Words Have Meaning - Actions More Revealing!

This is why, when I am on a plane, I keep reading. (See 1 below.)

If teachers are truly interested in education and allowing school children to be exposed to the best or something better why do they oppose the opportunity at every turn?

Could it be that union members prefer power and money to educating? (See 2 below.)

Labor also has a general image problem - deservedly so. (See 2a below.)


Thomas Frank does not understand why Democrats are having their head handed to them and believes it is partly because they cannot relate to the 'common man.'

Perhaps. But additional reasons might relate to Liberal policies and dogma that discourage independent thinking and foster the belief that problems can only be solved and/or caused by others.


Thus, when a recession hits 'victims' look for someone, some external causation, to blame. Victims no longer have the capability of solving their own problems or the ability to conceive it might relate to their own behavior and actions.


The big homes they cannot afford and should never have bought they blame on the banks. Spending beyond their means, they blame on VISA. They leave raising of their children to schools and when problems arise they have been brainwashed it is because not enough money is being spent. The external blame list is endless.

Democrats and their Liberal theology are now under attack from the very same victims they helped create - a society of dependent Frankensteins. (See 3 below.)

Obama's solution is more hidden taxes. After all can it be a tax if it is not called a tax? Furthermore, Obama is a great believer in free markets. He told that to business leaders so therefore it is so! Words have meaning but actions are more revealing! (See 4 below.)

Obama, the 'Ever Ready' physician knows what is best for the psychological depression he is causing but should it not fly he has 'plan B' waiting in the wings. (See 5 and 5a below.)

We have not heard or seen Al Gore. Is he buried in snow drifts? Investor's Business Daily believes he has been lying, got caught and is hiding.

Climate change paid off big time for the former Vice President. (See 6 below.)

Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)A Georgia Congressman was seated next to a little girl on the airplane leaving from Atlanta when he turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger. ' The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the total stranger, 'What would you like to talk about? ' 'Oh, I don't know, ' said the southern congressman. 'How about global warming or universal health care', and he smiles smugly. 'OK, ' she said. 'Those could be interesting topics. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is? ' The southern legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, Hmmm, I have no idea. ' To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming or universal health care when you don't know shit?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Novel School Plan Upheld: Los Angeles' Board of Education voted Tuesday to hand over some of its public schools to charter school operators and teachers groups, part of an unusual experiment
By TAMARA AUDI


LOS ANGELES—The city's Board of Education voted Tuesday to hand over some of its public schools to charter school operators and teachers groups, part of an unusual experiment to see whether outsiders will have better luck improving student achievement in the nation's second-largest school district.

View Full Image
Associated Press Parents, teachers and activists attended a controversial Los Angeles board vote that had pit unions against charter school operators.
.
But most of the 30 campuses, some with more than one school, were awarded to teachers and administrators employed by the school district. The board awarded four schools to charter groups, and two schools to a group led by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The majority of the schools were awarded to teachers' groups. The board's vote was a blow to charter advocates and a boost to teachers in the city's divided education community.

Hundreds of parents, teachers and charter school advocates had gathered outside school board offices all day, and packed the board room during the five-hour meeting.

"We're extremely disappointed in the vote today,'' said Lauren Carter, and administer for ICEF, Inner City Education Foundation, a charter school group that runs 15 schools in Los Angeles and hoped to be awarded a new Los Angeles school Tuesday. Instead, the board voted to give the school to a teachers' group. "We were looking for more bold action from board members to make decisions for what was in the best interests of the kids. It's a sad, sad day for us."

The district's 45,000-member teachers' union saw charter schools as a threat that could hand more power to groups such as charter schools. Charter-school groups had hoped they would be able to expand their operations.

"We think it's a victory for students and the collaboration between teachers and parents and administrators," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, the teachers' union. "The world is going to see what we've been saying all along: Give the authority to teachers and we will create quality schools."

The Los Angeles city school system, which is second only to New York City's with nearly 700,000 students, is widely considered one of the most troubled big districts in the U.S. According to the district's own report card for 2008-09, 42% of fifth-graders were reading at grade level and 53% could perform at their grade level in math. Some schools fall far below that. Hyde Park Elementary, one of the schools whose management went to a teachers' group, showed only 20% of its fifth-graders reading at grade level and 25% performing at grade level in math.

Under a resolution passed last year, the Los Angeles Board of Education for the first time allowed charter schools and outsiders to bid for the right to operate schools deemed "public school choice" sites.

