave us the following in 1969: "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
The noted environmentalist (!) and actor, Ted Danson, told us way back in 1988 that we only had 10 years of life left, as by then our oceans would be dead and we would no longer be able to support life.
Ever heard of Paul Ehrlich? He is Al Gore’s enviro-mentor. Back in 1968 Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would decline to 22.6 million. On England, Ehrlich was a bit less optimistic: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
The gloom and doom Chicken Little environmental crowd is not a new phenomenon. Wrong for decades, the scare mongers must be held to account for their ridiculous statements. So instead we’re giving them Nobel prizes and letting them tell us that we are the flat earthers. Don’t believe a word of it.
Fred Dooley blogs regularly at Real Debate Wisconsin.
COMMENTS
Fred, Firstly, the science is overwhelmingly settled. The spot items you refer to are the trees so to speak and global warming is the forest. The exact point to point effects are very hard to predict (other than the continuing melting of ice sheets and glaciers.) So I ask you, why is the contrary (and less supported scientifically) view so important to some people? Do you and others take the same interest in attacking the science behind evolution and other hot button but scientifically settled issues? The world is heading for disaster from global warming and planning for it (alternative energy, energy efficiency etc.) not only may save the planet or billions of lives but is also good economic policy. The cheaper, dirtier approach to energy production is a dead end. In other words, even if you personally believe global warming is a falsehood do you support energy conservation and energy efficiency measures that would also reduce Co2 loading?
dave allen (Mon May 19 07:04:51 2008)
Not even close Dave, you need to open your eyes.
Look at the audit of temperature stations being led by Climatologist Tony Watts. Much of the info being collected to go into those precious models predicting our doom is skewed high.
Speaking of those models they have been around long enough now to compare their predictions against actual data. Guess what they are all high.
Al Gore's scare film has been completely shredded as a work of fiction.
I'm open on this subject, you appear to be closed. Take a serious look at all the data.
Fred (Mon May 19 07:38:23 2008)
"So I ask you, why is the contrary (and less supported scientifically) view so important to some people?"
So I ask you...
Why do I have to swallow the concept of global warming if I just want to reduce pollution?
You go on to say:
"but it is also good economic policy."
For who?
The rich people in the inner city you need to buy $3 light bulbs?
The brokers who sell "carbon credits?"
or
The government who will tax everything in the name of defeating global warming?
...still Unreal (Mon May 19 08:09:17 2008)
"even if you personally believe global warming is a falsehood do you support energy conservation and energy efficiency measures that would also reduce Co2 loading?"
Yes and no Wayne. We need to be more cautious. We have made too many bad decisions in the name of the environment:
DDT, millions dead of malaria, a disease we had previously almost wiped out.
Ethanol, growing our fuel leading to skyrocketing food prices and world hunger.
Transfats, had to have them until we didn't have to have them.
I could go on all day.
The root of conservatism is to conserve.
I am all for increased wind power, solar power, hydrogen fueled vehicles, hybrid technolgy, etc. More power in any form is a good idea and our energy policy as a whole has been managed horribly by both political parties for years.
But let's do it for the right reasons, not out of some hysteria fueled unproven rhetoric from a bunch of partisans who refuse to see the error of their previous rants.
Be careful exhaling you are contributing CO2 emissions.
Fred (Mon May 19 11:31:35 2008)
Upon first hearing about "global warming" I asked, "How can this be such a calamity when it has happened over and over again? Wisconsin was covered with glaciers which disappeared." I'm assuming the earth warmed and they melted. Greenland was happy.
**I am all for increased wind power, solar power, hydrogen fueled vehicles, hybrid technolgy, etc. More power in any form is a good idea and our energy policy as a whole has been managed horribly by both political parties for years.
But let's do it for the right reasons, not out of some hysteria fueled unproven rhetoric from a bunch of partisans who refuse to see the error of their previous rants.**
Excellent comments, Fred.
Reading some of Bjorn Lomborg's works would be helpful also. He started out writing a book to prove that global warming was true and ended up writing a book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." It's a novel but has copious footnotes. If memory serves, he also started out writing a novel believing in global warming and ended up with a novel debunking it.
Experts tracing the cycles of global warming have discovered that there is increased CO2, but FOLLOWING those cycles, not preceding them. Centuries ago there were no internal combustion engines to cause the CO2, so do you think it's possible that warming causes CO2 and not vice versa.
Just follow the money in a lot of the global warming movements. Too many grants would be lost if they admitted maybe they might be wrong.
