When Al Gore's son, Al Gore III, was pulled over for DUI, drug possession, and speeding at 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway , he was driving a Toyota Prius.
"Thank God," his father said.
"He could have been driving a Hummer."
(The above is a made-up quote, which although false like the forged CBS Texas Air National Guard letters about George Bush, serve as Dan Rather said to "illustrate a greater truth.")
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Not All Muslims Are Terrorists
A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown noted correctly (and gratuitously) that “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
However, he failed to note that presently, most terrorists are Muslims.
For example, in 2006 there were 20,573 deaths caused by terrorists world wide, up 41 percent from 2005, according to the United States Counter Terrorism Center.
Of total deaths from terrorism in 2006, 84 percent were in the Near East and South Asia.
As informative as these statistics are about Muslim terrorism, of even greater significance are the numbers that are not included. For example, terrorism was credited with only causing 716 deaths in Sudan in 2006, while an analysis of expected deaths compared to total deaths indicates that the Muslim Janjaweed “militia” cause about 100,000 deaths per year through their terrorist activities.
Similar cases of gross undercounting of deaths from terrorism can be found in Israel and Lebanon, where many activities of Hamas and Hizbollah are not considered terrorism.
As you go about the world, you find that terrorism can be found just about anywhere that Muslims associate with anyone, including other Muslims. In fact, over half the victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims.
Concerning Islamic terrorism, some interesting points have been raised.
A former radical Islamic would-be terrorist in the UK, Hassan Buttt, wrote that Islamic theology was the basis for the violent acts Islamist terrorists have carried out or planned.
His feels that Islamic terrorists laugh in disbelief when Western news media place the blame for Islamic terrorism on Western foreign policy.
He noted, for example, that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
At least that is a welcome departure from blaming Israel, or United States military bases in Saudi Arabia, or Danish cartoons of Mohammad, or all the other scapegoated reasons cited to excuse terroristic violence.
Since most of the violence in Iraq towards Muslims is by Muslims, it seems that Muslims find it easy to live up to our stereotype of them as facile terrorists.
Concerning Iraq, Mr. Butt says that is laughable, and adds: “And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.”
If Mayor Livingstone actually exhibited any intelligence concerning Islamic terrorism, rather than fatuously claiming he had insights, he would realize that Muslim fanatics have a long history of violence that predates Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the creation of Israel.
Hassan Butt dispels this simplistic Liberal penchant to fix blame on the United States or Western culture by speaking from personal knowledge and experience, not from mindless conjecture designed to fill a spot on the Left’s political agenda.
Always blaming ourselves for the misdeeds of others never gives us the ability to prevent the violence.
It just deflects attention from the truth.
However, he failed to note that presently, most terrorists are Muslims.
For example, in 2006 there were 20,573 deaths caused by terrorists world wide, up 41 percent from 2005, according to the United States Counter Terrorism Center.
Of total deaths from terrorism in 2006, 84 percent were in the Near East and South Asia.
As informative as these statistics are about Muslim terrorism, of even greater significance are the numbers that are not included. For example, terrorism was credited with only causing 716 deaths in Sudan in 2006, while an analysis of expected deaths compared to total deaths indicates that the Muslim Janjaweed “militia” cause about 100,000 deaths per year through their terrorist activities.
Similar cases of gross undercounting of deaths from terrorism can be found in Israel and Lebanon, where many activities of Hamas and Hizbollah are not considered terrorism.
As you go about the world, you find that terrorism can be found just about anywhere that Muslims associate with anyone, including other Muslims. In fact, over half the victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims.
Concerning Islamic terrorism, some interesting points have been raised.
The controversies surrounding the subject of Islamic terrorism include: whether the motivation of the terrorists or alleged terrorists is self-defense or offensive expansion, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; what targets of the terrorists or alleged terrorists are noncombatants; whether Islam condones, or sometime condones terrorism; whether some attacks are Islamist terrorism, or only terrorist acts done by Muslims; how much support there is in the Muslim world for what kinds of Islamic terrorism; whether the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause.
A former radical Islamic would-be terrorist in the UK, Hassan Buttt, wrote that Islamic theology was the basis for the violent acts Islamist terrorists have carried out or planned.
His feels that Islamic terrorists laugh in disbelief when Western news media place the blame for Islamic terrorism on Western foreign policy.
He noted, for example, that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
At least that is a welcome departure from blaming Israel, or United States military bases in Saudi Arabia, or Danish cartoons of Mohammad, or all the other scapegoated reasons cited to excuse terroristic violence.
Since most of the violence in Iraq towards Muslims is by Muslims, it seems that Muslims find it easy to live up to our stereotype of them as facile terrorists.
Concerning Iraq, Mr. Butt says that is laughable, and adds: “And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.”
If Mayor Livingstone actually exhibited any intelligence concerning Islamic terrorism, rather than fatuously claiming he had insights, he would realize that Muslim fanatics have a long history of violence that predates Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the creation of Israel.
Hassan Butt dispels this simplistic Liberal penchant to fix blame on the United States or Western culture by speaking from personal knowledge and experience, not from mindless conjecture designed to fill a spot on the Left’s political agenda.
Always blaming ourselves for the misdeeds of others never gives us the ability to prevent the violence.
It just deflects attention from the truth.
The Global Warming Solution
The “news” is full of apocalyptic pronouncements of the future under global warming. Apparently it matters not whether global warming is caused by natural forces, or by the activities of humans; alarmists are convinced that global warming is calamitous for humanity.
An obvious conclusion is that we consider the climate we have known the past century to be the only one suited to our existence. Also obvious, but ignored, is that climate has changed, always has been changing, and will always change, regardless of our demands that it not.
What are some of the horrors in store caused by rising levels of CO2? Global warming alarmists gloss over the potential for increasing humanity’s food supply, and concentrate on the increase in irritating pollens, and the potency of poison ivy. In other words, why applaud the opportunity to feed more starving people, when better conditions for plant growth could increase sneezing and itching?
This is not the first time mankind’s priorities have been grossly out of balance. Back in the 1960’s we were all upset by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, and our concern for possible effects of DDT on a few of our feathered friends subsequently resulted in agonizing deaths from malaria for over twenty million people, most of them children under five years of age.
Similarly, today we call for oppressive world government regulations to slow or reverse economic growth in a vain attempt to reduce unproven global warming purportedly caused by increased levels of atmospheric CO2. In essence, we of the developed world have concluded that it is in the best interests of those in the developing world to continue to live short, nasty, brutish lives of hardship and deprivation.
Further, we promise that in later generations we will sacrifice our comfortable lifestyles and join them in misery. Just not right yet.
At the moment we recognize that something that has happened many times before – dramatic climate change – is the greatest threat to the continued civil enjoyment of life on this planet.
We also recognize that mankind cannot exist unless climate is locked into exactly what we have experienced the past century.
In the course of recognizing that climate change is the greatest threat mankind faces, we do not acknowledge that mankind has already demonstrated the ability to cause far more damage to its fellow humanity than caused by climate change.
In 1994 Hutus slaughtered 800,000 of their fellow Rwandans.
Since Rachel Carson’s book panicked the world’s bird lovers, malaria has caused over 20,000,000 deaths.
The Soviet Union and Communist China embarked on vast programs to collectivize their citizens that resulted in the deaths of one hundred million, and the displacement of millions more.
Pol Pot attempted the same in Cambodia, and killed two, or perhaps three million, roughly a third of Cambodia’s population.
Brutality by colonial overseers in the Congo Free State resulted in 8.5 million deaths during the reign of King Leopold II of Belgium.
In World War I there were ten million military killed, and unknown numbers of civilians killed and displaced.
In World War II there were 72 million killed, 47 million of which were civilians, and an additional 11 to 20 million displaced people.
Global warming alarmists estimate that it causes 150,000 deaths annually, and that this number could double by 2030. The causes of the deaths are malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition, and heat waves and floods.
150,000 deaths seems a large amount, until you realize that right now malaria causes almost three million deaths each year, and that most of those deaths are preventable very inexpensively by spraying interior walls of houses in malarial areas with DDT and sleeping inside DDT treated nets.
150,000 deaths seems a large amount, until you realize that two million die each year from diarrhea caused by dirty water and malnutrition.
Is there a solution to all of these problems that afflict humanity?
Yes!
Is it to reduce the production and consumption of energy in both the developed and developing nations of the world?
Hell no!
Anyone who thinks that would help solve any problem, including climate change, is a raving lunatic.
So what will save humanity from its own genius for identifying problems, and then really fouling them up?
Simple.
Prosperity.
