Last week the United Nations concluded its surprisingly divided global warming conference in Poland. Far from a consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), dissidents far outnumbered those beating the drum for curbing carbon emissions. Last years’ conference included over 400 preeminent scientists who objected to the “consensus,” and this years’ conference included a growing list of over 650. In spite of objections to the methodology, data, and conclusions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the committee had the audacity to declare that the “evidence is unequivocal that humans are causing global warming.”

In stereotypically demeaning fashion, those who express their skepticism of AGW are referred to as “flat-earthers” in an attempt to intimidate them and cause them to equivocate. Yet the list of notable scientists who question the conclusions of the IPCC is not easily dismissed with that pejorative moniker. Since it is incredibly unlikely that mainstream media will promulgate any opposition research or statements, and in light of the fact that the earth has been cooling for the past decade while CO2 emissions have continued to increase, a review of some of their comments is certainly warranted.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel PrizeWinner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, PhD in meteorology and former of NASA scientist who has authored morethan 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists ofthe last 100 years.”

“Warming fears are among the worst scientific scandals in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winningPhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, aresearcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National AutonomousUniversity of Mexico

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will have virtually no impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008International Geological Congress who has authored over 130 peer reviewedpapers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore [former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore] prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist HajoSmit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become askeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many scientists are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the SpaceResearch and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor DelgadoDomingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group,has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute ofScience and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr.Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires andhead of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

If these notable scientists, and 650 others, question the “consensus” of AGW, we all should. The dubiety of the IPCC conclusions should make all of us suspicious of their motives, and the motives of all who want us to believe that the issue is closed and beyond debate.

Even casually perusing mainstream media sources these days creates the impression that the country is suddenly emerging from a cultural and political cave of Medieval proportions into a new era of reason and enlightenment. For many, it’s obvious that their newfound zeal and love of the American way hinges on an illogical presumption that moving the country to the left is somehow more reasoned and enlightened. To others, the nomination of a scholarly Energy Secretary is sufficient for a presumption of a more reasoned and rational national political culture.

Whatever the sources of such patriotic resurgence, we can only hope that there is somehow a more reasonable and logical climate for us to function socially in, regardless of what’s happening politically in Washington.

As seemingly pervasive as this perception is in media across the fruited plain, we can only hope that some of the irrational, fallacious, and spurious trends of recent years will likewise fade away with the advent of the new age of renaissance in America.

Perhaps the dawning of a new age of reason will curtail the idiotic notion that the government is forcing religion on people because (gasp!) the Ten Commandments are posted on government property. Our newly enlightened citizenry will appropriately realize that the Decalogue serves as a founding codex of cultural mores for Western civilization much as the Code of Hammurabi did for Eastern civilization.

Perhaps the illuminati of American culture will come to the realization that Christians have as much right to be heard in the public square as those who fervently preach their godless secular religions of man-made global warming, atheism, and paleontologically bereft evolution. Since each of these belief systems are founded in faith which fills in the gaps that science can’t explain, all such expressions of faith will now be heralded as acceptable, tolerable, and welcome contributors to the American social fabric.

We will likewise universally realize that non-profit organizations, even if they’re (gasp!) churches, have a right to exist, and continue their efforts in serving the temporal, social, and yes, spiritual needs of their parishioners. Much to the chagrin of our more “erudite” fellow citizens, the President Elect has indicated a desire to maintain the faith-based services initiated by President Bush. But now, in this atmosphere of increased enlightenment, it will be acceptable because it’s suddenly more reasonable for organizations with genuine interest in their fellow beings to provide tax-free and subsidized service for those less advantaged amongst us.

A new age of enlightenment will allow us to actually call Christmas, “Christmas,” instead of the more generic, and politically correct “Holidays,” or “Winter Solstice.” There is a freedom in being more reason based, because it means I don’t have to be offended by a Menorah in Manhattan, or the chimes signaling morning and evening prayers for Muslims in Boston. Likewise, atheists and agnostics will suddenly choose to no longer be offended by crosses on hillsides across the country, and nativity scenes in (gasp!) public places. Our collective reason-based epiphany grants us immediate recognition of the fact that each of us can maturely choose to not be offended at everything in society that cuts across our grain. We can actually rejoice in our diversity, and not just a “politically correct” version that disallows Christians and Jews the same freedoms and liberties that social secularists embrace.