I don't want to see our country thrown into economic collapse because of a faulty premise like "global warming." This theory is based on data extrapolated from computer models. I think it's a good example of GIGO.
You may count me as a card carrying member of the "Flat Earth society" as relates to Global Warming.
C.R. Stevenson (Mon May 19 14:48:33 2008)
Watts is nothing more than a blogger who hasn't put in one peer reviewed paper. His biggest claim is that he's an excellent blogger and not a half bad weatherman. A scientist he is not. And global warming is about science. Have him publish. His data about bad weather stations, while accurate in the trees misses the forest. There is so much data world wide. How does he explain the thinning of the ice caps, the rise of ocean levels? Again I ask, in the face of the vast majority of scientists who are out there in the field and dedicating their lives to studying climate change why are people insisting on holding on to the tiny threads of inconstant data (in the world) to deny what is going on. Even Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson are very concerned. Flat earth is indeed an appropriate headline for this particular piece.
dave allen (Mon May 19 21:07:56 2008)
Dave, I wish you would speak to Landsea. Tony Watts is a climatologist and is doing fair work in his study of temperature reporting stations. It is a huge task, I'm sure he'll publish when it is complete.
For now though his work is producing some disturbing results.
fred (Tue May 20 08:06:08 2008)
When more than 9,000 PhDs sign a document opposing your Consensus Dave you might want to reconsider your position....
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=124
Fred (Tue May 20 10:40:52 2008)
Dave, do you have any background in science at all? (Not to boast, but I have a degree in biology and 5 credits short of one in chemistry, as well as a BSN). Don't you realize that it was only about 20 years ago when the POPULAR MEDIA (not scientists) screamed about the "coming next Ice Age disaster"? According to recent findings,a team of climatologists found temps DECREASING in places where they were supposed to be INCREASING. But that never made it into popular news.
Even supposing the earth truly was warming up, how do you know it's not returning to the place it was meant to be at...how many SUVs did it take to melt the glacier that covered where we now live? Or why the frozen palm trees found in arctic regions?
Follow the politics and money...Kyoto is meant to cripple America, corn subsidies benefit a number of players, while hurting farmers--did you know that every week, calves are SHOT at the auction barns, as no-one wants to buy them due to feed prices being forced up too high. What do you think that'll do to the price of beef? This is driving many smaller feedlots/beef raisers out of business, as it was designed to do! (Not that I believe in feedlots, but I recognize most people don't pasture their animals).
I don't know where we'll get our feeder pigs this year, as the man we got them from is quitting. Etc. And now there are "carbon credits"--of course, managed by new middleman companies like Agragate...If I want to sell my carbon credits to some company in NY, why do I have to go through a middleman like Agragate? What's all this about carbon credits in the first place? Just another ploy to get more money from the hysteria created by "global warming".
emily matthews (Tue May 20 11:33:38 2008)
A few comments:
Thanks for the list of 35000 scientists who have signed the petition. That's lots of people. Let them publish their results and be subject to the same standards of proof that you expect from the vast majority of climatologists who believe that global warming exists (in the general) and is caused primarily by Co2 and other man induced phenomenon.
Secondly, to Emily. No I don't have a degree in a science field but did get as far as organic chemistry before changing majors. The rest of your post however has nothing to do with science rather political intrigue and quoting the "popular media". So using your BS in biology, please review the published reports and the other reports and let us all know how they stack up for the soundness of their methodology and conclusions. Or better yet, let the climatologists review the papers and fight it out. I'm sure every one of them would love to be king of the hill if they could knock off climate change like the guy who discovered Hpilori bacteria caused ulcers. As far as Landsea goes (based on my Wikepedia review) his main disagreement isn't that oceans are warming or that global warming is one of the main causes he simply disagreed with the proposed link between global warming and hurricanes. Big deal, anyone who understands anything about the complexities of climate knows that it is dicey to make specific predictions about specific weather in a specific spot. I suggest the climatologists will go back to the drawing board to figure out why the hurricane frequency wasn't as high as they thought it should be . That's the nature of science isn't it? As far as Tony Watts being a climatologist I only find that he is a meteorologist. Please provide source as to this aspect of his background.
dave allen (Tue May 20 19:45:31 2008)
Dave, you said, "the climatologists will go back to the drawing board to figure out why the hurricane frequency wasn't as high as they thought it should be."