And another word for prosperity is capitalism.
While man-made global warming alarmists are trying to get developed countries to join in an economic suicide pact, the recently minted pragmatic capitalists of China and India are ignoring all that and are adding fossil fuel generating plants at a record pace.
China and India will forge ahead, while the developed nations crash their economies on the rocks of Kyoto to save, by their own calculations, an increase of 0.07º C (0.1º F, also known as mind-boggling insignificant) by 2050.
While Californians try to single-handedly save the world by investing in unreliable, expensive, and inefficient alternative energy sources – which can’t even keep up with California’s ever increasing demand for energy, let alone replace existing fossil fuel generators – our recent moderate heat wave almost caused system failure, just as it did in 2001 when “rolling brownouts” became part of the standard Californian vocabulary.
In the meantime, China is adding one or two coal-fired power plants a week, each big enough to handle the needs of a city the size of San Diego.
I’ll bet San Diego wishes it had one of them today.
An obvious conclusion is that we consider the climate we have known the past century to be the only one suited to our existence. Also obvious, but ignored, is that climate has changed, always has been changing, and will always change, regardless of our demands that it not.
What are some of the horrors in store caused by rising levels of CO2? Global warming alarmists gloss over the potential for increasing humanity’s food supply, and concentrate on the increase in irritating pollens, and the potency of poison ivy. In other words, why applaud the opportunity to feed more starving people, when better conditions for plant growth could increase sneezing and itching?
This is not the first time mankind’s priorities have been grossly out of balance. Back in the 1960’s we were all upset by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, and our concern for possible effects of DDT on a few of our feathered friends subsequently resulted in agonizing deaths from malaria for over twenty million people, most of them children under five years of age.
Similarly, today we call for oppressive world government regulations to slow or reverse economic growth in a vain attempt to reduce unproven global warming purportedly caused by increased levels of atmospheric CO2. In essence, we of the developed world have concluded that it is in the best interests of those in the developing world to continue to live short, nasty, brutish lives of hardship and deprivation.
Further, we promise that in later generations we will sacrifice our comfortable lifestyles and join them in misery. Just not right yet.
At the moment we recognize that something that has happened many times before – dramatic climate change – is the greatest threat to the continued civil enjoyment of life on this planet.
We also recognize that mankind cannot exist unless climate is locked into exactly what we have experienced the past century.
In the course of recognizing that climate change is the greatest threat mankind faces, we do not acknowledge that mankind has already demonstrated the ability to cause far more damage to its fellow humanity than caused by climate change.
In 1994 Hutus slaughtered 800,000 of their fellow Rwandans.
Since Rachel Carson’s book panicked the world’s bird lovers, malaria has caused over 20,000,000 deaths.
The Soviet Union and Communist China embarked on vast programs to collectivize their citizens that resulted in the deaths of one hundred million, and the displacement of millions more.
Pol Pot attempted the same in Cambodia, and killed two, or perhaps three million, roughly a third of Cambodia’s population.
Brutality by colonial overseers in the Congo Free State resulted in 8.5 million deaths during the reign of King Leopold II of Belgium.
In World War I there were ten million military killed, and unknown numbers of civilians killed and displaced.
In World War II there were 72 million killed, 47 million of which were civilians, and an additional 11 to 20 million displaced people.
Global warming alarmists estimate that it causes 150,000 deaths annually, and that this number could double by 2030. The causes of the deaths are malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition, and heat waves and floods.
150,000 deaths seems a large amount, until you realize that right now malaria causes almost three million deaths each year, and that most of those deaths are preventable very inexpensively by spraying interior walls of houses in malarial areas with DDT and sleeping inside DDT treated nets.
150,000 deaths seems a large amount, until you realize that two million die each year from diarrhea caused by dirty water and malnutrition.
Is there a solution to all of these problems that afflict humanity?
Yes!
Is it to reduce the production and consumption of energy in both the developed and developing nations of the world?
Hell no!
Anyone who thinks that would help solve any problem, including climate change, is a raving lunatic.
So what will save humanity from its own genius for identifying problems, and then really fouling them up?
Simple.
Prosperity.
And another word for prosperity is capitalism.
While man-made global warming alarmists are trying to get developed countries to join in an economic suicide pact, the recently minted pragmatic capitalists of China and India are ignoring all that and are adding fossil fuel generating plants at a record pace.
China and India will forge ahead, while the developed nations crash their economies on the rocks of Kyoto to save, by their own calculations, an increase of 0.07º C (0.1º F, also known as mind-boggling insignificant) by 2050.
While Californians try to single-handedly save the world by investing in unreliable, expensive, and inefficient alternative energy sources – which can’t even keep up with California’s ever increasing demand for energy, let alone replace existing fossil fuel generators – our recent moderate heat wave almost caused system failure, just as it did in 2001 when “rolling brownouts” became part of the standard Californian vocabulary.
In the meantime, China is adding one or two coal-fired power plants a week, each big enough to handle the needs of a city the size of San Diego.
I’ll bet San Diego wishes it had one of them today.
Monday, July 02, 2007
"Scooter" Libby Commuted Sentence Triggers Democrat Hypocrisy Flood
When President Bush granted “Scooter” Libby clemency, the hypocritical screams of outrage by Democrats were expected. As always, their idealism is selective.
Barack Obama today released the following statement: "This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law."
Interestingly, Mr. Libby was never charged or convicted of compromising national security.
(Mr. Obama is very careless with facts. Remember he breathlessly reported a Kansas tornado had killed 10,000, when the actual death toll was about ten?)
When President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice who never stood trial for the charges Clinton pardoned, the president and Hillary had received over a million dollars in political contributions from Rich's former wife, Denise.
However, the fact her husband dealt in “pay for pardons” that directly benefited her did not stop Hillary Clinton from declaring: "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This was a commuted sentence, Hillary, not a pardon. What clear signal did it send when Bill pardoned a man who had never stood trial, Mrs. Clinton?
I think the signal that it sent is that you and your husband put principles aside when you and your political party are offered huge political contributions.
And you know your husband would never pass up a chance to get a contribution like a little hot sax from Denise Rich.
The eagerness of the Clinton's to accept contributions is probably something Marc and Denise Rich learned from the Chinese. (See here and here and here and here )
(Isn’t it remarkable how Johnny Chung and John Huang, and their illegal political contributions to Democrat leaders and the Democrat Party, have become part of the Democrat’s ethical amnesia? Do you ever wonder what happened to the over 100 witnesses who fled the United States to avoid testifying about the illegal campaign contributions? Apparently Democrats don't.)
Unlike Mr. Libby, Marc Rich had compromised United States security by illegally dealing with Iran. And of course, profiteering from those dealings to the extent that he avoided paying $48 million in income taxes.
Mr. Libby was convicted of having a bad memory, and Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage, who was never charged with anything, was the primary source of the leak, and Fitzgerald knew that before the investigation ever began.
The fact that it was well established that Valerie Plame was not covert by a "friend of the court" filing by the New York Times, NBC, and 34 other major media outlets clearly demonstrated that the leak by Armitage never compromised national security anyway.
Mr. Libby deserves a full pardon, and the Democrats should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.
See all of my other posts on these subjects, particularly the ones on Democrat hypocrisy and the Plame charade of justice, by clicking on the labels below.
Barack Obama today released the following statement: "This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law."
Interestingly, Mr. Libby was never charged or convicted of compromising national security.
(Mr. Obama is very careless with facts. Remember he breathlessly reported a Kansas tornado had killed 10,000, when the actual death toll was about ten?)
When President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice who never stood trial for the charges Clinton pardoned, the president and Hillary had received over a million dollars in political contributions from Rich's former wife, Denise.
However, the fact her husband dealt in “pay for pardons” that directly benefited her did not stop Hillary Clinton from declaring: "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
This was a commuted sentence, Hillary, not a pardon. What clear signal did it send when Bill pardoned a man who had never stood trial, Mrs. Clinton?
I think the signal that it sent is that you and your husband put principles aside when you and your political party are offered huge political contributions.
And you know your husband would never pass up a chance to get a contribution like a little hot sax from Denise Rich.
The eagerness of the Clinton's to accept contributions is probably something Marc and Denise Rich learned from the Chinese. (See here and here and here and here )
(Isn’t it remarkable how Johnny Chung and John Huang, and their illegal political contributions to Democrat leaders and the Democrat Party, have become part of the Democrat’s ethical amnesia? Do you ever wonder what happened to the over 100 witnesses who fled the United States to avoid testifying about the illegal campaign contributions? Apparently Democrats don't.)