This new age of enlightenment will allow children to actually sing traditional Christmas Carols at Christmas time. They won’t have to sing nondescript, theologically neutered songs that avoid any reference to the primary reason for our celebration of this season. As the central figure in the belief system of the Deists founding this nation, and nearly 80% of Americans today, it will finally be acceptable again to mention the name of Jesus Christ, and acknowledge this season as the time we celebrate his birth.

Further, educators and government employees will suddenly discover they can have a backbone in standing up to those few who actually do force their beliefs on the rest of society. They won’t be like the school administrators in North Carolina who banned even the singing of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer since it had the word “Christmas” in it, because one parent complained.

The more I think about it, the more I like this American renaissance of reason, universal tolerance, and genuine multiculturalism. Those who have been forced into hiding because of religious beliefs can emerge now absent the fear of being defamed and derided. And we can go into stores and have the employees actually say “Merry Christmas.” What a wonderful time for the nation!

Although there is no logical reason to presume this new reasoned era will spawn the attitudes I’ve mentioned, there’s no reason why it can’t happen. It all comes down to us individually and our commitment to true classical liberalism. If we collectively realize the relationship between our inalienable rights and our moral obligations to one another in defense of those rights, this nation can rise like a phoenix from the ashes of 20^th century obsession with political correctness, and become again, the kind of nation envisioned by the founders and our forebears.

In that spirit, I extend my warmest Christmas wishes for much happiness, love, and joy, regardless of religious or political orientation.

There seems to be a steady trend toward increasing the power of government at the cost of individual liberties. This is not just evident nationally but a trend observable at the statewide and local level as well, and was on display at a School Board meeting last week.

Journal coverage of that meeting reported that Rep. Donna Boe is concerned by the fact that Idaho protects the right of parents to educate their children at home without interference from the state. As it stands currently, there is no state law granting authority to local school districts or to the State Department of Education to provide oversight or to regulate homeschooling, even though other neighboring states have imposed such regulation. California law goes so far to make it a crime to home teach children if the parents are not certified educators.

Patti Mortenson, Director of Elementary Education for District 25, proposed adding a definition for “educational neglect” to Idaho law. That’s very strident language. Could something like this open the way for Child Protective Services and the courts to start forcing their way into the homes of children being taught by their parents? Could it open the way for the state to take children away from parents if their home schooling efforts are subjectively deemed inadequate? While the intent may be noble, the law of unintended consequences could produce significant ignoble side effects.

According to the Journal article, Boe’s concern was to provide a “safety net” for children who may be receiving an inadequate education at home. But I can’t help wonder if the attention should be more on a safety net for our children working their way through our public schools instead.

Neither Boe nor Mortenseon returned my call in my effort to clarify their intent.

I can’t help but suspect the issue is not really about academic aptitude. Idaho children who are home schooled traditionally score in the 82-84 percentile range on the Iowa Tests, according to the Idaho Coalition of Home Educators. Back when Idaho’s public school students took the same tests, they hovered in the 54 percentile level.

In light of that fact, it’s difficult to believe that Rep. Boe’s concern is for the children themselves. They seem to be doing statistically much better than their publically educated counterparts. Perhaps it’s more of a budgetary issue, since for every child being taught at home, the district loses anywhere from $5,500 to $8,000 in funding. Rep. Boe indicated there are about 13,000 home-taught children in Idaho. How many of those are in Pocatello is anyone’s guess.

The fundamental doctrine this manner of thinking is based on is the superiority of the “state,” whether it’s federal, state or local government entities. The “state” is somehow more competent and has a greater aptitude in providing for the welfare of our children, according to this doctrine. The continuing encroachment of government into private lives is symptomatic of this notion, and will undoubtedly be increasing at an accelerated pace over the next few years. But the premise that the “state” somehow knows what’s best for our children over loving, nurturing parents is problematic.

