“Talk to me, like lovers do…”

That is the message from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama, as she calls for a 22nd debate - Lincoln-Douglas Style - heading into the NC Primary. Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning in NC are not great in any case.

This smells of desperation - like maybe the deal WILL be done by July, as Howard Dean had forecast.  A debate of this type, without moderators, would be disastrous for Clinton. If she is in a forum where she can affect a Southern accent and maybe knock back a couple of beers and not have anyone moderate her mouth, I think I’d rather watch America’s Top Chef or something.

The Democratic primary race has gone from Democrats choosing the best candidate to lead the country to a “jumped the shark” situation comedy.  It is almost - almost - funny anymore.

The big buzzwords being bandied about with regards to climate change is Scientific Consensus. I understand what this mean, although I don’t think a lot of the global warming alarmists do.

In every article I write about this, I feel the need to explain - so bear with me.

• According to the science available to us today, there is irrefutable evidence the earth has been warming over the past few decades.
• We have assumed carbon dioxide is the most important contributor to global warming.

The first statement is based upon the results of Science. There have been highly accurate measurements of temperature change since 1978 and quite accurate research of the natural record going back a very long time. The earth warms and cools in a somewhat cyclical manner.

The second statement is based upon Scientific Consensus, but only a bastardized form if that. Scientific Consensus is a judgment or opinion, which is based significantly on peer review of other people’s research. Scientific Consensus is supposed to be open for criticism, but it is not now - nor has it been historically. Scientific Consensus is supposed to be perishable, changing over time as new science emerges on a specific topic, but that is not happening in the global warming debate either.

Our ability to understand global warming and whether we should worry should be based upon the results of science. The scientific community should be encouraging researchers to try to prove them wrong. That is the strength of science.

The truth is, proponents of anthropogenic global warming don’t want to hear anything contrary to their long-adopted consensus. It is more important to be important and right, than it is to allow your consensus to be proven incorrect, or even just potentially flawed.

It is interesting to note that the IPCC hailed 900-odd reports which came to exactly the same conclusion - that global warming is human caused. Yet, this same body reportedly ignored another 1100 studies which refuted one or more of the measures, models, or methods used by the IPCC. It is also interesting that many of the IPCC’s own reviewers have been ignored in their criticism of the IPCC information. Additionally, it is interesting how many scientists who are not skeptics at all are ignored when their research contradicts the scientific consensus.

Before I let you go, think about a few other instances in history, where the scientific consensus was different than the research posed by a minority of scientists.

Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discussed this problem in detail. Several examples of this are present in the relatively recent history of science. For example:

• the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
• the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
• the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
• the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
• the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori

There are also examples of new ideas that were shown to be wrong. Two of the classics are N rays and polywater. Although some believers still exist, cold fusion is generally considered to belong to this class. [Source]

So, my point here is we should be frantically accepting all criticism in an effort to disprove it, rather than rejecting all criticism in an effort to ignore it. Why? In order to ensure survival from these predicted cataclysmic results of global warming, we are talking about impacting the entire global society as we know it - unless it is just our survival we care about. Before we attempt to lead the world in an effort so drastic and so forceful, we are obliged to find the truth. Consensus is not truth.

2:10: Next question: What spending cuts are needed?

On Fox News they’re showing Frank Luntz’s focus group dials. Ron Paul talking about closing military bases made those lines drop like a rock.

2:20: Next question: Who’s hurt the most by our taxes?

Fred wants to be in Mitt’s situation where he doesn’t have to worry about taxes. He then quipped to Romney, “You’re getting to be a good actor.”

2:26: Next question: What changes should be made with NAFTA?

Fred notes free trade is the backbone of our economy. Fred will fight for fair agreements with other nations to open markets.

2:29: Fred gets 30 seconds of free time. National security is paramount. When our worst enemies are facing us we need serious leadership.

2:32: Next question: Climate change.

Fred isn’t in the mood for “hand shows.” He demanded a moment to actually discuss the issue. The liberal moderator refused to give him time, so he refused to bother with her.

2:51: Next question: What’s the biggest impediment to education?

Fred declares the National Education Association is the biggest obstacle. The teachers union is stopping parents from getting more and better choices to educate their kids.

Let me remind you Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by the New Hampshire NEA.

Tancredo scolded Huckabee for trying to dictate what local schools should teach. Huckabee responded by talking about a bully pulpit.

2:53: Next question: What would you do in your first year as President?

Ron Paul would bring the troops home from Iraq. Luntz’s dialers don’t approve. Fred wouldn’t do that. He wants victory and knows our troops can do that.

Fred says he’d tell the American people the truth about the threats facing our country. He’d tell the public that we have to fix our entitlements and stop judges from getting out of control.

In the comments Brian Walters comments:

Every time Fred speaks the dials go way up!!!!

On the other hand, Huckabee is doing TERRIBLE!!!!

3:09: Next question: Iran and intelligence.