Last week, Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines recommended awarding 10 of the schools to outside groups. He recommended awarding the remaining 28 schools to groups led by Los Angeles Unified School District teachers.

The board ratified most of Mr. Cortines's recommendations, but reassigned a few schools to teacher groups, instead of the charter groups Mr. Cortines had recommended.

The changes will affect 38,000 students.

.Los Angeles already has more charter schools than any other district in the country—an estimated 161, according to district figures. Though charter schools have blossomed in the city, charter advocates complain their growth has been hampered because they haven't been able to gain easy access to space at school buildings.

Charters are part of the public-school system but have more leeway in how to allocate funds, hire teachers and develop curricula. The teachers' union in Los Angeles has typically been opposed to charters because they aren't obligated to hire under union contracts.

Measuring the success of charter schools is complicated, because many of them are new and don't have as much historical data on student achievement as public schools. Charter schools have been popular, in part, because they offer parents greater control over their children's education. Some studies have shown charter students outperforming their public school peers, while other studies show charter schools falling behind in some categories.


2a)Was It Something They Did?
By Jennifer Rubin


Big Labor has an image problem. It seems that helping to run the American car industry into the ground (with help from less-than-stellar management, of course), trying to snag a sweetheart deal to exempt its members from the Cadillac excise tax on health-care plans, and making a run at abolishing secret-ballot elections in the workplace have left a bad taste in the mouths of American. A Pew survey tells us:

Favorable views of labor unions have plummeted since 2007, amid growing public skepticism about unions’ purpose and power. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of labor unions while about as many (42%) express an unfavorable opinion. In January 2007, a clear majority (58%) had a favorable view of unions while just 31% had an unfavorable impression. … In April 2009, 61% agreed with the statement “labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,” down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that “labor unions have too much power,” up from 52% in 1999.

The Pew report notes that this is consistent with surveys by other polling outfits. Big Labor’s approval ratings have plunged in all demographic and racial groups. Only union households (of which there are fewer every year) think their unions are doing a bang-up job.

Big Labor would have us believe that its decline is attributable to rigged federal labor rules or nefarious employers. But the reality is that most Americans don’t see unions doing much good for them — but they do see union bosses acting like every other strong-arming, special-interest group. So it may not be an issue of whether federal labor law is outmoded but whether labor unions are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)What's the Matter With Democrats?
By THOMAS FRANK

It's no secret that the tea party faithful regard the Obama administration as a Constitution-shredding tyranny. But in a profile of the movement published last week, the New York Times reported the surprising news that many of the protesters have come to this view as a result of their experiences in the recession: "Their families upended by lost jobs, foreclosed homes and depleted retirement funds, they said they wanted to know why it happened and whom to blame."

An account of a conservative uprising published a few days later by the Washington Post under the headline, "Appalachia is slipping from grip of Democrats," told the story of a hard-bitten congressional district in western Virginia where the response to the recession has been a dramatic swerve to the right.

The free-market system blunders into recession; its victims flock to the free-market banner. And here we go again.

The backlash against liberalism has been going on for more than 40 years. It is as immediate as this morning's newspaper but as old as those "Silent Majority" buttons you find at antique stores. Since the days of George Wallace, conservatives have been leading rebellions against hippies, against busing, against Hollywood, against property taxes, against welfare, against evolution, against whatever.

The formula is familiar beyond the point of tedium: Middle-American righteousness, resentment of liberal "elites," weepy fantasies of persecution set to a country-music melody. Yet its power never wears off. Today conservatives are giddily anticipating another electoral disaster for the "Party of the People."

For the moment, let's leave aside the question of whether the conservative rebels can credibly claim that, by raising their voices for tax cuts and deregulation, they are striking a brave blow against the powers-that-be.

Instead, let us pause to contemplate what appears to be the epic dimwittedness on the other side of the battlefield—the years of folly that have allowed the Democrats to wander blithely into the same old snare again and again. The laissez-faire system has just finished giving us a convincing demonstration of its viciousness, but the party of Franklin Roosevelt can't get out in front of the resulting anger. Working-class Massachusetts and even Appalachia are turning away from it in disgust, but the party of the political scientists doesn't seem to have noticed.