Following Hurricane Katrina, following Al Gore's lead, a lot of scientists did hop on board saying "global warming" was causing hurricanes and the more the earth warmed the more hurricanes there would be. The following year, if memory serves, there were no hurricanes that touched our southern coast. It was the global warming advocates who were loudly proclaiming there would be more hurricanes, not the Flat Earthers.
After that, it was "never mind, nothing to see here."
After that the phraseology changed from "global warming" to "climate change" and "abrupt climate change". Do you see a pattern here? Those who claim our earth is warming are no longer so sure so they're coppering their bets.
The Kyoto Protocol would probably have bankrupted our country meanwhile allowing China and India to manufacture as much CO2 as they want with no restrictions.
It's insanity and a one way ticket to the oblivion of our country.
I'm old enough to remember a lot of scares in this country that turned out to be just that......... scares. That acorn falls on someone's head and right away they're in a panic and must run tell the king, which, these days, is mainly the news media.
These carbon footprint companies are scams and VP Al Gore will have a lot to answer for when people finally get over their hysterics and use some common sense!
C.R. Stevenson (Tue May 20 21:04:41 2008)
Mr. Stevenson,
Again, the science of climatology is one of the most complex there is. If the science of global warming caused by manmade activities does not stand up to scientific scrutiny then it will fall. Just as you suppose it should. Science is an open system, far more than every other system we have. But those who said that global warming does not exist need to prove that the other studies are wrong and there are lots of studies. And please remember that the "sky is falling" scenarios you accurately refer to from the past (and present) are often media hype surrounding some individual discovery or theory that later proved false by scientists who dug into the issue. Do you remember polywater, cold fusion etc.? These are but two of the hyped discoveries that upon further investigation were proven false. The same will happen to global warming if in fact there is consistent and major error in the studies to date. Publish! As far a Kyoto goes, that is more of a political question. It sure hasn't dropped Co2 levels in part because of the India/China question. But, the US position damaged our leadership on global warming, our influence on ourselves and the rest of the world. Even Bush finally agrees that global warming needs to be dealt with but his 7 years of stonewalling put us further and further behind the rest of the world.
dave allen (Wed May 21 07:09:03 2008)
Dave, I tend to read more obscure reports, such as the one that indicated that arctic ice caps are INCREASING in thickness. But that didn't make it into popular media. Or how about the fact that after the eruption of Mt St Helens, the local climate became markedly COLDER?
I guess now calves getting shot is political intrigue. All I know is, there are groups/companies that stand to make a lot of money hyping "global warming", and that true science has long been highjacked for the sake of politics. (As one of my university profs said, "Evolution is dead in the water, but they'll never change the texbooks." And yes, he professed to be an atheist.
Take this example: my dad, a retired engineer, was on a school board, and when given textbooks to review, he actually looked at them. To illustrate acid rain, one book had a photo of dead and dying conifers. He looked up the source of the photo; it was actually taken in Sweden. The trees were dying to to INSECT INFESTATION, yet the American book's caption blatantly said it was from "acid rain".
You never did answer, how many SUVs did it take to melt the glacier that covered where we now live...this is FACT, not "political intrigue"--unless the Native Americans somehow "intrigued" together to melt the glacier.
emily matthews (Wed May 21 07:58:47 2008)
Fred,
A) Conifers can die from insect infestation after being stressed. I grew up in upstate New York, near the Adirondack park which suffers from acid rain from midwest coal burning power plants. I can tell you what that does empirically and personally. The acid rain if not neutralized by the soil (the Adirondacks are metamorphic/igneous so don't have lots of carbonate rocks)weakens the trees and insects take advantage of the tree, So while the actual death of the Swedish trees may have been insects it's like saying that a cancer patient dies of failed kidneys. The cancer is the acid rain. I doubt the Swedish and the people in upstate New York will be accepting of your analysis of the deaths of their forests. (but the Adirondacks have been improving due to reduced So2 emissions from midwest power plants and the lakes and trees are starting to come back)
B) The glaciers that melted from the last ice age melted over thousands of years. There is no historical record of changes occurring as fast as they are now. There is no natural explanation as to how fast it is happening now? What's causing it the "ether" , dark matter? What then?
C) Mt. St. Helens cooled the earth. True so did Pinatubo and so does sulpher dioxide, soot and other man made pollutants. In short, the underlying activities that add Co2 may actually be somewhat diminishing the Co2 effect by adding other pollutants that cancel out some of the effects. The perverse nature of this is that the dirtier the air the less global warming.
