Tuesday, December 8, 2009

400-408 Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner (, author of The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy on the recent EPA decision, Climategate, and the ongoing health care debate. 
(1:31) Charles Krauthammer on the EPA regulating carbon dioxide, (12/7/09 on Fox's Special Report with Brett Baier).
• Byron York, Washington Examiner (12/8/09) Dems' dreams of a blue West begin to turn red.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday that her ruling that greenhouses gases are dangerous pollutants would "cement 2009's place in history" as the moment when the U.S. began "seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform." She's right that this is an historic decision, though not to her or the White House's credit, and "seizing" is the right term. President Obama isn't about to let a trifle like democratic consent impede his climate agenda.
With cap and trade blown apart in the Senate, the White House has chosen to impose taxes and regulation across the entire economy under clean-air laws that were written decades ago and were never meant to apply to carbon. With this doomsday machine activated, Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish what persuasion and debate among his own party manifestly cannot.
This reckless "endangerment finding" is a political ultimatum: The many Democrats wary of leveling huge new costs on their constituents must surrender, or else the EPA's carbon police will inflict even worse consequences.
The gambit is also meant to coerce businesses, on the theory that they'll beg for cap and trade once the command-and-control regulatory pain grows too acute—not to mention the extra bribes in the form of valuable carbon permits that Democrats, since you ask, are happy to dispense. Ms. Jackson appealed to "the science" and waved off any political implications, yet the formal finding was not coincidentally announced at the start of the U.N.'s Copenhagen climate conference (see above).
Q: What did the EPA do exactly?
A: The EPA classified six greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- as pollutants that threaten the health and welfare of the American people. This will compel the federal government -- unless it is blocked by Congress -- to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases for the first time under the 1970 Clean Air Act. The government already controls releases of sulfur dioxide, ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide under the law.
// Q: What would these new regulations cost?
A: It's not yet clear. The cost for power producers, which would probably be passed onto electricity customers, would depend on what technology the EPA requires. Pollution reductions could come from installing carbon capture technology, reducing energy use through efficiencies or shifting away from fossil fuels. The EPA estimates it will cost automakers about $60 billion to meet planned fuel economy requirements. The cost to power plants and factories are likely to be more.
Q: Isn't Congress also trying to pass legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions?
A: Yes. In June, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by 2050. But the Senate, which has been tied up with legislation to reform health care, is not expected to vote on the bill until next spring. Both versions of the bill limit how the EPA can use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions, but to differing degrees. The legislation would reduce greenhouse gases by setting a limit on heat-trapping pollution and by allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits as long as they don't exceed the overall limit. This system, known as cap-and-trade, would be more flexible and would probably be cheaper than straight EPA regulation.

413-423Byron York.  Where do we stand today on the politics of Obamacare in the Senate?

428-437Jean Schroedel, Dean of the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University (, one of my favorite professors in grad school. Her brand new books are entitled Evangelicals and Democracy in America, Vol. 1: Religion and Society and Vol. 2: Religion and Politics.

443-452Jean Schroedel

458-508 Phil Hotsenpiller, teaching pastor at Yorba Linda Friends Church (, and author of the seven-part graphic novel series with Rob Liefeld entitled Armageddon Now ( He's also co-authored a 7-part book series entitled Passionate Lives and Leaders ( He recently wrote a discussion guide for the movie The Road (a movie based on Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer prize winning novel).  The guide is called What Really Matters? And it's available at the church website

512-523Phil Hotsenpiller

528-538Juli Slattery, clinical psychologist at Focus on the Family (, and Adjunct Professor for Family Studies at the Focus on the Family Institute (, is heard regularly on The Big Show.  And, she's the author of Beyond the Masquerade: Unveiling the Authentic You, and her latest is No More Headaches:  Enjoying Sex and Intimacy in Marriage.

544-554Juli Slattery.  What's the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation?

