Once again, as a public service only, I am reporting another dissenting voice against Al Gore and his documentary.

The fact is, as I have maintained, the scientific community is not united in regards to Global Warming and Climate Change.  There remains decades of research to determine causation and effect, and to establish what we can do, if anything to deal with it.

What this movie should do is spur more discussions and encourage research.

Instead it is being used as political hay to build another anti administration/anti republican strawman.  Using this information to inflame imaginations and encourage panic is obviously unscientific and, in my opinion, shameful.

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

Today the Senate voted on and narrowly defeated the flag burning amendment to the US Constitution.

Flag-Burning Amendment Fails In Senate

constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification a week before Independence Day.

The 66-34 vote in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

Now right off the bat I am shocked.  There was much more support for it then I anticipated.  I excpected this to fail mostly on party lines, but instead it only failed by a single vote.  Obviously some Senators crossed the party lines somewhere. 

Voting "yes" were 52 Republicans and 14 Democrats.  I will post a roll call list below, but  notable (to me) were Sen Feinstein and Sen Reid who both voted yes.  I am not a big fan of Diane, so I am somewhat bemused by her vote.  Harry howver, I am just not a big fan.  Period.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress’ response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people’s patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.

Apparently they missed the fact that 14 of their brethren agreed with the Republicans.