Unlike Mr. Libby, Marc Rich had compromised United States security by illegally dealing with Iran. And of course, profiteering from those dealings to the extent that he avoided paying $48 million in income taxes.
Mr. Libby was convicted of having a bad memory, and Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage, who was never charged with anything, was the primary source of the leak, and Fitzgerald knew that before the investigation ever began.
The fact that it was well established that Valerie Plame was not covert by a "friend of the court" filing by the New York Times, NBC, and 34 other major media outlets clearly demonstrated that the leak by Armitage never compromised national security anyway.
Mr. Libby deserves a full pardon, and the Democrats should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.
See all of my other posts on these subjects, particularly the ones on Democrat hypocrisy and the Plame charade of justice, by clicking on the labels below.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Al Gore Melt Down
An interesting article popped up in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny," June 30, 2007, by James M. Taylor. The article points out that much of Al Gore’s “science” in “An Inconvenient Truth” has been refuted, and that Gore, in the interests of science, should correct his errors.
Obviously, that won’t ever happen, not even when Gore is a doddering old fool still waiting for the oceans to rise 20 feet in a hundred-year period.
“Tipper, do you see it’s already risen four inches in the past fifty years? The next nineteen feet, eight inches are going to happen mighty fast, so make sure the water wings are in the SUV.”
Besides outrageous claims of rising sea levels (even the IPCC only predicts a rise of four to twenty-four inches by 2100, and the sea level rise for the past 100 years was only seven inches, about what it has been for each of the past eighty centuries), Al Gore made a big deal about retreating glaciers in his slide show.
Of course, he never mentioned that glacier retreat has been widespread all over the world since 1850, roughly a century before any significant increase in CO2, but matching very well with a natural increase in warming that started about 1850 and marked the end of the Little Ice Age.
As an aside, Al never mentioned that global temperature only increased 0.5º C (0.9º F) in the 155 year-period, 1850-2005, that thermometers have been used to consistently and, for the most part, accurately record surface temperatures (primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, and at about a third less stations since the collapse of the Soviet Union).
On the matter of glaciers, for example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
However, now that some glaciers are growing, I’m sure we will be told that that is a sign of global warming, too.
Be that as it may, I became interested in finding out a bit more about glaciers. In particular, is there evidence that they were stable before humanity started pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere when industrialization really picked up after World War II?
For an answer, I decided to check on Norwegian glaciers, since I have always felt Norwegians are solid and dependable, and would probably be very accurate and precise in measuring and recording things in their environment.
I was right. Norwegian glaciers started retreating at about 1850, and systematically recorded observations since 1900 showed that between 1900 and 1940 Norwegian glaciers were primarily in retreat. This trend continued until the present, except for a brief five-year period of advancing glaciers beginning in 1995.
Although Norwegian glaciers are just a part of European glaciers, and the mass of Asian glaciers exceeds European by a factor of 33 times, an obvious conclusion may be drawn: glacier retreat in Norway started long before increased levels of CO2 could have been the cause.
Why does Al Gore spring retreating glaciers on the public like they are a recent phenomena, when voluminous records and observations show that glaciers were in retreat for a hundred years before CO2 began its rise?
Apparently that’s another inconvenient truth Al Gore doesn’t want us to know.
If I may have my cake and eat it too, it is also interesting to note that some Norwegian glaciers have advanced right through the period of greatest increase in CO2.
Just as world wide temperatures fell from 1945 to 1975, even as CO2 rose steadily.
Al Gore and his cute slide show may have convinced a gullible public that global warming is a result of man-caused CO2 increases, but from all I’ve seen, the weight of evidence has come down firmly on the side of natural warming beginning over 150 years ago.
It looks like it just takes Al a long time to notice things that refute his junk science.
Obviously, that won’t ever happen, not even when Gore is a doddering old fool still waiting for the oceans to rise 20 feet in a hundred-year period.
“Tipper, do you see it’s already risen four inches in the past fifty years? The next nineteen feet, eight inches are going to happen mighty fast, so make sure the water wings are in the SUV.”
Besides outrageous claims of rising sea levels (even the IPCC only predicts a rise of four to twenty-four inches by 2100, and the sea level rise for the past 100 years was only seven inches, about what it has been for each of the past eighty centuries), Al Gore made a big deal about retreating glaciers in his slide show.
Of course, he never mentioned that glacier retreat has been widespread all over the world since 1850, roughly a century before any significant increase in CO2, but matching very well with a natural increase in warming that started about 1850 and marked the end of the Little Ice Age.
As an aside, Al never mentioned that global temperature only increased 0.5º C (0.9º F) in the 155 year-period, 1850-2005, that thermometers have been used to consistently and, for the most part, accurately record surface temperatures (primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, and at about a third less stations since the collapse of the Soviet Union).
On the matter of glaciers, for example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
However, now that some glaciers are growing, I’m sure we will be told that that is a sign of global warming, too.
Be that as it may, I became interested in finding out a bit more about glaciers. In particular, is there evidence that they were stable before humanity started pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere when industrialization really picked up after World War II?
For an answer, I decided to check on Norwegian glaciers, since I have always felt Norwegians are solid and dependable, and would probably be very accurate and precise in measuring and recording things in their environment.
I was right. Norwegian glaciers started retreating at about 1850, and systematically recorded observations since 1900 showed that between 1900 and 1940 Norwegian glaciers were primarily in retreat. This trend continued until the present, except for a brief five-year period of advancing glaciers beginning in 1995.
Although Norwegian glaciers are just a part of European glaciers, and the mass of Asian glaciers exceeds European by a factor of 33 times, an obvious conclusion may be drawn: glacier retreat in Norway started long before increased levels of CO2 could have been the cause.
Why does Al Gore spring retreating glaciers on the public like they are a recent phenomena, when voluminous records and observations show that glaciers were in retreat for a hundred years before CO2 began its rise?
Apparently that’s another inconvenient truth Al Gore doesn’t want us to know.
If I may have my cake and eat it too, it is also interesting to note that some Norwegian glaciers have advanced right through the period of greatest increase in CO2.
Just as world wide temperatures fell from 1945 to 1975, even as CO2 rose steadily.
Al Gore and his cute slide show may have convinced a gullible public that global warming is a result of man-caused CO2 increases, but from all I’ve seen, the weight of evidence has come down firmly on the side of natural warming beginning over 150 years ago.
It looks like it just takes Al a long time to notice things that refute his junk science.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Water Shortages Solved!
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat is a daily newspaper that is the closest thing we have in Gualala to a local daily newspaper. However, it is 75 miles southeast of Gualala, so we don’t loom large in their news coverage.
In the early 1950’s my brother Ron and I delivered the Press Democrat in Point Arena for several years. In those days it published every day except Saturday.
About a year ago the Press Democrat offered, and I accepted, participation in occasional on-line polls. I have faithfully taken every poll, and I have noticed that each poll has a decided “in-the-box” orientation. The items discussed are very conventional, and the choices are too. When taking each poll, you get the feeling that the intended outcome is we need more laws, or more regulations, or more limitations, or more restrictions, and “Oh, by the way,” we need bigger government and higher taxes. Today’s survey was no exception:
Today we are inviting you to participate in our latest online survey. This one focuses on water conservation efforts and recent state directives to reduce diversions from the Russian River.
Why is water scarce in this area?
Possibly because the population in this area has tripled or quadrupled in less than fifty years. Possibly because the success of the Napa Valley vineyards have inspired other vineyards to be planted all over Sonoma and Mendocino counties. And obviously, I think, because a combination of rapid population increase and more intensive use of the land requires more water.
Or is it because global warming is causing great droughts, where none were before?
Out of the above possible reasons, and a lot I haven’t listed (and have no intent of listing), the global warming one is the only one that has absolutely no reason to be listed, but is probably the one most in the minds of the water-deprived peoples of Northern California.
Only a few decades ago, in the 1970’s, my brother Ron and others living at that time in the Santa Rosa area regaled me with tales of drought. He told me of publicity encouraging couples to shower or bathe together, and then to take the waste water from the tub (or trap it in a wading pool in the shower), and use it to water plants and lawn. And don’t even think of washing your car.
Interestingly, this Northern California drought occurred during a cooling period, one which was memorialized by apocalyptic forecasts of imminent global cooling.
Back to the Press Democrat survey. The survey raised the issues and the choices you might expect:
Should we stop diverting water to protect the fish?
Should we restrict water to farmers? To cities?
Cut lawn watering?
Have lawns ripped out and replaced with drought-resistant plants?
Etc.
In other words, should we change the way we slice the water pie, or should we change the recipients of slices, or do a combination?