The answer to the riddle is as plain as the caviar on a lobbyist's spoon. Democrats don't speak to angry, working-class people because a lot of them can't speak to angry, working-class people. They don't know how. Many of the party's resident geniuses gave up on that constituency long ago, preferring instead to remodel their organization as the vanguard of enlightened professionals and the shrine of purest globaloney. They worked hard to convince Wall Street that new-style Democrats could be trusted. They accepted, for the most part, the deregulatory agenda of the Reagan administration; in fact, in some fields—banking, telecommunications, free trade—they went farther than Ronald Reagan dared.

Along the way, these new-style Democrats did little as their allies in organized labor were scythed down by organized money; last year they watched as the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector sank lower than any point in the 20th century. The fatuity of it all is surely plain to Democrats by now: They have permitted nothing less than the decimation of their own grass-roots social movement. As a result, in large parts of America, there is no liberal presence at all, no economic narrative to counterbalance the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh.

President Barack Obama might have helped in this regard, using the biggest megaphone in the land to tell us, in the Times's words, "why it happened and whom to blame." He might have explained to us how financial regulation was systematically undermined by his predecessors, how the prospect of quick profits bred conflicts of interest throughout the system, and how a delusional free-market superstition blinded the nation to the unsoundness of the financial structure.

He might, in other words, have contested the right's monopoly on the word "elite." He might have reached out to working-class voters in the only way Democrats can.

But that would have been divisive. That would have disturbed the confidence of the markets.

Watching the victory of 2008 appear to slip through the Democrats' fingers is disheartening, but not because it is a story of opportunism and selling out. After all, if Democrats were opportunists, they would be pushing the still-popular "public option" in the health-care debate. Something might yet be salvaged.

No, the Democrats' problems arise from their convictions, from the botched centrist faith to which so many of their leaders still cling. They do what they do because they believe that those hearty fellows on the Sunday talk shows really know the answer; that the truth really resides in the dusty globalization clichés of the
'90s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama's Business Buyout President Obama is proposing that the U.S. government both guide the economy and do so with a new, aggressively redistributive tax policy.By DANIEL HENNINGER

It made perfect sense for President Obama to speak yesterday to the Business Roundtable. Businesses big and small could use a pep talk just now. Bank lending last year fell the most since 1942. San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen describes a jobless recovery, with the economy not returning to U.S.-style Mach speed until 2013.

But instead of giving a speech about reviving business confidence in the economy, Mr. Obama gave a speech about reviving business confidence in him.

"I take the time to make these points because we have arrived at a juncture in our politics where reasonable efforts to update our regulations, or make basic investments in our future, are too often greeted with cries of 'government takeover' or even 'socialism.'"

The evening before this speech, Mr. Obama held a small White House dinner for some CEOs from household-name corporations, such as AT&T, Xerox, State Farm, Verizon, PepsiCo and GE. The reason for a linen-tablecloth dinner followed by a big speech to really big business is the White House has concluded it is wrongly seen as antibusiness.

I agree. This White House is pro-business. In fact, it's so pro-business it's proposing a virtual merger with the private sector. Ladies and gentlemen of the business community, meet your new partner—Uncle Sam.


Now, the president doesn't talk that way when he speaks, as yesterday, to the Business Roundtable. And some of the "antibusiness" rap is the result of the Obama folks doing what they felt they had to do the past year to get the financial and credit systems back on track.

Along with this came some traditional pistol-whipping of bankers and brokers. Blame transferral is what politicians do. Everyone big enough to be a Fortune 500 CEO understands how this game is played.

But then along came a $90 billion tax on banks? That's a high price for taking a fall.

And how did it come to pass that the just-released Obama budget includes a $122 billion tax on businesses' overseas profits? Business thought it had beaten back this tax last October. What happened?

The answer lies, as it always has, in Mr. Obama's first budget statement—"A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise"—released last Feb. 26. This is the most important presidential budget document since Ronald Reagan's April 1981 "Additional Details on Budget Savings." There Reagan offered an explicit philosophical rationale for his reordering of the federal government's role. The Obama statement does the same for events the past year.

"A New Era of Responsibility" describes the years before Mr. Obama as "an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions." From this emerged the two core themes of the Obama presidency.

The first is that "government," which Mr. Obama identifies as "we," must "transform our economy for the 21st Century." Thus, the now-familiar initiatives on carbon auctions, a green-jobs economy, and health care. "At this particular moment," Mr. Obama said a year ago, "government must lead the way." This isn't just an antirecession patch, but something new and permanent.

Mr. Obama said yesterday it is not a "government takeover." Nothing so crude at all. It's an M&A agreement between Uncle Sam and the private economy.