Fred calls it the best question asked today. We’re paying the price for our poor intelligence. We have to rebuild it from the bottom up and get help from other nations. A President can’t let a piece of paper solely determine their decisions.

3:23: The debate ends and the analysis begins. How do you think Fred did?

3:31: Marc Ambinder on Fred’s performance:

Fred Thompson was smart, funny, irascible and consistent, and probably helped his standing here. He even got in a good dig at Romney.

Chuck Todd thought it was a great debate for Fred:

Frankly, the candidate who had the best afternoon I think was Fred Thompson. This was easily his best debate performance and he seemed to shine in this subdued format.

3:35: John Hawkins declares Fred the winner too:

Winner: Fred Thompson. Good substance, good personality, and his I won’t raise my hand for an answer question reminded me of Reagan say “I paid for this microphone.” Fred definitely won.

And add Jim Geraghty to the list:

Winner: Thompson. Don’t know if it will be enough, but he ought to get at least a little bump out of this. The moment he basically told the moderator where she could stick her “show of hands” question – well, I was inspired.

3:44: Philip Klein is another who declared Fred the winner:

Fred Thompson was the only candidate who stood out. He was funny, charming, and peppy. Here was a guy who wasn’t afraid to speak hard truths, and who displayed knowledge of the policy issues–especially on entitlements. But the moment of the debate, the moment that will be talked about should he defy expectations and go on to win the nomination, was when he refused to raise his hand at the behest of the moderator. This demonstrated conviction, showed he was able to stand up for his principles, that he was a man who valued substance, a leader rather than a follower, and somebody who is running a different kind of campaign. In short, today Thompson was everything that conservatives had hoped they’d be getting when he announced his candidacy.

And From Right Wing News:

2:08: Fred hit entitlements. Nice, but not splashy.

2:09: Being able to watch the focus group numbers while they talk is pretty neat. I like that feature, which I’m getting on Fox.

2:09: Decent answer from Mitt.

2:10: Huckabee’s answer is mildly disturbing because it suggests he wants to make us self-sufficient.

2:10: McCain will make us oil independent in 5 years? That’s complete and utter bunk.

2:18: Fred is so right about Social Security and Medicare. I like his answer. Bam. No, Warren Buffet, we can’t take care of their Medicare.

2:20: Fair tax, which Huckabee is relentlessly flogging, is unpassable. So, why talk it up so much?

2:20 Mitt gives the politically correct answer.

2:21: Fred gets the first funny line of the debate off tonight. He’s doing really well.

2:27: McCain is a huge free trader who wants to open markets. Good answer.

2:28: NAFTA from Rudy. Rudy loves and defends it. Good. We do want to embrace a global market. How much can we sell to these people as they come out of poverty? Very good answer from Rudy.

2:29: Fred Thompson: Mexico better think about criticizing us when they realize how good NAFTA has been for them. Too many people close their markets to us. We can’t stand for that. Really good answer.

2:31: Ron Paul is screwing this up. He should be talking resume instead of going on another rant. I am Ron Paul, a former doctor and I served in the military, yada, yada. He wasted his opportunity.

2:38 Rankings so far.

Thompson
Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Hunter
Tancredo
Huckabee
Paul
Keyes

2:50: The good news for Ron Paul tonight: he won’t be giving the worst performance for once.

2:51: Ok, tax credits for teachers, encourage private school, home schooling. Good answer on education.

2:51: Bam! Fred slaps the teacher’s union! Rock on! They bring in millions to fight choice. Inner city people need a chance to have choice. Let’s give choice to everyone. Another really good answer.

Summary: This was a very well run, very serious debate. CNN should ask these people how to run a debate.

Winner: Fred Thompson. Good substance, good personality, and his “I won’t raise my hand for an answer” question reminded me of Reagan saying, “I paid for this microphone.” Fred definitely won.

Top Tier Loser: Mike Huckabee. The fast format appeared to take him off of his game. He was very flat.

Rankings from bottom to top.

Alan Keyes: Came off as mildly nuts.
Ron Paul: Probably happy Keyes was there to make him look more reasonable.
Mike Huckabee: Very flat.
Duncan Hunter: He did Ok.
Tom Tancredo: He gets better every debate.
John McCain: Very average performance from a guy who usually does better.
Rudy Giuliani: Solid, but not spectacular.
Mitt Romney: He got back on his game without the frequent attacks.
Fred Thompson: His best performance yet.

Check how high the lines go on the charts as Fred Talks:

[youtube QnOvU1TsT3g nolink]

[youtube bksBYmqrpng nolink]

[youtube yUn8GSbUl_4 nolink]

This past Sunday, Republican presidential candidates took part in debates hosted by Univision in Miami. The following candidates attended: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

FactCheck.org did an analysis of the debate and found some incorrect and/or misleading statements by the following candidates:

• Mike Huckabee
• Mitt Romney
• Rudy Giuliani

See what Fact Check found.