Global warming
 

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_not_ people

Global warming
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:44:19 +0000, Gordon wrote:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_not_ people

Not "people" but "U.S. voters".

Global warming
 

Gordon wrote:
Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_not_ people



That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Cheers
Martin
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

Global warming
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:44:19 +0000, Gordon wrote:
|
| Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused
|
|
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s2/articles/44
_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_pe ople
|
| Not "people" but "U.S. voters".

Good onya, mate!

Global warming
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:44:19 +0000, someone posting as Gordon purportedly
wrote:

snip
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ===================



--
poking dumbasses in the forehead, till my finger hurts.

Global warming
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_not_ people



That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?



Good retort Martin.

Gordon, here are two quote from recent articles with links.

Make up your own mind.

And please remember at least 49.5% of US population voted for Bush in
2000, and few more in 2004. So much for the intelligence of crowds.
Popularity does not equal science.

QUOTES

A major U.S. government report on Arctic climate, prepared with input
from eight Canadian scientists, has concluded that the recent rapid
warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice
are "highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years."

The findings, released on Friday, counter suggestions from some skeptics
that such recent events as the opening of the Northwest Passage and
collapse of ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic are predictable phenomena
that could be explained as part of a natural climate cycle rather than
being driven by elevated carbon emissions from human activity.

A summary of the report - described as "the first comprehensive analysis
of the real data we have on past climate conditions in the Arctic," by
U.S. Geological Survey director Mark Myers - warns that "sustained
warming of at least a few degrees" is probably enough "to cause the
nearly complete, eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet,
which would raise sea level by several metres."

link http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1186593

With funding from the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar
Programs, Steig and colleagues set out to reconstruct Antarctica's
recent past. Ground-based stations have recorded temperatures since
1957, but most of those readings come from the peninsula and areas on
the edges of the continent. But at the same time, scientists such as
study co-author Joey Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in
Greenbelt, Md., have been gathering measurements from a series of
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments deployed on
satellites since 1981.

The new analysis shows that Antarctic surface temperatures increased an
average of 0.22°F (0.12°C) per decade between 1957 and 2006. That's a
rise of more than 1°F (0.5°C) in the last half century. West Antarctica
warmed at a higher rate, rising 0.31°F (0.17°C) per decade. The results,
published Jan. 22 in Nature, confirm earlier findings based on limited
weather station data and ice cores.

West Antarctica is particularly vulnerable to climate changes because
its ice sheet is grounded below sea level and surrounded by floating ice
shelves. If the West Antarctic ice sheet completely melted, global sea
level would rise by 16 to 20 feet (5 to 6 meters).

link http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sch012209.php

Global warming
 

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...

(snippage)
The new analysis shows that Antarctic surface temperatures increased an
average of 0.22°F (0.12°C) per decade between 1957 and 2006. That's a rise
of more than 1°F (0.5°C) in the last half century. West Antarctica warmed
at a higher rate, rising 0.31°F (0.17°C) per decade. The results,
published Jan. 22 in Nature, confirm earlier findings based on limited
weather station data and ice cores.

West Antarctica is particularly vulnerable to climate changes because its
ice sheet is grounded below sea level and surrounded by floating ice
shelves. If the West Antarctic ice sheet completely melted, global sea
level would rise by 16 to 20 feet (5 to 6 meters).

link http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sch012209.php

Ah, but what is the cause to this effect? "Global Warming" is the easy
answer, but here is another: Pacific Rim Volcanic Activity. While the
Pacific "Ring of Fire" is generally thought of as more or less an inverted
"U" shape, it actually extends to the Antarctic Plate.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explor...edia/fig1.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0229183818.htm

In any event, we'll eventually have new coastlines to explore while
cruising.

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

Is xenophobia a hate crime?

Global warming
 

On 22 Jan 2009 14:41:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

Comedy GOLD! Bwhahahahahaha!

Global warming
 

Gordon wrote in
:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssues2/article
s/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people


It was never human caused. We're in one of the coldest periods of Earth's
history. (Religious nuts who think Earth is 6000 years old, dispite a
mountain of evidence to the contrary, please ignore all this and pray.)

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/

John died of a heart attack in 2004, but his legacy of truth about
climatology's lies and scare tactics lives on.

In 1841, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marked the mean sea level on the Isle
of the Dead in Tasmania for us. (It's a _V_ mark in the shade of the rock
sticking out in the middle of the picture.)

John Daly did an extensive study and concluded the sea level has only risen
a few mm since the 1841 mark was made....blowing the sea level rising
nonsense out of the water....

Look over both these sites, John Daly's legacy for us. It's an amazing
place to spend an evening.....