Adding the language “educational neglect” to Idaho Code could be a Pandora’s Box, for it’s statistically much more likely to occur at the public education level than it is at home. I’m not sure that’s a box they would want opened.

Rather than take the pernicious sounding “educational neglect” route, it seems more logical to simply have parents inform the local school district that their children are being taught at home. That way the local district knows where the kids are and can offer assistance and materials, if so desired.

This country was founded on principles of individual liberty and freedom. Each time the government regulates, some of that liberty is eroded. While it seems draconian to think a child could be removed from his home because he failed his math test after being homeschooled, the door is certainly nudged open with a charge of “educational neglect.” If language is added to Idaho Code to that effect, could not the state be charged with the same? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We’re getting to the point where government is telling us what kind of speech we can engage in (politically correct), what kind of thoughts we can and can’t harbor (“hate”), how much energy we can consume (carbon footprint), talking about imposing a tax on “excessive” energy consumption (carbon tax), regulating what we eat (no restaurants using trans fats), whether we really have a second amendment (DC gun ban), even what kind of light bulbs we can and can’t use (illegal 100w incandescent), and attempting to force Judeo-Christian influences out of the public square, etc. ad nauseam.

Intent behind such regulation is probably meritorious, but the net effect of diminished individual freedom is not. The encroachment on personal liberty is accelerating, and at some point, we must collectively stand up and say “enough.” Seems to me, this is a good starting point.

After a month of pondering the outcome of the recent election, I’m still troubled by certain aspects of the presidential campaign. Yes, I was disappointed with the outcome, but unlike the intolerant bigots in California who continue to harass, intimidate, and terrorize supporters of Proposition 8, I accept the results of the democratic process. But there are a few things we should consider before the next election rolls around.

For example, the Obama campaign raised a record $750 million in campaign contributions. The New York Times called it “spectacular.” The Los Angeles Times called it “phenomenal” and “unparalleled fundraising ability.” Many other news sources praised it as “mind-boggling.” If we recall just four short years ago, George W. Bush was accused of “buying the presidency” by the major media due to his record setting fundraising. The Seattle Times accused the Bush campaign of “milking citizens for contributions” in an effort to “repurchase the Oval Office.” Many news sources referred openly to the “problem” of the Bush fundraising “juggernaut” and continually made accusations that Bush was simply buying the presidency. How much did the Bush-Cheney campaign raise for the record setting 2004 campaign? A paltry $367 million.

So which is it? Is it spectacular and phenomenal, or is it buying the presidency? I guess that depends on whether it’s your candidate raising all the money. And frankly, that’s disquieting, to say the least. John McCain’s Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 was supposed to rein in the rogue and questionable campaign contributions, but it obviously failed.

It’s high time to consider serious campaign finance reform to limit candidates’ ability to “buy” elections. The whole system is fraught with corruption and abuse.

After the election, John Zogby conducted a nationwide poll of Obama voters and asked them 12 simple questions about the candidates and politics in general. Of those polled, 97% were high school graduates, and 55% were college graduates. Ostensibly one would surmise that they would be fairly knowledgeable about the campaign and their candidate. However, the results were startling. Over 57% could not correctly say which party controls congress. More than 71% could not correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism. More than 82% could not correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot. Nearly 90% could not correctly say that Obama had himself said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket. Nearly 60% could not correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two domestic terrorists, members of the infamous Weather Underground.

Contrast this ignorance with what they did know. Nearly 90% correctly identified Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 on clothes. 94% could identify Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter. And nearly 90% incorrectly thought that Palin had said that she could see Russia from her house, even though it was Tina Fey who said it on Saturday Night Live.

Of the twelve simple questions, only 2.4% got at least 11 correct, and only .5% got all of them correct. That is pathetic! Is it time to consider implementing a national Voter Aptitude Test in order to qualify to vote? When people are that factually ignorant the concept might well be plausible.