D) As for the increasing ice sheet depth please send me your source. I'd be happy to look at that.
dave allen (Wed May 21 11:03:08 2008)
Fred, do you have the source for the increasing ice cap? Do you have the source for Tony Watt's formal training?
dave allen (Thu May 22 06:32:37 2008)
Ice Caps. Anthony Watts Wiki. Now, would you answer the rhetoric of the IPCC in claiming a link between global warming and hurricanes before any science was actually done please? I notice you continue to ignore that, Dave... While you are at it, explain how 31,000 scientists including over 9,000 PHds have signed a petition saying they are not in agreement with the Gore version of global warming should be ignored. The point Dave is that no matter how much people like you want to believe this science is settled, it is not.
Fred (Thu May 22 07:49:03 2008)
I love this one...
"There is no natural explanation as to how fast it is happening now? What's causing it the "ether" , dark matter? What then?"
How fast what is happening?
Over the last century, 1 degree.
Over the last ten years 0 warming.
The only thing that is increasing is the rhetoric.
Did you miss the news that they expect a cooling trend over the next 10- years?
Oh but then GW is supposed to come roaring back more out of control than ever.
I should believe this when all of their predictions have been wrong to this point?
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice....
Fred (Thu May 22 08:45:47 2008)
Fred, I'll look into the data you provided. But regarding hurricane frequency I answered that previously. Obviously the predictions of increased hurricane frequency were wrong and there are I'm sure lots of scientists going back over their models to see what happened. That is the nature of science. I still would like to see Mr. Watts's training is he a climatologist or a meteorologist?
dave allen (Fri May 23 13:12:00 2008)
Actually Dave you did not answer my question.
I was speaking to the IPCC coming out and claiming a link before any science was done.
That is pushing an agenda, not scientific practice.
That example provides as clear of an understanding of the politics going on here rather than the science.
All I've asked for is honest discussion of the issue. People like you keep claiming there is nothing to discuss.
I disagree.
By the way feel free to email Anthony Watts, I have and he was very quick in response. His email is listed on his website.
Fred (Fri May 23 13:26:22 2008)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/no_more_arctic.php
Fred, What I said is the issue that the climate is warming is settled by the vast majority of scientists who study the issue. If Mr. Watts has any evidence to long term trends (see historical ice coverage data above) or forecasts that refute that he should publish. The ice sheet size you refer to in two posts ago does not address sheet thickness (ice volume) or the historical shrinking. For you or anyone else to look at this data at one point in time and throw out all the mountains of contrary data of long term trends is wishful thinking not science. Have your 9000 phds look at the current ice sheets this year and the next then the year after that produce a climate model that supports your case. It is entirely possible that (if the data is correct about ice cover) the sheets are thinning and spreading, or that the increase in particulates and So2 have negated the underlying Co2 effect. For you or anyone to look at one instance and call it a trend is politics not science.
As far as Mr. Watts, you were the one who called him a climatologist. Well, is he or isn't he ? Since you and perhaps millions of other are willing to hitch yourself to his wagon at least you should have some understanding of his ability to understand climate models and create his own models of what's going on.
Surely you understand that hurricane prediction is based on models of hurricane activity based in part on surface water temperatures. If you say that they released the predictions based on "politics" then you must have some idea that there were credible forecasters with credible models who were somehow stifled because of politics. There are disagreements over the mitigating effects of clouds, water vapor, S02, particulates etc.
dave allen (Fri May 23 13:57:58 2008)
Wrong Dave, clue in, this is easy.
The IPCC hired Landsea to do the study, then before any actual study was done they claimed results.
This is the reality of the "consensus" you are talking about.
Quit changing the subject.
Fred (Fri May 23 22:49:24 2008)
Fred, which study, which conclusion? You made a statement that the hurricane predictions were made based on politics. You make lots of statements Fred but so far have only shown a few point in time data. Where is the body of evidence? And again, what is Tony Watt's background? You shouldn't throw mud over the most dedicated scientists in this field and walk away.
dave allen (Sat May 24 06:31:52 2008)
Did you read the Landsea resignation Dave?
There is a link to it in the column.
It clearly lays out what you seem unwilling to understand.
The IPCC hired Landsea to do a study then claimed the results of that study before any scientific research was done.
This is not difficult, the only thing is you refuse to open your eyes and fail to see it.
I linked to the Watts Wiki, why will you not acknowledge that?
Fred (Sun May 25 12:41:06 2008)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