Nowhere was the obvious and only workable solution proposed: Should we make a bigger water pie?
Here we all are, over 30 million Californians, about 90% of us living within 50 miles of the Pacific, and we are constantly arguing and agonizing over our scarce, and rapidly dwindling, water resources.
It is as if the word “desalinization” is taboo, never to be uttered in polite water scarcity discussions. Of course, desalinization is expensive. Therefore, in water scarce areas, any new users of water, or increased water users, should have to pay the higher costs of producing desalinated water. Perhaps the higher costs would encourage some potential newcomers to locate elsewhere. That would be a useful step in and of itself towards conservation of scarce water resources.
California is not alone in growing much faster than its existing sources of water can handle. The answer is simple: develop more sources of water by building desalination plants. That, of course, would require that California also add more energy generating capacity, which for all practical purposes, means more nuclear, gas, oil, and coal.
Alternative energy sources will remain expensive diversions from meeting energy needs. Resources spent in fruitless attempts to prevent global warming (and soon, to prevent global cooling), are resources wasted that could have been used beneficially to enable humankind to do what humans do best: adapt to a constantly changing environment.
Building desalinization and generating plants will be expensive, but the era of unlimited water resources is long passed, and in truth never existed. Already we know that power production world wide must be tripled, at least, by 2050 no matter what the environmentalist Luddites think.
Regardless of what our California Limousine Liberals think, over half the world is not going to willingly continue to live short, nasty, brutish lives of abject poverty just because the Left is looking on environmentalism as their last, best chance to seize power over the world's resources and economies.
The wealthier humankind becomes, the better it can adapt to change. Sea levels have risen over 400 feet in the past 21,000 years. Building sea walls and dikes are much more cost effective and humane than trying to freeze human development into a low-energy use mode.
Already we can see positive trends associated with increasing wealth: birth rates are decreasing rapidly in many developing countries, which eventually will reduce population growth and the human impacts on scarce resources. At the moment, half the population of the world lives in poverty and despoils their environment because they have no alternative for survival.
The Left's narrow, arrogant NIMBY (not in my back yard - or in anybody's back yard for that matter) attitudes are going to be overwhelmed by the needs to increase energy production and add water resources to enable humankind to eliminate crushing poverty.
It can be done, but not by trying to freeze human progress in fruitless efforts to stop the Earth's natural forces of constant change.
The Earth doesn’t need armies of Chicken Littles incessantly crying panic as the Earth continues along its path of change. A hefty dose of capitalism and democratic governments will enable humankind to adapt to change, and to lead longer, healthier, happier, and of course, more prosperous lives.
In the early 1950’s my brother Ron and I delivered the Press Democrat in Point Arena for several years. In those days it published every day except Saturday.
About a year ago the Press Democrat offered, and I accepted, participation in occasional on-line polls. I have faithfully taken every poll, and I have noticed that each poll has a decided “in-the-box” orientation. The items discussed are very conventional, and the choices are too. When taking each poll, you get the feeling that the intended outcome is we need more laws, or more regulations, or more limitations, or more restrictions, and “Oh, by the way,” we need bigger government and higher taxes. Today’s survey was no exception:
Today we are inviting you to participate in our latest online survey. This one focuses on water conservation efforts and recent state directives to reduce diversions from the Russian River.
Why is water scarce in this area?
Possibly because the population in this area has tripled or quadrupled in less than fifty years. Possibly because the success of the Napa Valley vineyards have inspired other vineyards to be planted all over Sonoma and Mendocino counties. And obviously, I think, because a combination of rapid population increase and more intensive use of the land requires more water.
Or is it because global warming is causing great droughts, where none were before?
Out of the above possible reasons, and a lot I haven’t listed (and have no intent of listing), the global warming one is the only one that has absolutely no reason to be listed, but is probably the one most in the minds of the water-deprived peoples of Northern California.
Only a few decades ago, in the 1970’s, my brother Ron and others living at that time in the Santa Rosa area regaled me with tales of drought. He told me of publicity encouraging couples to shower or bathe together, and then to take the waste water from the tub (or trap it in a wading pool in the shower), and use it to water plants and lawn. And don’t even think of washing your car.
Interestingly, this Northern California drought occurred during a cooling period, one which was memorialized by apocalyptic forecasts of imminent global cooling.
Back to the Press Democrat survey. The survey raised the issues and the choices you might expect:
Should we stop diverting water to protect the fish?
Should we restrict water to farmers? To cities?
Cut lawn watering?
Have lawns ripped out and replaced with drought-resistant plants?
Etc.
In other words, should we change the way we slice the water pie, or should we change the recipients of slices, or do a combination?
Nowhere was the obvious and only workable solution proposed: Should we make a bigger water pie?
Here we all are, over 30 million Californians, about 90% of us living within 50 miles of the Pacific, and we are constantly arguing and agonizing over our scarce, and rapidly dwindling, water resources.
It is as if the word “desalinization” is taboo, never to be uttered in polite water scarcity discussions. Of course, desalinization is expensive. Therefore, in water scarce areas, any new users of water, or increased water users, should have to pay the higher costs of producing desalinated water. Perhaps the higher costs would encourage some potential newcomers to locate elsewhere. That would be a useful step in and of itself towards conservation of scarce water resources.
California is not alone in growing much faster than its existing sources of water can handle. The answer is simple: develop more sources of water by building desalination plants. That, of course, would require that California also add more energy generating capacity, which for all practical purposes, means more nuclear, gas, oil, and coal.
Alternative energy sources will remain expensive diversions from meeting energy needs. Resources spent in fruitless attempts to prevent global warming (and soon, to prevent global cooling), are resources wasted that could have been used beneficially to enable humankind to do what humans do best: adapt to a constantly changing environment.
Building desalinization and generating plants will be expensive, but the era of unlimited water resources is long passed, and in truth never existed. Already we know that power production world wide must be tripled, at least, by 2050 no matter what the environmentalist Luddites think.
Regardless of what our California Limousine Liberals think, over half the world is not going to willingly continue to live short, nasty, brutish lives of abject poverty just because the Left is looking on environmentalism as their last, best chance to seize power over the world's resources and economies.
The wealthier humankind becomes, the better it can adapt to change. Sea levels have risen over 400 feet in the past 21,000 years. Building sea walls and dikes are much more cost effective and humane than trying to freeze human development into a low-energy use mode.
Already we can see positive trends associated with increasing wealth: birth rates are decreasing rapidly in many developing countries, which eventually will reduce population growth and the human impacts on scarce resources. At the moment, half the population of the world lives in poverty and despoils their environment because they have no alternative for survival.
The Left's narrow, arrogant NIMBY (not in my back yard - or in anybody's back yard for that matter) attitudes are going to be overwhelmed by the needs to increase energy production and add water resources to enable humankind to eliminate crushing poverty.
It can be done, but not by trying to freeze human progress in fruitless efforts to stop the Earth's natural forces of constant change.
The Earth doesn’t need armies of Chicken Littles incessantly crying panic as the Earth continues along its path of change. A hefty dose of capitalism and democratic governments will enable humankind to adapt to change, and to lead longer, healthier, happier, and of course, more prosperous lives.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Mars Has Global Warming
Mars before warming
Mars after warming
"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians,” says the celebrated scientist, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
This obvious conclusion is too simple and obvious for our great minds to comprehend. Or more to the point, it doesn’t fit their need to have a vehicle to gain power and control over the economies of the world.
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, according to Dr. Abdussamatov, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
An aside. In a previous post, I reported that scientists examining ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland determined that increased levels of CO2 occurred about 800 years after global temperature increases, not prior to the increases. Over and over, for a period of hundreds of thousands of years, these ice cores spilled their little secret: CO2 increases are caused by warming; CO2 increases didn’t cause the warming.
As Dr. Abdussamatov noted: "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
The “global warming is caused by CO2” cart got ahead of the “solar irradiance” horse, and our great scientific minds, like Al Gore (C’s and D’s in science courses), naturally concluded that the cart is pulling the horse.
Why such a conclusion?
Elementary, my dear Greeenies. If the Sun, not CO2, causes warming, humankind can’t be blamed; therefore, human activities can’t be controlled and directed to undertake a fruitless crusade to reduce CO2 emissions. Left to their own devices, humankind would probably do something utterly frivolous, like increasing generating capacity (and CO2 emissions), increasing economic productivity world wide, and vastly reducing or even eliminating world poverty.
Come to think of it, that’s what’s happening right now in China, India, and other parts of the developing world. They saw what we did in developed nations, and said: “Why don’t we do the same?”
