CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the ­hottest January the world has ever seen. The remarkable claim, based on global satellite

Is this the record Heat we are being told about?

 data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.

“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ­climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”

His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organization revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850. But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.

“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.

“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”

The Met Office yesterday revealed it would re-examine 150 years of world temperature records to restore faith in its data in the wake of a number of high-profile blunders dubbed “climategate”.

Scientists advancing claims of man-made climate change were humiliated when emails emerged suggesting researchers at the University of East Anglia had been selective with weather data. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also wrongly claimed the Himalayan glaciers could melt away in 25 years. Most scientists have said it will take 300 years for the glaciers to disappear. Following the embarrassing revelations, the Daily Express published a dossier of 100 reasons why the rise in world temperatures is natural and not caused by man.

These sled dogs are taking a break due to the record heat ;=)

The report, by the European Foundation, dismissed suggestions that raised levels of carbon dioxide would bring difficulties, saying it would encourage crop yields and support food production. Now the Met Office has pledged to go back as far as 1850 to check its statistics. Yesterday the IPCC and the University of East Anglia were also preparing to defend their research.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, flew to Bali to try to convince the UN to back the troubled organization Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband urged Dr Pachauri to make sure no future mistakes were made.

He said: “There have been mistakes made, clearly. It’s important that those mistakes are looked at.

“I’ve written to Dr Pachauri to emphasize our support but also our wish that they look at their procedures to try to eliminate these sorts of errors. But the overall picture is very clear, which is that climate change is happening, it is real, it is man-made.”

In the Commons, Ann Winterton, Tory MP for Congleton, asked: “Will the Government change its mind about the huge subsidies to land-based wind farms, which are not only ineffective but also despoil the countryside?”

Mr Miliband replied bluntly: “No, we won’t.”

The University of East Anglia submitted its evidence to Parliament’s science and technology committee yesterday, denying it had altered climate change statistics. It said evidence that the university’s Climate Research Unit had hidden data showing a decline in temperature was “richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context”. But the university said it would review the climate science produced by the unit.

By KARL ROVE

Last Friday, President Obama met with House Republicans in Baltimore. He took questions, parried criticisms, and allowed all of it to be put on television.

Framed as an opportunity for the president to hear from the other side, Mr. Obama’s real aim was to portray Republicans as obstructionist and boost his own public standing in the process.

Afterward, Gallup found that Mr. Obama’s approval hit 51%, up from 47% after the State of the Union address two days earlier. But in winning that small victory, Mr. Obama also further poisoned his relationship with Republicans by repeatedly saying things that are demonstrably not true.

For example, when Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling asked if the president’s new budget would, “like your old budget, triple the national debt” and increase “the cost of government to almost 25% of the economy,” Mr. Obama denied it. But that’s exactly what Mr. Obama proposed doing in his budget framework that Congress passed last April, according to both Congressional Budget Office and White House documents.

In Baltimore, Mr. Obama criticized the GOP’s response to last year’s $787 billion stimulus package saying, “I don’t understand . . . why we got opposition . . . before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas.”

In truth, the president met with congressional Republicans to talk about the stimulus package the day before the press said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey completed drafting the 1,073-page bill. What occurred was a photo-op, not an exchange of ideas. Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were scornful of Republican input.

When Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price complained in Baltimore that the president kept saying “that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions,” Mr. Obama shot back, “I don’t think I said that.”

But of course Mr. Obama and his people have said that repeatedly. They did so starting in April, when White House aides swarmed Sunday talk programs to label the GOP the “party of no” and say that the party lacked both constructive ideas and vision.

For the rest of this story please go here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043342489432552.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Face Forward Comments:

I really like Karl Rove.  This is the guy that was an advisor to Clinton.  He pulled him from the far left to a more centered political position.  From the point that Clinton began making his decisions based on the Karl Rove influence, he personally prospered and the country benefited. While there many things about Clinton that many people found offensive, he was widely applauded for his move to the center, politically.

On the other hand, we have a president now that has surrounded himself with yes men and those that are even further left of his own position.  This last week we began to see his heavily tilted, left leaning, position sway just a bit.  He is by no means making any effort to change any of his positions or policies he is however, making an effort to sound more centrist  If only he would actually  take the next step and do what is right for the people of the country.

Solicitation Number:

TIRWR-10-Q-00023 Notice Type:

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Synopsis:

Added: Feb 02, 2010 7:08 pm Modified: Feb 02, 2010 7:50 pmTrack Changes

Quotes are solicited under Request For Quotation (RFQ) number TIRWR-10-Q-00023. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a written RFQ will not be issued. If your company can provide the product listed in the RFQ and comply with all of the RFQ instructions, please respond to this notice.

 This requirement is a Small Business Set-Aside and only qualified sellers may submit quotes. NACIS code for this requirement is 332994. The RFQ opens on the date this announcement is posted and closes Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 2:00:00 PM Pacific Standard Time. Response should be emailed or mailed by the closing date to Marc.Feinberg@irs.gov or IRS, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. FOB Destination shall be Washington DC.

 The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

 Submit quotes including 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) and shipping to Washington DC.

 Read the actual solicitation on the Federal Website:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d3b076bd4de14bbda5aba699e80621d&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

Face Forward Comments:

So you think they are going to be hunting doves? Probably not. They are going to be hunting pigeons and you might be the bird.

I guess they expect those “rich bastards” that the Obama administration is going to be targeting to put up a fight. Our only question is “who are those “rich bastards”. My guess, it is anyone that opposes this administration and their redistribution of wealth policies. Any government that takes up arms against it’s own people is an outlaw government. That is especially true when the people are non violent and their only crime is to protest and fight against the unlawful seizure of their wages and property.

The embattled chief of the UN’s climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for a ­damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that ­Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said.

The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a “populist” step.

“I don’t do too many populist things, that’s why I’m so unpopular with a certain section of society,” he said.

In a robust defense of his position and of the science of climate change, Pachauri said:

• The mistake had seriously damaged the IPCC’s credibility and boosted the efforts of climate septics.

• It was an isolated mistake, down to human error and “totally out of character” for the panel.

• It does not undermine the “basic truth” that human activity is causing temperatures to rise.

• That he would not resign and was ­subject to lies about his personal income and lifestyle.

Pachauri spoke as the second day of the Guardian’s investigation into the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia reveals how climate scientists acted to keep research papers they did not like out of academic journals. One UEA scientist, Dr Keith Briffa, wrote to a colleague to ask him for help rejecting a paper from a journal which he edited. “Confidentially I now need a hard, and if required, extensive case for rejecting.” The request apparently broke the convention that the review process should be independent and anonymous. Briffa was not able to comment because of an ongoing independent review into the stolen emails.

In another email, sent in March 2003, the leading US climate scientist Prof Michael Mann suggested ostracizing a journal for publishing a paper that attacked his work.

For more on this please go here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers

Face Forward Comments:

Well of course there is no apology.  He is set to make billions of dollars if they can get the phony climate laws passed.  Every country that agrees will give up their sovereignty.  Which means, that Rajendra Pachauri and the others like him can carry out their plans to destroy western civilization and culture.