555 [2:00] Let's check in now with the pros over at Applied Financial Planning, "The Money Guys" Robert Micone and Bill O'Connor at 866-SEEK-COUNSEL. (1) "Tell me about this once in a lifetime tax-free income in 2010."  (2) "Is this for everybody?"  (3) "How can my listeners find out if this is right for their portfolio?" –– Get the independent, unbiased advice you're seeking on your investments & retirement planning from the pros in the investment world here in Southern California for decades, "The Money Guys" – Robert Micone & Bill O'Connor – at Applied Financial Planning, by calling 866-SEEK-COUNSEL or visiting them on the web at
558-608Dan Isett, Director of Public Policy at the Parents Television Council (,
(1:31) Audio clips from "Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman" commercial.
(:26) #1 The strip club and porn collection clip
(:16) #2 The dominator whip guide clip
(:22) #3 I have been with a lot of women, boobs, knock her up clip
(:25) #4 I'll punch a baby, front row seats to a lethal injection clip
A video advertisement on CBS's Web site that "mashes" material from the iconic "Frosty the Snowman" Christmastime cartoon with two of the network's comedy series is offensive and should be pulled, media analysts told
The video ad, "Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman," takes authentic dialogue from CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" and "Two and a Half Men" and dubs it on top of the cartoon classic, changing well-known "Frosty" scenes to contain suggestions that the snowman and his friends visit a "strip club."
The mash-up also discusses Frosty's "porn collection" and contains repeated mentions of prior sexual conquests.
The ad is intended to promote the network's upcoming broadcasts of "Frosty the Snowman" and "Frosty Returns."
612-623Dan Isett
628-638Paul Edwards, host of The Paul Edwards Program in Detroit, heard weekdays from 4-600pm, on our sister station WLQV 1500AM in Detroit, (, and Teaching Pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Waterford, Michigan since October 2001.  We talk about Paul's great column below.
• Paul Edwards (12/08/09) The Tiger in You. 
644-652 Paul Edwards,
• Tony Perkins, FRC Washington Update (12/8/09) Reid: No Slave to the Facts.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants his colleagues to be on the right side of history, but there's just one problem. He doesn't seem to know any of it! Yesterday, the Senate Majority Leader became the front-runner for the most absurd quote of the health care debate. (Sen. Barbara Boxer of California finished a close second for suggesting that there's no difference between funding abortion and Viagra. Last time I checked, Viagra didn't end human lives--but apparently that's beside the point.) Sen. Reid bested Boxer, though, when he stood on the Senate floor and compared health care opponents to the old supporters of slavery. "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: slow down, stop everything, let's start over," Reid said. "If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough."
Today, his office may have defended those remarks, but what they cannot defend is Sen. Reid's distortion of the facts. It was his party--not the GOP--who stood in the way of American freedom. Every vote against the Thirteenth Amendment to free the slaves was cast by a Democrat. Every vote against Lincoln 's Emancipation Proclamation was cast by a Democrat. In 1922, when Republicans tried to outlaw lynching, Senate Democrats filibustered the bill until it died and continued filibustering against it until it was approved in 1957. When the great Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally passed, Republicans in the Senate backed it 23-6, but Democrats in the majority approved by only 44-23. Without the Republican Party, it wouldn't have become the law of the land.
Sen. Reid isn't making history--he's making it up! If his party shows this much disregard for the past, then Americans should be terribly worried about their future. When the Majority Leader is willing to rewrite history to score cheap political points, how can we trust him with something as vital as health care? How can we be sure that he's telling the truth on the H.R. 3590? We can't. Until then, I have a suggestion. Senators who want to be on the right side of history can start by supporting innocent human life. If anyone deserves to be freed, it's U.S. taxpayers who want no part of abortion's bloody business.
• Kevin Williamson (12/8/09) What to Think about Global Warming: There are many ideas to consider, and they are mostly political, not scientific. Kevin Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.  He lays out six possible positions.
1. The planet is getting warmer. This seems to accord with what we know. From 1906 to 2005, the average surface temperature rose by 0.74 degrees Celsius by most estimates. The planet seems to have warmed much more quickly during the second half of that interval than in the first half.
2. The planet is getting warmer, and human activity is the reason.
3. The planet is getting warmer, human activity is a main factor, and the consequences will be catastrophic.
4. The planet is getting warmer, human activity is a main factor, the consequences will be catastrophic, and some U.N.-style climate policeman is going to be able to manage a mitigating response.
5. The planet is getting warmer, human activity is a main factor, the consequences will be catastrophic, and some U.N.-style climate policeman is going to be able to manage a mitigating response — in an economically efficient manner.
6. The planet is getting warmer, human activity is a main factor, the consequences will be catastrophic, and some U.N.-style climate policeman is going to be able to manage a mitigating response — in an economically efficient manner that also is consistent with our political liberties and national sovereignties.
The core question raised by the emails is why their authors would behave this way if they are as privately convinced of the strength of their case as they claim in public. The Earth's climate is a profoundly complex system, sensitive, dynamic and subject to a dizzying range of variables interacting in ways that remain poorly understood. Carbon dioxide is only one of those variables. Climate scientists failed to anticipate the absence of warming in the last decade, a point that Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, privately conceded in one of the disclosed emails was a "travesty."
Given this, the public is entitled to wonder how exactly climate scientists can state with such certainty that temperatures have never been higher, or that they are sure to rise in the coming decade, to say nothing of the rest of the century. The public is also entitled to know how the climatologists can suggest the precise degrees by which the Earth will warm, or why a warmer Earth is, on balance, worse than a colder one. Is there a "correct" global average temperature?
The public also has a right to wonder whether the bulk of the scarce financial resources available to mitigate ecological risks ought to be devoted primarily to climate change rather than to other threats to the environment and public health. For several years, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg has been convening meetings in Copenhagen of some of the world's leading economists to consider that very question. Overwhelmingly they have concluded that the world's dollars, euros and yen are better spent on tackling diseases such as AIDS or malaria or problems such as malnutrition and run-of-the-mill pollution than on hugely expensive (and dubiously effective) carbon-mitigation schemes.
This conclusion is only common sense: Given the choice between spending $100 to feed a hungry child in the present or combat a notional climate problem that might or might not have real consequences a century hence, most of us would surely choose the former. We would do so, moreover, with the confidence that the technologies of the future will be better suited to deal with whatever climate problems might then exist.
// Meanwhile, none of the "green" energy sources—wind, solar or biofuels—has so far proved even remotely efficient or scalable, while often entailing serious environmental consequences of their own. These industries exist mainly because governments have thrown tens of billions in subsidies at them, and still they can't compete with carbon sources.
Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors.
• Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink, Reasons to Believe (12/18/06) Global Warming -- How Concerned Do We Really Need To Be?
NEWS ADVISORY, December 18, 2006, Standard Newswire Service -- Global warming is real. But its causes -- and therefore its solutions -- are more complex than most people seem to realize.
So says astronomer Hugh Ross, founder and president of the premiere science-faith think tank Reasons To Believe ( "We tend to think Earth's climate will always be optimal for human civilization if we just take better care of it. But nothing could be further from the truth," states Ross. "When we put emotion and politics aside and take a rational look at our planet's history, we actually see something quite different."
Ross explains, "Ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth's orbit. Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years."
• George Will, IBD (12/7/09) Copenhagen: Earth's Latest 'Last Chance'.
With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate change meeting.
Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars and micromanagement of everyone's choices.
China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate change theater, promises only to reduce its "carbon intensity" — carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.
Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83% below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.
// The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.
// Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100% certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.
(My Summary)
1. Climate change has been around as long as the earth.  Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, writes, "The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age."
2. The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976.
3. The globe has been cooling since 1998.
4. Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."
• Iain Murray, NRO Corner (12/7/09) EPA Finding Gives It Effective Control of the Economy.  Here's a brief summary of what this means, and why you should be appalled.
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.  The new low comes as Obama enters the home stretch in his push to enact his signature initiative, an overhaul of the nation's health care system, and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war.  Below are comparable ratings for other presidents since Gallup began taking presidential approval polls in 1938:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
Franklin Roosevelt had been in office more than five years before Gallup began taking presidential approval polls. During his remaining years as president, Roosevelt never fell below 48 percent.  The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Monday, December 7, 2009