Of course, “environmentalists” reply: “If you do it, you’ll wreck the planet.”
Developing nations then respond: “Did you guys wreck the planet to achieve your prosperity?”
Environmentalists naturally reply: “We certainly did.”
\
Developing countries puzzle over this, and ask: “So why are you so prosperous, while we’re so miserable?”
Environmentalists say: “Just wait a century or two. We’ll sacrifice our economies on the altar of stopping global warming, and eventually we’ll be as miserable as you.”
The developing nations ponder this logic for a second or two, maybe even a minute, and then place orders for more coal-fired generating plants (each large enough to power San Diego) to be built at an average rate of two or three every week.
Apparently the developing nations would like to share our brand of misery, rather than waiting for us to share theirs.
China certainly would. The Chinese just passed the United States as the largest generator of CO2 a year or two sooner than expected.
Dr. Abdussamatov is unconcerned, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
As Lawrence Solomon (executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation) reports, then Dr. Abdussamatov would spring the real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.
Then we may all wish we could actually do something to cause global warming, because after temperatures go up again, the world will be just about due for the next glacial period (Ice Age). The last one peaked about 21,000 years ago, and the next is due to start in about another 2,000 years.
Humankind will then discover that it is a lot easier to use air conditioning to cope with a warmer Earth, than it is to dig through a mile of ice to get out of Chicago.
Solution to Global Warming - and Cooling Too
Joem, a recent visitor to one of my earlier posts, left this comment:
I replied:
Preservation of our planet can only be accomplished through the elimination of poverty. Elimination of poverty can only be accomplished by the increased production of, and the productive use of, a lot more energy than we are currently capable of producing. Meeting future energy needs will require the improved use of coal by filtering out true pollutants (CO2 is not a pollutant) and the increased use and improvement of nuclear power production.
Alternative energy sources will remain expensive diversions from meeting energy needs. Resources spent in fruitless attempts to prevent global warming (and soon, to prevent global cooling), are resources wasted that could have been used beneficially to enable humankind to do what humankind does best: adapting to a constantly changing environment.
The wealthier humankind becomes, the better it can adapt to change. Sea levels have risen over 400 feet in the past 21,000 years. Building sea walls and dikes are much more cost effective and humane than trying to freeze human development in a low-energy use mode (thereby condemning the bulk of humanity to continue living short, nasty, brutish lives).
Already we can see positive trends associated with increasing wealth: birth rates are decreasing rapidly in many developing countries, which eventually will reduce population growth and the human impact on scarce resources. At the moment, half the population of the world lives in poverty and despoils their environment because they have no alternative for survival.
Deforestation by man, not global warming, caused Mount Kilimanjaro to lose 45% of its glacier cover before 1940. Primitive slash and burn agricultural methods, not global warming, caused the spread of many deserts even during the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1900 AD).
So, Joem, in a way you are right. Global warming is not the real issue, but it is not only diverting attention from the real issues to conserve our planet, it is even driving us away from taking the steps that would actually do some good: spreading economic freedom and thereby eliminating poverty.
The Earth doesn’t need armies of Chicken Littles constantly crying panic as the Earth continues along its constant path of change. A hefty dose of capitalism and democratic governments will enable humankind to adapt to change, and to lead longer, healthier, happier, and of course, more prosperous lives.
Enlightened self interest trumps government solutions every time it's tried.
I am willing to support an advocacy campaign that is in support of global warming but I think that the issue has been muddied. Politics has taken our attention off the real issue. The issue is not whether global warming is real or not. Conserving our planet is more important than debating about the genuineness of global warming.
I replied:
Preservation of our planet can only be accomplished through the elimination of poverty. Elimination of poverty can only be accomplished by the increased production of, and the productive use of, a lot more energy than we are currently capable of producing. Meeting future energy needs will require the improved use of coal by filtering out true pollutants (CO2 is not a pollutant) and the increased use and improvement of nuclear power production.
Alternative energy sources will remain expensive diversions from meeting energy needs. Resources spent in fruitless attempts to prevent global warming (and soon, to prevent global cooling), are resources wasted that could have been used beneficially to enable humankind to do what humankind does best: adapting to a constantly changing environment.
The wealthier humankind becomes, the better it can adapt to change. Sea levels have risen over 400 feet in the past 21,000 years. Building sea walls and dikes are much more cost effective and humane than trying to freeze human development in a low-energy use mode (thereby condemning the bulk of humanity to continue living short, nasty, brutish lives).
Already we can see positive trends associated with increasing wealth: birth rates are decreasing rapidly in many developing countries, which eventually will reduce population growth and the human impact on scarce resources. At the moment, half the population of the world lives in poverty and despoils their environment because they have no alternative for survival.
Deforestation by man, not global warming, caused Mount Kilimanjaro to lose 45% of its glacier cover before 1940. Primitive slash and burn agricultural methods, not global warming, caused the spread of many deserts even during the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1900 AD).
So, Joem, in a way you are right. Global warming is not the real issue, but it is not only diverting attention from the real issues to conserve our planet, it is even driving us away from taking the steps that would actually do some good: spreading economic freedom and thereby eliminating poverty.
The Earth doesn’t need armies of Chicken Littles constantly crying panic as the Earth continues along its constant path of change. A hefty dose of capitalism and democratic governments will enable humankind to adapt to change, and to lead longer, healthier, happier, and of course, more prosperous lives.
Enlightened self interest trumps government solutions every time it's tried.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Jimmy Carter's "Criminal" Charges
Jimmy Carter, our worst former president, and a strong contender for worst president ever, does not intend to rest on his laurels. Adding to his long list of imbecilities, his latest is that the United States is “criminal” for not treating the murderous Hamas leadership in Gaza with respect.
That the Hamas leadership in Gaza is a puppet of Iran somehow does not register in the thick and slow mind of Jimmy Carter. He probably thinks that Hamas in Lebanon is a purely nationalistic Lebanese movement, free of ties and entanglements with Iran and Syria, just as he feels that Hamas in Gaza represents pure Palestinian nationalism.
Drawing from his deep well of willful ignorance, Jimmy Carter then demands that Israel and the United States give aid to agents sworn to the destruction of Israel, even as Hamas uses each “truce” for cover to launch rockets from Gaza against Israeli civilians, and then complains bitterly of aggression when Israel takes steps to protect its citizens.
In “Jimmy Carter-think,” it is criminal for a nation to try to protect itself against attacks by terrorists staging from neighboring states.
Mr. Carter, when did you change the laws of common sense to make it wrong for a nation to protect itself from terrorist attacks? Or to make it right that the nation attacked give aid to its attackers?
Mr. Carter, you have said that every United States president since Roosevelt, including yourself, could have brought peace to the Middle East. Obviously, you made the matter much worse by your actions which resulted in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the rise to power of the human rights disaster of the Iranian Ayatollahs. But don’t you realize, Mr. Carter, that the Muslim nations in the Middle East could have brought peace to the Middle East long ago it they had recognized Israel’s right to exist, as established by United Nations charter?
Don’t you realize, Mr. Carter, that neighboring states of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon could have brought peace to the Middle East long ago by assimilating Palestinian refugees, instead of confining them to squalid camps for six decades?
Don’t you realize, Mr. Carter, that Israel would never have occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights if not attacked by the combined might of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?
In 1967. The Six Days War.
In 1973. The Yom Kippur War.
Mr. Carter, who has been attacking who?
Mr. Carter, you are the self-proclaimed champion of human rights world wide, yet you avoid pointing out human rights abuses in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, and Syria, while continually criticizing Israel, the only Middle East democratic government. Could this be due to all the money the Carter Center and Carter Library receive from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates?
Mr. Carter, could you tell me the difference in freedom of worship between, for example, a Christian or Jew in Saudi Arabia, and a Muslim in Israel?
Another question, Mr. Carter: Who has the greatest political freedom, the Arab in Egypt, or the Arab in Israel?
How about the Arab in Saudi Arabia, or the Arab in Israel?
Syria or Israel?
Libya or Israel?
Mr. Carter, aren’t political and religious freedoms very important parts of human rights?
At least you are a model of consistency, Mr. Carter. You also ignore abuses in Cuba and North Korea, and studiously avoided mentioning rampant corruption and abuses under Yasser Arafat. In fact, you put the stamp of legitimacy on Arafat when he was elected Palestinian president in 1996. I’m sure his widow is forever grateful to you for helping her late husband become one of the wealthiest men in the world while presiding over one of its poorest countries.
I hope Yasser was generous in his contributions to the Carter causes.
You earned it.
You’ve earned a lot over the years.