Global warming
 

Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in
:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssues2/article
s/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people


It was never human caused. We're in one of the coldest periods of Earth's
history. (Religious nuts who think Earth is 6000 years old, dispite a
mountain of evidence to the contrary, please ignore all this and pray.)

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/

John died of a heart attack in 2004, but his legacy of truth about
climatology's lies and scare tactics lives on.

In 1841, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marked the mean sea level on the Isle
of the Dead in Tasmania for us. (It's a _V_ mark in the shade of the rock
sticking out in the middle of the picture.)

John Daly did an extensive study and concluded the sea level has only risen
a few mm since the 1841 mark was made....blowing the sea level rising
nonsense out of the water....

Look over both these sites, John Daly's legacy for us. It's an amazing
place to spend an evening.....


Pesky facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Global warming
 

Gordon wrote in
:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssues2/article
s/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people


http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=394

Watch top to bottom. The "Hockey Stick" totally discredited so much even
the IPCC/UN had to drop it.

What will Algore do? Will he APOLOGIZE for being SO WRONG and costing us
BILLIONS in stupid government regulation?

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:44:19 +0000, Gordon said:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

Ah, but do fewer people believe it?


Ringlish isn't his first slanglage.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

"katy" wrote in message
om...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

Is xenophobia a hate crime?


No, but stupidity should be. Oh wait...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...

(snippage)
The new analysis shows that Antarctic surface temperatures increased an
average of 0.22°F (0.12°C) per decade between 1957 and 2006. That's a
rise of more than 1°F (0.5°C) in the last half century. West Antarctica
warmed at a higher rate, rising 0.31°F (0.17°C) per decade. The results,
published Jan. 22 in Nature, confirm earlier findings based on limited
weather station data and ice cores.

West Antarctica is particularly vulnerable to climate changes because its
ice sheet is grounded below sea level and surrounded by floating ice
shelves. If the West Antarctic ice sheet completely melted, global sea
level would rise by 16 to 20 feet (5 to 6 meters).

link http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sch012209.php

Ah, but what is the cause to this effect? "Global Warming" is the easy
answer, but here is another: Pacific Rim Volcanic Activity. While the
Pacific "Ring of Fire" is generally thought of as more or less an inverted
"U" shape, it actually extends to the Antarctic Plate.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explor...edia/fig1.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0229183818.htm

In any event, we'll eventually have new coastlines to explore while
cruising.

There's always an upside... lol

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in
:
Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssues2/article
s/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people

It was never human caused. We're in one of the coldest periods of
Earth's history. (Religious nuts who think Earth is 6000 years old,
dispite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, please ignore all this
and pray.)

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/

John died of a heart attack in 2004, but his legacy of truth about
climatology's lies and scare tactics lives on.

In 1841, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marked the mean sea level on the Isle
of the Dead in Tasmania for us. (It's a _V_ mark in the shade of the
rock sticking out in the middle of the picture.)

John Daly did an extensive study and concluded the sea level has only
risen a few mm since the 1841 mark was made....blowing the sea level
rising nonsense out of the water....

Look over both these sites, John Daly's legacy for us. It's an amazing
place to spend an evening.....


Pesky facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png


Bummer about those things....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

Capt. JG wrote:

In any event, we'll eventually have new coastlines to explore while
cruising.

There's always an upside... lol


Jon willbe living on the island of San Francisco....good thing he has a
boat becasue I dont think there will be public transportation to the
mainland for awile...

Global warming
 

"katy" wrote in message
om...
Capt. JG wrote:

In any event, we'll eventually have new coastlines to explore while
cruising.

There's always an upside... lol


Jon willbe living on the island of San Francisco....good thing he has a
boat becasue I dont think there will be public transportation to the
mainland for awile...


I would never live in SF. I like warm in the summer....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

jeff wrote in :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Those not on floating docks need to go check the lines!

Global warming
 

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:56:26 +0000, Larry wrote:

Gordon wrote in
:

Polls show less and less people believe it is human caused

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssues2/article
s/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people


http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=394

Watch top to bottom. The "Hockey Stick" totally discredited so much even
the IPCC/UN had to drop it.

What will Algore do? Will he APOLOGIZE for being SO WRONG and costing us
BILLIONS in stupid government regulation?

I sure hope he registered his cell phone with the do not call list!

Global warming
 

Larry wrote:
jeff wrote in :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Those not on floating docks need to go check the lines!


Omigod! 8 inches in only 119 years! The sky is falling, er, the
tsunami is gonna get us!
Gordon

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing
on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding
global warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Global warming
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing on
an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding global
warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.

Global warming
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?
Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?
There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing on
an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding global
warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.