In his recent book Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, historian Rick Shenkman delves through reams of data illustrating how ignorant if issues and historical fact the average American voter is. According to Shenkman, only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the Federal government, and 49% think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution. That is scary.

There are many more issues of concern, but let’s address media bias. The week before the election Tom Brokaw was on the Charlie Rose show and they had this exchange:

Charlie Rose: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

Tom Brokaw: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.”

When we get to the very end of a two year campaign for the presidency and major media mavens are finally realizing that they don’t know much about a candidate, it means that those ideologues in the media weren’t doing their job! What happened to the probing questions and the so-called vetting process the media is supposed to conduct with these candidates?

Mark Halperin of Time magazine admitted last week at a Politico conference, “Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history.” He continued, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” Deborah Howell, Ombudsman for the Washington Post has the data and has quantified the bias, validating Halperin’s observations.

If we’re politically ignorant, simply swallow what the mainstream media spoon-feeds us, and allow elections to simply be bought, I guess we get the government we deserve. Personally, I think we owe our country, and ourselves, more.

Those things we take most for granted are often the things for which we should be most grateful. Especially in this privileged country where the blessings enjoyed by all have come through the sacrifice of others, and the blessings enjoyed by many come because of the absence of limitations prevalent in other countries.  

Our freedoms are often taken for granted, and consequently, we assume they will always be there. But as we observe the trends granting increasing power over our lives to governmental authority, we can only pray and hope that the day will not come when we look back longingly at the freedoms once enjoyed here.

Those who wear and have worn the nation’s military uniforms are often taken for granted. But it is imperative that we acknowledge that at this time of no conscription that they wear the uniform and shoulder the attendant responsibilities of their own volition. We are not just free because of the wars and conflicts they fight or have fought, but also by their very presence and vigilance they ward off other threats to our liberty and our very existence. We are direct beneficiaries of their service. We can only surmise how differently we may have emerged from the cold war had we not maintained such a powerful global military presence.

As the nation struggles through the current financial difficulties, we realize how generally good the economy has been for the past eight years. Something we have again taken for granted. The media have painted a different picture during that time of how bad the economy was. Every report from employment to GDP growth rate was scrutinized to the point where, regardless of the positive elements, it was somehow twisted to where miniscule pejoratives eclipsed the positives. It could be that there was an agenda behind such uniformly negative reporting, or perhaps it’s just that bad news sells better than good. But then again, maybe we’re just too gullible as a people and swallow the headlines rather than reading, digesting, and thinking through the details on our own.

Sometimes what we take most for granted are people whom we love and assume will always be there for us. Then when they are not, our hearts yearn for their return, whether they departed of their own volition or because of the frailty of mortality. Even eighteen years after my mother’s passing from breast cancer and five years after my father died there is still not a day that goes by that I don’t think of them, long for their insights, wisdom, and their nurturing encouragement.

These are but a few examples of what we sometimes take for granted, but perhaps the best thing for each of us to ponder what applies most. What blessings, privileges, and relationships do you most treasure and would be most bereft of if they were no longer in your life? Tell those who most profoundly touch your life how you feel, and then have the wisdom to bask in the warmth of those relationships as often and as much as possible. For those blessings, both tangible and abstract that are not relationship based, do as the early Pilgrims did. According to William Bradford, “he did fall down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with the most fervent prayers unto the Lord and His blessing.” Ultimately, since all blessings are bestowed by God, we express our deepest gratitude to him for our country, our state, our families, and the blessings that are ours to enjoy.

Chuck Swindoll made a statement years ago that has profoundly shaped my attitude about life, and about gratitude itself. He said, “The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.”

The realization that we have control over our attitude will not only significantly enrich the quality of our lives, but it will lead us to what Eniko Jordan last week called the “attitude of gratitude” which we celebrate this week. That same attitude precludes the possibility of taking things for granted and causes us to acknowledge our dependence upon each other and upon God for the blessings that are ours.