Your demand that the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini is easily the biggest American foreign policy mistake of the past half century.
Now your constant carping in foreign capitals against the policies of the United States are undermining President Bush’s efforts to repair some of the damages which began and grew during your pathetic presidency.
Obviously, what you put asunder, you don’t want President Bush to join together.
That wouldn’t look good for the Carter legacy, would it?
Do you remember the map below, Mr. Carter?
This map of the result of the presidential election of 1980 shows what the American people thought of your presidency, and of the legacy you deserved then.
After 1980, in a word, "loser."
Now it's 2007, Mr. Carter, and your legacy has grown and requires two words to describe it, "meddlesome loser."
Monday, June 18, 2007
Where Has All The Global Warming Gone?
Where has all the global warming gone?
When will they ever learn?
First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
When will they ever learn?
Global Warming is Beneficial, Naturally
(In a letter to the editor of our local weekly newspaper, the Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, California, I remarked that scientific consensus once held that the Earth was flat. When he ran my letter, the editor remarked that there never was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. Apparently the editor's history reference materials don't go back far enough.
Which really is not the point of this post. The point I really want to get across is that there is abundant proof that global warming has been beneficial, and none that it is not.
The only significant negative that I have seen proven so far is that the seas are rising.
True. In fact, they have risen over 400 feet since the end of the last glacial period [Ice Age] 21,000 years ago. During the past century of increasing warmth, the seas rose about six inches, which is about what they have risen each century for the past 8,000 years. Before that, sea levels rose much more rapidly as the Ice Age reversed.
Here begineth my letter.)
Concerning scientific consensus on a flat earth: “They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the Earth was round” (as reported by George & Ira Gershwin, 1936). In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. Egyptians, Babylonians, and ancient Hebrews so believed, and the Bible implies a flat Earth.
We still speak about going to "the four corners of the world."
When we reach them we will find global warming is beneficial, naturally, as always.
“Elections” have already been held in the United States and Canada, and the populace voted overwhelmingly for global warming as evidenced by rapid population increases in southerly states compared to colder regions. In effect, people voted with their feet to live where temperatures are much warmer. They weren’t going to wait for global warming to get to Michigan or Minnesota when they could enjoy it by living in Florida, Arizona, Texas, or in hot and smoggy California.
Humankind flourished during previous warm periods, enjoying better health, abundant food, and milder weather. After the benevolent and prosperous Medieval Warm Period (AD 800-1300), diseases such as malaria raged through malnourished and impoverished populations during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850). Crops failed and livestock perished as global temperatures plummeted, ice sheets advanced, and growing seasons shortened. Increased thermal differences across latitudes fueled more frequent and powerful storms.
Now we are in another period of natural warming, with large increases in the early 1900’s, reversed briefly from 1940 to 1975 (triggering a global cooling panic, remember?), and now warming again, although not as rapidly as before 1940. Prosperity and the good health that goes with it now reign wherever personal and economic freedoms are enjoyed.
We should “make hay while the Sun shines” though, because soon the next Ice Age will be upon us.
Which really is not the point of this post. The point I really want to get across is that there is abundant proof that global warming has been beneficial, and none that it is not.
The only significant negative that I have seen proven so far is that the seas are rising.
True. In fact, they have risen over 400 feet since the end of the last glacial period [Ice Age] 21,000 years ago. During the past century of increasing warmth, the seas rose about six inches, which is about what they have risen each century for the past 8,000 years. Before that, sea levels rose much more rapidly as the Ice Age reversed.
Here begineth my letter.)
Concerning scientific consensus on a flat earth: “They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the Earth was round” (as reported by George & Ira Gershwin, 1936). In early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. Egyptians, Babylonians, and ancient Hebrews so believed, and the Bible implies a flat Earth.
We still speak about going to "the four corners of the world."
When we reach them we will find global warming is beneficial, naturally, as always.
“Elections” have already been held in the United States and Canada, and the populace voted overwhelmingly for global warming as evidenced by rapid population increases in southerly states compared to colder regions. In effect, people voted with their feet to live where temperatures are much warmer. They weren’t going to wait for global warming to get to Michigan or Minnesota when they could enjoy it by living in Florida, Arizona, Texas, or in hot and smoggy California.
Humankind flourished during previous warm periods, enjoying better health, abundant food, and milder weather. After the benevolent and prosperous Medieval Warm Period (AD 800-1300), diseases such as malaria raged through malnourished and impoverished populations during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850). Crops failed and livestock perished as global temperatures plummeted, ice sheets advanced, and growing seasons shortened. Increased thermal differences across latitudes fueled more frequent and powerful storms.
Now we are in another period of natural warming, with large increases in the early 1900’s, reversed briefly from 1940 to 1975 (triggering a global cooling panic, remember?), and now warming again, although not as rapidly as before 1940. Prosperity and the good health that goes with it now reign wherever personal and economic freedoms are enjoyed.
We should “make hay while the Sun shines” though, because soon the next Ice Age will be upon us.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Pelosi - A Thousand Years Late
Nancy Pelosi stopped at Greenland on her way to Europe.
A thousand years ago the Vikings stopped at Greenland. They found a lot less ice than Pelosi saw. The Earth was experiencing a long period of much warmer temperatures than we have today, all caused by natural force.
The Vikings had farms on Greenland then that are still covered by ice today.
Those that are ignorant of history can make the dumbest remarks, and those that are equally ignorant believe them.
The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it."
"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland - it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.
Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.
A thousand years ago the Vikings stopped at Greenland. They found a lot less ice than Pelosi saw. The Earth was experiencing a long period of much warmer temperatures than we have today, all caused by natural force.
The Vikings had farms on Greenland then that are still covered by ice today.
Those that are ignorant of history can make the dumbest remarks, and those that are equally ignorant believe them.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
President Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Islamophobia
Not long ago the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) concluded that Islamophobia was the worst form of terrorism.
As I read their complaint in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily,” I was immediately struck by how little damage the Danish cartoonists who drew Mohammad caused, and by how much more blood the Muslims reacting belatedly to the cartooning caused to flow.
If these Danish drawings are as vicious as it gets, to label them as the worst form of terrorism would seem to greatly devalue the more deadly forms.
I concluded my post: “So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?
First, it is a myth.
Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.
Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.
Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.
It's Islamophobia-phobia.”
A recent reader of my blog, and now a constant Commenter, waded in:
“Islamophobia refers to irrational fear of Islam, not Islamic terrorists. Fearing Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorists is as irrational as blaming every white American for the past sins of slavery, or every Christian for the excesses of the crusades.
There are two issues. One is that most muslims aren't terrorists. That is why we shouldn't fear Islam, but violent extremists everywhere. Did you know that pre-Iraq the most common use of suicide bombings was by atheists? They didn't (and don't) do it because they expect some heavenly reward. Terrorism - of all kinds - has nothing to do with religion.
The second issue is that terrorism is dangerous, but it is hardly the biggest threat of our time. To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US, the increasingly unchecked power of the central government, the snowballing public (and private) debt, the poor quality of many schools and the lack of highly trained professionals. More acutely, the endless kowtowing to China is a more direct and persistent threat to the West's long-term economy and living standards than anything AQ can cook up.
And if you missed it, please check on the recent events in Turkey. I'ld (sic) like to see a million Americans march in the streets because they think the president does not believe in the separation of church and state. Moderate muslims are speaking up, and very loudly at that. They just don't get airtime in the West.”
I answered
"One is that most muslims aren't terrorists."
True, but most terrorists are Muslims.
Do you believe, as the Arab foreign ministers do, that Islamophobia is the worst terrorism?
"To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US..."
Since the United States enjoys the highest standards of living the world has ever known, I can't appreciate how this is a more urgent problem than Islamic terrorism.
"...the increasingly unchecked power of the central government..."
Check it - vote! Didn't Democrats just win back Congress?
Of course, more Americans voted for President Bush than for any president
in history. That's probably why you have a problem.
Your other points about snowballing debt and the poor quality of many schools and lack of trained professionals have been issues I have been critical of for a long time. We are still suffering the run-away spending launched by LBJ's entitlement avalanche of The Great Society. The Teacher's Union strangle-hold on education and their opposition to improvement and reform are reflected in the poor quality of many schools. The lack of quality professionals was the subject of one of my recent blog posts: The State of Education in America – We’re Doomed!
I lived in Turkey for a year, and I know about the tension between Islamists and secularists. You are truly perpetrating a grand distortion if you think there are similarities between the forces demanding a Turkish theocracy and religious trends in America.
Where else are moderate Muslims speaking up loudly?
