Ben Carson illustrates the fallacy of marriage debate perfectly

Recently Andrea Mitchel hosted Dr. Ben Carson on her show Andrea Mitchel Reports. Andrea Mitchel quizzed Dr. Carson on his view of marriage. Unfortunately for Andrea Mitchel and MSNBC the line of questioning did little to rattle Dr. Carson's conviction on the definition of marriage. It was actually Andrea Mitchel that appeared to be flustered as her follow up questions were terrible. I bring this up as Dr. Carson lays out a great argument on the definition of marriage. Dr. Carson even hints to the abuse by the Federal government in restricting people the freedom of assembly via utilizing marriage as a vessel to transfer assets and death benefits among other aspects. In fact the Federal government has 1,100 laws on the books that abuse marriage in similar fashion. As an aside, this exchange illustrates the fallacy in the thought process of Progressives have in regards to marriage equality as marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage, as Dr. Carson puts it, is rooted in God and the Bible not society. Take a look for yourself at the interview.

 http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/ben-carson-takes-on-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-the-definition-of-marriage/

 Hopefully people will start to realize that marriage should be left to God, and other Dogma, and demand that Government remove itself from this sacred rite.

Al Gore mistaken on Polar Ice Cap science

Former Vice President Al Gore stuck his foot in his mouth while speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit when he claimed that, "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Interesting but not so quick as the scientist that Gore quoted denied giving concrete numbers to which later Gore's office admitted that the figure was "one used by Dr. Maslowski as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Gore" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece). Interesting error in science indeed, especially in light of those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

While I do acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, I do not subscribe that it is as manmade that most on the left would like us all to believe. As I am writing this, Andrea Mitchell had Gary Hart and a former General on to discuss how climate change is a national security threat. The Left is losing the battle and has not gone to the bag of tricks that Bush used, i.e. WMD's, to push the climate change agenda. Let's all be honest, what is playing out in Copenhagen is not about being good stewards of the Earth; rather it is about plundering the coffers of the Industrialized World by Third World and developing countries. The EU has announced that it will give 500 million euro's to Africa and the Caribbean (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BE1BI._CH_.2420) and the United States upped their ante that will be set at $9 billion for 2010. By the way it was President Bush that led to the tripling of "direct humanitarian and development aid" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html).

That being said, it is time that we take a time out and look at the science of climate change. A friend of mine posted this webpage on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2009%2F11%2F091124140957.htm&h=a0758a2cd40ea99ae8b12077acd89c03 After reading the article I posed this question: Park says that "a strong correlations exists between sea-surface temperature and CO2 levels in the tropic areas. Conversely, in places with a lot of trees and other biomass to soak up much of the atmospheric CO2..." Wouldn't that lead us to believe that deforestation and the lack of biomass – will need a definition on that – is the root cause of the "inerannual time scales" that results in less CO2 absorption? So, shouldn't the push be for more forests and biomass instead of "Cap and Trade" legislation? Or did I read what he said incorrectly? It appears to me that Park is applying correlations found in tropical oceans to all waterways which does not equate when he says "in places with a lot of trees and other biomass" the oceans are able to absorb access CO2. Can't have it both ways…"

I have not seen an answer to this question. Perhaps someone here will help me understand or correct me if I am miss-understanding Parks report. All of this is why we need to have a robust debate void of emotion and political influence. Is that even possible? Plus, if Gore was told of the prediction by Dr. Maslowski took place several years ago, wouldn't that mean that we will see no polar ice cap in the next one or two years?