This in turn requires what Mr. Obama many times has called "investments": Thus this year's long list of tax increases—the fees, fines and taxes in the health-care bill, the overseas profits tax and the 2011 expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

This is about more than just siphoning tax revenue. It's about big theme No. 2: "For the better part of three decades (my emphasis), a disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the wealthy. Technological advances and growing global competition, while transforming whole industries—and birthing new ones—has accentuated the trend toward rising inequality."

I take this to mean that while the tax and economic policies of the past four presidencies worked for the economy—birthing whole industries—it was bad for society, as Mr. Obama understands it.

He is proposing that the U.S. government both guide the economy ("the right balance between the private and public sectors," he said yesterday) and do so with a new, aggressively redistributive tax policy, which was made explicit in his just-released budget. Guide and redistribute. Agree or not, it's a bold argument. But will it work?

This is radical, a big change indeed from the past three decades. It's also a roll of the dice with the American economy. But as politics, it isn't working. It has produced anxiety—the state-election surprises, the tea partiers, weak consumer confidence, nervous credit markets and surly executives.

If it were working, Mr. Obama wouldn't have to give speeches to revive public confidence in his new vision for a new era. Could be, most people were fine with the one we had, until now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Obama Readies a Fallback Health-Care Proposal:Scaled-Down Plan Would Expand Insurance to About Half as Many People as Pending Bill Envisions.adeoOrkut Text .
By LAURA MECKLER


President Barack Obama will use a bipartisan summit Thursday to push for sweeping health-care legislation, but if that fails to generate enough support the White House has prepared the outlines of a more modest plan.

His leading alternate approach would provide health insurance to perhaps 15 million Americans, about half what the comprehensive bill would cover, according to two people familiar with the planning.

It would do that by requiring insurance companies to allow people up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' health plans, and by modestly expanding two federal-state health programs, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, one person said. The cost to the federal government would be about one-fourth the price tag for the broader effort, which the White House has said would cost about $950 billion over 10 years.

Officials cautioned that no final decisions had been made but said the smaller plan's outlines are in place in case the larger plan fails.

Such a move would disappoint many Democrats, including Mr. Obama. They have worked for more than a year to pass comprehensive legislation like the plan the president unveiled Monday, which would cover the bulk of the 46 million uninsured people in the U.S., set new rules for health insurers and try to control spiraling health-care costs.

The ideas in the White House's fallback plan are in tune with earlier incremental Democratic efforts. In the 1980s, Democrats expanded eligibility for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor. In 1997, after failing to pass President Bill Clinton's comprehensive package, Congress created the Children's Health Insurance Program, for children in working poor families. Last year, Mr. Obama signed into law a bill expanding that program to encompass four million more kids.

The larger Obama health plan has been in jeopardy since last month, when Democrats lost a Senate seat from Massachusetts and with it their filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. With many congressional Democrats spooked, the White House considered more-modest measures that would be easier to pass.

As he was weighing his choices, Mr. Obama asked his staff to show him what a more modest policy might look like, and the plan to cover about 15 million people was the most promising, a senior White House official said. "He wanted people to look at what effect you could have on the overall problem if you have to go smaller," the official said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn't devise the smaller policy, the official said. But Mr. Emanuel argued that it wasn't feasible to pass a comprehensive bill and counseled a lesser version, according to several people familiar with the conversations. Others argued that Democrats were going to take a political hit by voting for a health-care bill no matter what, and they should opt for a sweeping measure whose benefits would be easier to highlight.

Another argument made by those pushing for major change: Why run for office if not to address big problems such as health care?

Mr. Obama decided to renew his push for a comprehensive bill, and Thursday's televised summit was designed to lay the groundwork for that approach.

Summit Viewing GuideTime: 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. with break for buffet lunch. Place: Blair House, across the street from the White HouseKey AttendeesObama administration:

President Barack ObamaVice President Joe BidenHealth Secretary Kathleen SebeliusCongressional Democrats:

House Speaker Nancy PelosiSenate Majority Leader Harry ReidLeaders of key committees related to healthCongressional Republicans:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellHouse Minority Whip Eric CantorRanking members of key committees.AgendaOpening comments from the president, followed by remarks from both Republicans and Democrats.The discussion will center on four themes: controlling health-care costs, reforming the insurance market, reducing the deficit and expanding insurance coverage.Participants will be seated at tables in a hollow square set-up. .