At this point, Commenter and I had opened up many threads, which we have continued for a total of 15 comments under the broad heading of Islamophobia, and another 21 comments loosely pertaining to Jimmy Carter, the Worst Former President of all Time.
Earlier we did 21 comments on health care, with Commenter sure that the universal health care systems failing in the UK and Canada, and facing a demographic time bomb in the rest of Europe because of rapidly aging and stagnant or shrinking populations, were the wave of the future.
Out of these voluminous exchanges, patterns emerge. Of course, there is the ever present Liberal vs. Conservative. But over and above that, I start the blame game at LBJ, who I believe, and am borne out by historical analyses, launched the entitlements tsunami called the Great Society that has been and still is inundating and sinking federal, state, and local budgets.
When discussing the Great Society, disaster terminology is totally appropriate. Even Commenter is appalled by our national debt, while unable to understand its direct link to entitlements spending launched by the Great Society.
LBJ also expanded JFK’s misadventure in South East Asia into the greatest foreign policy and military debacle in the history of the United States, an unmitigated disaster we are still paying for today.
Commenter, on the other hand, finds President Reagan totally to blame, even though total real discretionary outlays increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and only 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). LBJ massively increased both defense and non-defense spending, while President Reagan increased defense spending, but cut non-defense spending. LBJ launched Medicare, and President Reagan took office with it and Social Security already running deficits (which started early in the Carter administration). President Reagan not only had to restore the United States military after years of Carter neglect, he also had to bring the economy out of recession, double digit inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment, and rescue Social Security and Medicare.
That President Reagan was able to accomplish all of these monumental tasks, and launch a period of prosperity, is testament to his greatness. "(The Reagan) economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.”
So far I have found only a few things that Commenter and I share. Neither of us believe in the Democrats, but Commenter doesn't believe in any of the parties - so he says. Still, I bet he never votes Republican or Libertarian, as I do, and I bet he votes.
We both agree communism is a failure, Soviet style anyway. I would not label Chinese communism a failure yet, because it shows marvelous skills of adaptation and will probably soon morph into full capitalism while still wearing the communist label.
Our exchanges are good exercise, and particularly reinforce the maxim to never assume anything. I didn't think anyone would defend Carter, say it is irrational to worry about Islamic militants, and argue that Western Europe exhibits more economic promise and social mobility than the United States.
I wonder what Commenter thinks about climate change being caused by natural forces?
I invite any and all who have read this far to go my posts on Jimmy Carter, Islamophobia (and more Islamophobia), and National Health care and read the comments. Commenter and I both put in a lot of time on them, and if nothing else they illustrate how every issue is in play.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Jimmy Carter, the Worst Former President of All Time
Jimmy Carter, thirty years of stupidity and counting.
(This prescient cartoon from 1977 shows he didn't know anything then, and has continued to regress)
Former President Jimmy Carter, not content with being the worst president of the past century, has now claimed the title of Worst Former President of All Time.
The man whose only claim to fame was the ability to preside over a steeply and steadily declining domestic economy, featuring high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates, and economic stagnation, while at the same time inflicting the international humiliation of the 444-day Iranian hostage crisis on an already suffering nation, now is an international embarrassment as he presumes to lecture George Bush and Tony Blair on leadership.
Both Bush and Blair can point to stewardship over thriving economies that equaled or bettered the previous best economic performances of both the United States and the UK, and continue to do so. All Carter can do is wish that for even a few months he had done half as well.
Carter’s reasons for attacking President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to me are obvious. “Peanut” Jimmy needs to distract attention from his misguided and fatuous book, “Apartheid,” which blames Israel for the daily Palestinian fiascos caused by the Palestinian’s total lack of leadership and desire for peace with Israel. Carter criticizes President Bush for having “zero peace talks” in Israel, while Hamas maintains total intransigence to peace efforts brokered by Saudi Arabia and other Hamas benefactors.
About now I would hope that someone in the mass media would have enough of a grasp on recent history to question Carter about his legacy of world peace. How many peace talks did he have with the Soviet Union to prevent its invasion of Afghanistan? How well did he perform as a peace broker between the opposing forces of the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini? Where are the fruits of the seeds of peace Carter planted in the Camp David accords?
While president, Jimmy Carter certainly planted a lot of seeds. The humiliation of having our embassy in Iran seized and our embassy staff held hostage, with no response from the United States except a stupid and tragic botched rescue attempt, planted the seeds of contempt for the toothless American tiger that acted like a pussycat.
The seeds of our pathetic response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the quixotic boycott of the Moscow Olympics, grew into the mujahadeen that begat the Taliban, and fertilized soil for recruiting and training the noxious weeds that became Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida cadre.
Through it all, then-President Carter’s impotent leadership and incomprehension of domestic and international forces at play resulted in a weak and demoralized nation, a malaise that took President Reagan almost two years to discard.
Perhaps the greatest testament to President Reagan’s leadership was that he not only turned around the mess inherited from Carter, but during his eight years in office presided over the longest period of economic growth in America’s history, and also brought the Soviet Union to collapse shortly after his term as president ended.
Unfortunately, the damage inflicted on the prestige and respect for the United States in the Middle East could not be reversed, and the world continues to pay a heavy price for Carter’s legacy.
It is a fundamental mystery of life, that after all his failures, Jimmy Carter can still find fools to heed his tirades.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What Caused Islamophobia?
Islamophobia didn't start here.
Islamophobia didn't begin when 202 innocent nightclubbers were killed, and 209 injured, on Bali.
According to Muslims, "Islamophobia is the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified," but Islamophobia did not begin with the slaughter of innocents at Beslan. Of the almost 400 killed (209 Muslims), 186 were children. Many of the survivors lost arms, legs, hands, and/or eyes.
Islamophobia is defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims. Of course it didn't begin with the bombing of Madrid commuter trains in 2004 that killed 191 and wounded 2,050.
Although the term "Islamophobia" has been used to silence critics of Islam, including Muslims who want to reform it, its use didn't start after London subway trains and a bus were bombed, killing 52 commuters and injuring 700 in 2005.
Although "Holy Warriors of Egypt" killed 88 and injured 150 at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt in 2005, Islamophobia didn't start here either.
After looking at these pictures, and realizing that hundreds, more to the point thousands, of pictures could be displayed of atrocities committed by Islamic extremists, the question still remains, "When did 'Islamophobia' start?"
According to the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), "Islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism."
The foreign ministers of the OIC apparently have paid attention to the ACLU and learned that the best defense against criticism is to proclaim victim status.
"The Western bloc hates us because we're Muslims. Look at these atrocities against Muslims! Look at these Danish cartoons! Look at this quote Pope Benedict XVI read that criticized the Prophet! Of course after such provocations our peace-loving Muslim brothers had to riot and kill mostly other Muslims. Only a bunch of Islamophobics would condemn us for that!"
(The above is, of course, a made up quote. However, in the tradition of CBS, where forged documents, quotes, and film are used to illustrate a "greater truth," I follow CBS's lead and do the same. The only difference is I openly label my fabrications as such, and don't try to pass them off as genuine.)
I examined a lengthy list of complaints that claimed Muslims are victims of Islamophobia, and have arrived at a few conclusions. The first is that the alleged Islamophobia didn't result in any deaths other than at the hands of angry Muslims. I would find Muslim claims that they are being unfairly labeled as violent more believable if their reactions to criticism were not so violent.
I would find their protests against being labeled intolerant more believable if Muslims did not proclaim fatwas on Muslims who want to change religions, or denounce their religion. I would not call Muslims intolerant if they allowed other religions to be practiced openly in Saudi Arabia and other countries, just as we allow Muslims to worship openly in the Western bloc.
I would believe Muslims claims that they respect human rights if they actually allowed all Muslim women freedom of choice in education, employment, mode of dress, choice of marriage partner, freedom to walk unescorted, and to even drive a car (and a lot more, of course).
(About equal rights, the ayatollahs of Iran consider them "a Judeo-Christian invention" and inadmissible in Islam.)
So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?
First, it is a myth.
Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.
Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.
Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.
It's Islamophobia-phobia.
‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’
‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’ read the headline in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily.”
Immediately I thought of the old nursery rhyme, “RPG’s and IED’s may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
In a flash I delved deep into the article to find what oral atrocities of the West exceeded the carnage of 9/11, the Madrid and London outrages, the Beslan slaughter of innocents, the killing of pleasure-seeking night clubbers on Bali, the tit-for-tat car bombings of Sunnis of Shiite, and Shiite of Sunnis, in Baghdad, the annihilation of peaceful shoppers in Peshawar, the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the United States embassies bombed in Africa, “honor” killings of Muslim women by Muslim men worldwide, and my list went on and on and so for brevity I now add “etc.”, and a huge "etc." it is.