The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

Global warming
 

"katy" wrote in message
om...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

Global warming
 

--
?
"Marty" wrote in message
...
I still fail to see the bearing on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the
probability of a hypothesis regarding global warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Global warming
 

--
?
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Might there be a more than remote possibility that those not out of step
are
correct?

No, popular notions are ALWAYS wrong.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were
people
voting.

Sounds like Ohio. There's a solution to this, but it won't happen as long as
people insist on the "secret ballot" nonsense. Voting fraud will only end
when people are willing to take responsibility for making sure their votes
were accurately recorded, regardless of the consequences.

Issue a Voting ID Number to everyone at their 18th birthday. This number is
then used in all elections, local, state and national. After each election,
the numbers are posted next to each candidate, allowing voters to go online
and verify that their vote was actually cast as it was intended.

Not foolproof, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:17:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

There's a solution to this, but it won't happen as long as
people insist on the "secret ballot" nonsense. Voting fraud will only end
when people are willing to take responsibility for making sure their votes
were accurately recorded, regardless of the consequences.

We could even send a policeman into the booth with each voter, just to be
sure there's no funny business, and to be sure each person votes right.

Which is the mindset which will forever resist change. The "secret ballot"
system has always been, and will always be, rife with fraud -- precisely
because it is "secret." No one can challenge the outcome because no one can
prove their vote was tampered with; either by changing it, or by casting
phantom votes to cancel it out.

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose. But
in the end, if people aren't willing to take responsibility for their vote,
they deserve whatever system they get.

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?
We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were people
voting.

That's cuz of all the ,ultiple personalities..they each get a vote, ya
know...

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:42:47 -0600, "Jolly Roger"
said:

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Now, you take that popular notion that the earth is approximately round....

In European the popular notion was the world was flat. for several
hundreds of years the popular notion in Europe was that the world was flat.

Several hundred years before Columbus, the popular notion in Europe was
the world was flat. At the time of Columbus the popular notion was just
beginning to change. So popular notion are not always correct

Earlier the popular notion was a theory of chemical bonding called
Phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston) It was a popular
theory that everyone believed in. It retarded the true understanding of
Chemistry for decades. Could it be that the popular theory of global
warming is like the Phlogiston theory and preventing a true
understanding of climatology?

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?
We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were people
voting.

Sounds like Illinois...

Cheers
Martin

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:46:29 -0500, Marty said:

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?
Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?
There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing
on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding
global warming being correct.

Might there be a more than remote possibility that those not out of step are
correct?


Well there is alway the possibility, however the majority opinion of
some poll does not constitute a valid scientific argument. An opinion
poll merely tells one the feeling of the masses, but has little if
anything to do with the "correctness" of anything other than validating
or invalidating an hypothesis about the majority opinion.

Cheers
Martin

Global warming
 

?
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:42:47 -0600, "Jolly Roger"

said:

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Now, you take that popular notion that the earth is approximately
round....

FYE: A notion is a Conception, an Impression, Imagination, Opinion,
Doctrine, Belief, Supposition, a Thought. Notions are theories, not proven
or observable, not a Truth, Reality, Fact, or Actuality.

A notion may be true or false, but notions that gain popular support before
being proven or observed are always wrong.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:39:35 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose.

I understand that what you're proposing is that every individual's vote be
made public in a manner that will allow the authorities to determine how
that individual voted. Am I misunderstanding?

No, I am proposing that each individual's vote be made public in a manner
that will allow that voter to determine how their vote was recorded. A
significant level of privacy would exist, as the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an election.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?


Using words like never and always tend to deflate your arguments, as they
are not intellectually honest.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Global warming
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?


Using words like never and always tend to deflate your arguments, as they
are not intellectually honest.



Isn't stating they are "not intellectually honest" tantamount to saying they
are "never intellectually honest?" Duh!

--
Gregory Hall

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career post
in
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming administration,
but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said the recent disclosure
of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election played no part in the rejection
of Mr. Schmidt for the position."

I fail to see a problem worth getting worked-up about. Sufficient penalties
could be imposed upon those who leak voter-ID -- penalties with teeth -- as
to be an actual deterrent. But let's look at the concept further:

The Declaration of Independence was not signed "Anonymous."
We know exactly how each and every Senator, Representative and President
votes on each and every Bill that passes before them and either does, or
does not, become law.

The actual practice of Democracy requires individuals willing to take
responsibility for how they vote, regardless of the consequences.

Global warming
 

Dave wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago
Illinois voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career
post in Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming
administration, but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said
the recent disclosure of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election
played no part in the rejection of Mr. Schmidt for the position."


Mr Schmidt's IRS audit is scheduled for Thursday at 10AM.