Republicans have long argued that smaller steps are better. "I hope that we can convince the president that we [should] go back to the beginning, and go step by step," said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.).

Mr. Obama has said he believes many Americans turned against the bill because they were put off by the messy and often opaque legislative process. Aides hope that when he lays out the substance of his proposal Thursday in a bipartisan televised forum, he will win back support and give lawmakers the confidence they need to push the measure over the finish line.

In a preview, the president defended the legislation in a speech Wednesday to the Business Roundtable. He described the measure in detail, and said he looked forward to the summit on Thursday .

"I hope everyone comes with a shared desire to solve this challenge, not just score political points," Mr. Obama said.

Republicans will have a chance to present their ideas at the summit, but they suspect scoring political points is mostly what the session is about. They say they want to start from scratch, something the White House has rejected.

In another incremental move, the House approved a small slice of its legislation Thursday, repealing the health-insurance industry's 64-year-old federal antitrust exemption. The 406-19 vote came after several major industry players announced premium increases. Advocates of the bill argued the measure would promote greater competition in the marketplace and ultimately benefit consumers. Insurers say they already face heavy regulation and have played down the significance of the change.

A similar measure wasn't included in the Senate bill, and the chances of the stand-alone bill becoming law are uncertain.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said the legislation reflects a determination by party leaders to "look for pieces that can be moved independently," even as efforts continue to advance a comprehensive overhaul. "We will look at others," he said.


—Greg Hitt and Janet Adamy contributed to this article.


5a)Scott Brown fumes over health plan:Rejects Obamacare II as ‘nuclear option’ that will increase taxes
By Jay Fitzgerald

Sen. Scott Brown yesterday warned the Obama administration against using the “nuclear option” of ramming through Congress a revised $1 trillion health-care bill outlined yesterday by the White House.

The administration unveiled what’s already being called “Obamacare II” - a mix of already approved House and Senate health-care legislation aimed at expanding coverage for 31 million Americans.

Obama’s plan also includes caps on excessive insurance-premium increases, similar to measures Gov. Deval Patrick proposed two weeks ago in Massachusetts.

A spokesman for Brown, whose dramatic Senate victory last month halted Capitol Hill momentum for health-care reform, said Democrats better not try to use a reconciliation strategy to pass the bill with a simple Senate majority.

Brown vowed during his campaign that he would be the crucial “41st vote” to kill reform legislation under the Senate’s supermajority-vote rules.

“If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare,” said Brown spokesman Colin Reed in a statement. “Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected.”

While Brown’s office didn’t specifically reject Obama’s latest bill, there was no doubt Brown views the proposal as similar to earlier health-care plans backed by Democrats, even though he reached across the aisle to support a major jobs bill yesterday.

The administration faces an uphill bid to win the bill’s passage in Congress, where many Democrats were scared away from backing reform after Brown’s victory.

A spokesman for the White House said the plan is an “opening bid” for a planned bipartisan summit on Thursday.

In a statement, Patrick, whose office dodged questions about whether Obama lifted the premium-cap idea from his Democratic ally in Massachusetts, praised the president’s legislation and vowed to work for health-care reform.

“President Obama clearly recognizes health-care expansion must include cost-control initiatives to help working families and businesses that are drowning in higher premiums,” said Patrick, who was in Washington yesterday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Al Gore's Nine Lies

A lot has happened since Newsweek's Nov. 9 cover story -- most recently the retraction of Al Gore's rising-seas scenario. Newscom View Enlarged Image
Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.

We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.

Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.

Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."

Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.

According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.

Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."

Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.

A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.

It's been revealed that researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been systematically eliminating weather stations, with a clear bias toward removing colder latitude and altitude locations. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35, with only one station used by the NOAA as a temperature gauge for Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The past is prologue. Two years ago, Justice Michael Burton of London's High Court ruled Gore's film could be shown in British schools only if material explaining its errors were included in the curriculum. Burton documented nine significant errors in Gore's film and wrote that some of Gore's claims arose from "alarmism and exaggeration."

The first error Gore made, according to Burton, was in his apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a rise in sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps. Burton wrote that Gore's predicted 20-foot rise could occur "only after, and over, millennia" and to suggest otherwise "is not in line with the scientific consensus."

One by one, Gore's prophecies of doom and those of the climate charlatans he inspired are being exposed as the work of con artists. From the CRU to the IPCC, the climate dominoes are falling one by one. His silence speaks volumes.

Goodnight, Mr. Gore, wherever you are.