Lesbian Barbie Calendar Causes Controversy

See the full calendar here

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected.

'Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications'

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the oldest continuously published scientific journal in the world, has published a theme issue on global warming that is available free through Thursday. Short version: we're fucked.

The Guardian summarizes:

A hellish vision of a world warmed by 4C within a lifetime has been set out by an international team of scientists, who say the agonisingly slow progress of the global climate change talks that restart in Mexico today makes the so-called safe limit of 2C impossible to keep. A 4C rise in the planet's temperature would see severe droughts across the world and millions of migrants seeking refuge as their food supplies collapse.

I've been debating global warming in the comments section of a minor conservative blog for a several years now, not because I'm a masochist but just to see how the other side thinks. For the first few years they denied that there was a consensus on global warming at all although the latest studies show the consensus among climate scientists at about 97%. Now they argue that the consensus is wrong although it is never clear how they know this, except that it is obvious to them that AGW is a plot of some kind. I bring up the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences; they link to some obscure Exxon-paid hacks who publish in nonscientific publications, in one case a LaRouche magazine. I concede that it is remotely possible that the 3% could be right, despite the overwhelming nature of the consensus, despite the links to Exxon on the part of many of the skeptics, despite the fact that they never seem to do any actual research or publish in peer-reviewed journals. Still, it is within the realm of possibility, however unlikely, that they are right. My conservative debating opponents are 100% certain however that they are right and I am wrong. One of them also doubts the "consensus" on the theory of evolution. Like the evolution deniers they ask for one "proof" that C02 is causing the increase in temperature, when they are not denying that the Earth is warming at all.

One week they deny that there is a consensus, another week they argue that the consensus is wrong. One week they deny the earth is warming, it is actually cooling they say, another week they argue that the whole solar system is warming due to natural causes, based on misinterpretations of some climate data for Mars. In the end they call me an idiot and close the comments.

My opponents are not even the nuttiest of the wingnuts. They are not birthers for example. But their minds are made up. So is mine I suppose but I concede the possibility that I could be wrong. I am not a scientist. I ask myself, if I were President what would I do? Study climatology in my spare time, work toward a Ph.D. and then review all the scientific literature? Or be guided by the considered opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and 97% of the experts in the field. That's what their idol Reagan did regarding the hole in the ozone layer, although I believe my opponents also still dispute the ozone connection. The mythical Reagan is their God but the real Reagan would be considered a moderate by their standards.

Although they believe that they are right on the Science lately they have been pointing out that they are winning on the Politics, that the Skeptics have succeeded in preventing anything serious from being done about global warming. Here they may very well be right making the worst case scenarios of the Royal Society all the more likely.

CNN: Justices turn aside another challenge over Obama's citizenship

U.S. scientists have identified rocks that “may contain evidence of life on Mars”.

Almost half of humanity could lose clean water access due to climate change, according to a British report to be released tomorrow . . .

What I'm reading: House of Bush House of Saud

In 1985, the blind Wahhabi imam Abdul Ariz bin Baz retracted his fatwa punishing people who believed the earth was round after a conversation with Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the grandson of Ibn Saud. The prince had been a passenger in the American space shuttle Discovery and told the imam that having been in outer space, he could personally attest that the world was round.

According the The National Enquirer Willow Palin is not pregnant but not for lack of fucking her boyfriend

Dorothy Kilgallen Death Conspiracy

November 22, 1963: Clint Hill was there

We were traveling through Dallas en route to the Trade Mart, where the president was to give a lunchtime speech, when I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. As I turned toward the sound, I scanned the presidential limousine and saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left.

A Republican asks: Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change?

I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

The very rich want more, more and more and they are prepared to dismantle the existing political and social order to get it.

Investigative teams acting on orders of newly elected Congressmen are fanning out around the world to uncover the truth about President Barack Obama's birthplace, political insiders tell GLOBE in a blockbuster world exclusive!

Catholic Church Needs More Exorcists

Despite the severe shortage of properly trained exorcists there are still more exorcists than there are demons. Nonetheless:

Panic after 'devil attack at School

Balls of Fire Over Canada

Photo of the Day