400-408Scott Rae, Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology (, author of 6 books including:  The Ethics of Commercial Surrogate Motherhood;  Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics;  Brave New Families: Biblical Ethics and Reproductive Technologies;  Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics;  and Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics.  Scott was one of my profs at Talbot, and his expertise is in both medical ethics and business ethics.  He's an ethics consultant for four Southern California hospitals, and he's also a fellow at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and a fellow at the Wilberforce Forum.  He's got two books coming out in the Spring, The Virtues of Capitalism and Business as Transformational Service.

413-423Scott Rae

428-437Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (, and co-author with Bishop Harry Jackson of Personal Faith: Public Policy.
• Tony Perkins, Washington Update (12/7/09) Big Ben's Finest Hour.

443-452Tony Perkins.

458-508Dudley Rutherford, he's senior pastor at Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch (, and heard Sundays on KKLA at 9:00am.  Dudley just got back from the Dominican Republic where he was ministering with S.C.O.R.E. International (, speaking to 200 high school, college, and Major League Baseball players every morning.  The guy in charge of all the pitchers for the Yankees was there, as well as the guy in charge of all the catchers for the Astros.  Dudley also shares about, an application for SmartPhones that launched last month for both the iPhone and the Google Droid, for which he was the "beta-pastor".  Videos of Dudley's sermons are now available through the application, along with a Bible reading guide with Dudley's video introductions, 365 daily devotions, and of course, the Bible itself.  All available for you SmartPhone for about a one-time charge of $6.00.

512-523Dudley Rutherford. 

528-538Ken Timmerman, contributing editor at and author of Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, available at (  His latest is a novel entitled Honor Killing about the Iranians smuggling in a nuclear weapon into the United States.  We talk about the uprising today in Iran.  70% of the population of 70 million are under the age of 30.
• Ken Timmerman, Newsmax (12/7/09) Iranian Student Demonstrations Confound Regime.
544-554Ken Timmerman
558-608 – • Washington Times (12/7/09) EDITORIAL: Media complicity in Climategate.
A tale of destroyed documents, fraud, conspiracy and the misuse of millions of government dollars would seem to have all the juicy ingredients of a scandal that journalists would kill to cover. However, the mainstream media apparently doesn't think that Climategate is news. ABC News hasn't deemed the story newsworthy. Neither has CBS nor NBC. If Americans only got their news from the networks, they would not know about the global-warming fraud or would merely think there was a simple misunderstanding about what scientists meant in some vague e-mails
Never mind that two major universities have at least temporarily removed prominent academics from heading major climate research facilities. Never mind that there are real questions raised about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report that the Obama administration and global-warming advocates have continually hyped in order to advance their case for new global regulations to curtail purported global warming. //
• Fox News (12/7/09) Republicans Slam EPA Over CO2 Finding, as Envoy Calls E-Mail Flap 'Small Blip'.  Despite GOP objections, the EPA is expected to announce Monday that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a threat to public health.  "In the face of GOP opposition, the EPA on Monday declared greenhouse gases a danger to public health in a move that could pave the way for future regulation" – meaning higher personal and business taxes, more expensive energy and products, and less money in your wallet at the end of the day.
// Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told the EPA is rushing to a decision that may not be based on sound science. 
"It's certainly reckless considering the underlying science now has been very much called into question," Issa said Monday. "The inconvenient truth is not Al Gore's movie. The inconvenient truth is that people who had an agenda destroyed the facts to get an outcome."
// The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue. 
// "It is now clear that if we take our responsibility seriously to protect and defend our people from this threat, the Senate has a duty to act on climate change legislation," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in a statement. "In light of the EPA endangerment finding, the president's appearance in Copenhagen will carry even more weight, because it shows that America is taking this issue very seriously and is moving forward."
Jonathan Pershing, U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change, said in Copenhagen that the United States is not expecting any legally binding treaty in Denmark this month, but will pursue a "political arrangement" that could lead to one in the future. 
He dismissed the controversy over the leaked e-mails. 
"I think it will have virtually no effect at all," he said. "The science is incredibly robust. And as we look forward, I worry much, much more about not acting urgently than what will ultimately be a small blip on the history of this process." 
Asked about the remark, Issa said: "Richard Nixon said that about what Deep Throat had outed about the break-in." 
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
// The EPA's Ms. Jackson and President Obama's energy and climate czar Carol Browner have said they would prefer Congress to take action but are prepared to move ahead in the absence of lawmakers crafting their own law.
Industry experts say the Clean Air Act--under which the EPA is making its endangerment finding--was designed to regulate more regional and localized air pollution, and would be a much more blunt tool than Congress could craft. Critics, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the endangerment declaration could spark a cascade of litigation and regulation that could harm the economy.
The EPA, meanwhile, says it would regulate in a sensible way. The agency has already moved forward on two rules that would guide regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily through a proposal to set the threshold level at 25,000 tons a year and requiring such large emitters to report their emissions.
If the EPA decided to move ahead with emission regulations for stationary sources such as utilities, new rules would likely be in place by 2012 and could set stringent emission standards to require firms to install the best available technology.
• Victor Davis Hanson, NRO Corner (12/7/09 @ 09:54AM) Thoughts on Climategate, Van Jones, and Al Gore.
Once upon a time, scientists, unlike prophets, were inductive. They sought to interpret evidence in empirical fashion, rather than twist it to "prove" preexisting suppositions. The Enlightenment taught them to welcome transparency and free expression, not (as in the Medieval Age) to form cabals to hound out heretics. Public intellectuals and grassroots activists were devoted to promoting proven ideas, rather than making fortunes through the shrill advocacy of unproven ideas. In the age of cynicism, penances were sold to sinners to allow them without guilt to satisfy appetites that conflicted with their doctrine; by contrast, the lives of moralists reflected the simple creed they advocated for others. Governments acted on scientific consensus, not theories that were the most favored or trafficked in popular culture. Debates, not propaganda cinema or cheap invective, adjudicated honest disagreement; people of the lab and library, not Hollywood celebrities and rock stars and their wannabes on campus, informed the public about scientific dispute.
  How strange: This was to be our new age of science; instead, we are getting alchemy, the inquisition, and the reign of the superstitious.
• Gary Sutton, Forbes (12/4/09) The Fiction Of Climate Science.  Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."
Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."
OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
// The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world.
// The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.
That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.
While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.
Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.
Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.
612-623Victims of adultery, is the Elin-Tiger marriage over?  What happened in your relationship?  Your advice to others?
628-638Calls.  Did you ignore the early indicators when you were dating?  Did a "player" ever become faithful because of the ceremony? 

701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 550
Glendale, CA 91203
Office (818) 956-5552
Frank's Assistant Nate Hanson
Get Podcasts here