What oral atrocities were mentioned by the Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to prove that “Islamophobia (is the) worst form of terrorism”?
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark? That's disbelievable!
When the cartoons first came out, there was a big Muslim yawn in Europe. It wasn’t until months after publication when imams took the cartoons to show in the Middle East, and added some faked and truly offensive drawings that weren’t part of the original Danish cartoons, that the peace-loving Muslims freaked out and started to do what is now accepted as standard peace-loving Muslim procedure for dealing with provocations invented by their leaders – they started killing each other!
"I'll bet when we killed Akhmed it really taught those Danes a lesson!"
"That's right, Mustapha. They'll think twice before they upset us peace-loving Islamists again."
"Yeah, those crazy Danes."
What other oral provocations led the OIC foreign ministers to label them the worst form of terrorism?
Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany last year, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.
To prove the Pope wrong, followers of the Prophet immediately ran out and did evil and inhuman things.
The OIC foreign ministers noted the United States and Europe unfairly portrayed Islam, as quoted in Arab News:
I admit that the Western news media does create a very negative picture of Islam when they report the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Apparently the approach favored by the OIC foreign ministers is for the Western news media to report the news in the same way as the Muslim news media.
If we did it the Muslim news media way, we would know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, with the connivance of the government of the United States. We would know that even after Osama bin Laden released videos taking credit for 9/11. We would know it even after we saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11.
I’ll bet that was the first time Palestinians ever celebrated a successful Jewish and American conspiracy.
Per Arab News: “The (OIC foreign) ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.”
Let’s see if I get this right. The OIC foreign ministers say that when they want to complain about how Islam is portrayed negatively in the Western bloc, the Western bloc representatives want to tell them the reasons why Islam is portrayed negatively. Things like the Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and the violations of human rights in the OIC member states.
There it is again. The OIC foreign ministers object to Western news media reporting the truth about the bad treatment of non-Muslims and the violations of human rights in Muslim states. “If you didn’t tell your people the truth about non-Muslims and human rights in Muslim states, your people wouldn’t think bad things about Islamists.”
Another way to approach the issue, if Muslim news media continues to print lies, and Western news media stops reporting truth, no more Islamophobia.
(Whacks self on forehead with palm of hand) Of course!
Immediately I thought of the old nursery rhyme, “RPG’s and IED’s may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
In a flash I delved deep into the article to find what oral atrocities of the West exceeded the carnage of 9/11, the Madrid and London outrages, the Beslan slaughter of innocents, the killing of pleasure-seeking night clubbers on Bali, the tit-for-tat car bombings of Sunnis of Shiite, and Shiite of Sunnis, in Baghdad, the annihilation of peaceful shoppers in Peshawar, the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the United States embassies bombed in Africa, “honor” killings of Muslim women by Muslim men worldwide, and my list went on and on and so for brevity I now add “etc.”, and a huge "etc." it is.
What oral atrocities were mentioned by the Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to prove that “Islamophobia (is the) worst form of terrorism”?
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark? That's disbelievable!
When the cartoons first came out, there was a big Muslim yawn in Europe. It wasn’t until months after publication when imams took the cartoons to show in the Middle East, and added some faked and truly offensive drawings that weren’t part of the original Danish cartoons, that the peace-loving Muslims freaked out and started to do what is now accepted as standard peace-loving Muslim procedure for dealing with provocations invented by their leaders – they started killing each other!
"I'll bet when we killed Akhmed it really taught those Danes a lesson!"
"That's right, Mustapha. They'll think twice before they upset us peace-loving Islamists again."
"Yeah, those crazy Danes."
What other oral provocations led the OIC foreign ministers to label them the worst form of terrorism?
Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany last year, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.
To prove the Pope wrong, followers of the Prophet immediately ran out and did evil and inhuman things.
The OIC foreign ministers noted the United States and Europe unfairly portrayed Islam, as quoted in Arab News:
“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.
I admit that the Western news media does create a very negative picture of Islam when they report the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Apparently the approach favored by the OIC foreign ministers is for the Western news media to report the news in the same way as the Muslim news media.
If we did it the Muslim news media way, we would know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, with the connivance of the government of the United States. We would know that even after Osama bin Laden released videos taking credit for 9/11. We would know it even after we saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11.
I’ll bet that was the first time Palestinians ever celebrated a successful Jewish and American conspiracy.
Per Arab News: “The (OIC foreign) ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.”
Let’s see if I get this right. The OIC foreign ministers say that when they want to complain about how Islam is portrayed negatively in the Western bloc, the Western bloc representatives want to tell them the reasons why Islam is portrayed negatively. Things like the Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and the violations of human rights in the OIC member states.
There it is again. The OIC foreign ministers object to Western news media reporting the truth about the bad treatment of non-Muslims and the violations of human rights in Muslim states. “If you didn’t tell your people the truth about non-Muslims and human rights in Muslim states, your people wouldn’t think bad things about Islamists.”
Another way to approach the issue, if Muslim news media continues to print lies, and Western news media stops reporting truth, no more Islamophobia.
(Whacks self on forehead with palm of hand) Of course!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
More Inconvenient Truths – Temperatures Fall After Carbon Dioxide Peaks
Temperature leads CO2 changes by 800 years
Some strange things happen when you examine the theory that mankind causes global warming by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The first thing you find is almost universal agreement that temperature increases have preceded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, usually by at least 800 years or more. This pattern has held for hundreds of thousands of years, and been accepted by scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.
Of course, this inconvenient truth is the opposite of what Al Gore has presented so dramatically.
“Carbon dioxide goes up, and up, and up, and then temperature goes up, and up, and up!”
Except it doesn’t.
The temperature goes up, and then the carbon dioxide goes up. Not the other way around.
Then while carbon dioxide is up, the temperature goes down.
According to the greenhouse gas theorists, the increased carbon dioxide should have a climate “forcing” effect, and temperature increases would continue and, in fact, accelerate.
However, the evidence is clear that the onset of cooling occurs while CO2 is still at its peak.
The logical conclusion is simple. Climate changes are not driven by changes in CO2. Other factors overpower the negligible but proven greenhouse effect of CO2. If climate change could be modeled in a sealed laboratory, with all variables controlled, CO2 changes might correlate directly with subsequent minor temperature changes.
But in the laboratory of the real world, they don’t.
Climate Change is Natural - Billions of Years of Proof
"Al Gore was right! It is hotter!"
(Hanging is too good for Global Warming Deniers)
(Our local paper, the weekly Independent Coast Observer, has a Global Warming columnist, Annie Beckett. Her column is a "how to save the Earth by doing little things," basically a recycling of energy conservation tidbits:
"If each of us replaces one incandescent light bulb with a low energy one, we can pretend that we're saving the planet from global warming while we don't notice that China is bringing on a coal-fired generator big enough to power San Diego every ten days."
Don't get me wrong, I think conservation is great. In fact, the success of Alice's business, Vulcan Incorporated, is almost totally based on recycling. Arguable we are the "greenest" family in the Greater Metropolitan Gualala area in terms of profiteering from environmentalism.
"Liberals talk about it, and write about it, but we just do it."
Ain't that a kick for our ultra-Liberal neighbors to ponder!)
Here beginneth my letter:
Annie Beckett wished she could make sense of my “climate change is natural” argument. Maybe I can aid her comprehension. I’ll type really slowly.
First, the vast weight of evidence is that climate change is natural. It is irrefutable that the Earth has been much hotter and colder many hundreds of times over millions of years.
Less than a thousand years ago warmer weather was thoroughly documented by written, geological, and archeological evidence.
Examples of written evidence include the logs of Viking voyages to Greenland and Iceland, which first noted the absence of sea ice during the Medieval Warm Period (AD 800-1300), then the buildup of sea ice as the Little Ice Age set in (AD 1350-1900).
Physical evidence includes farms on Greenland that are still almost completely covered with ice sheets, and the remains of mature forests in the Alps similarly emerging from ice blankets.
A Harvard study of over 240 worldwide climate studies concluded the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and that it was a worldwide phenomenon.
Before that, the Holocene Climate Optimum during the period BC 9000-BC 5000 was even warmer and lasted much longer.
While CO2 increased steadily, there was a cooling period 1940-1975 following the scorching 1920’s and 1930’s. It’s strange that temperatures went up during the Depression, when industrial activity was low, and fell during World War II and the following period of rapid industrialization. Wouldn’t you think that indicates something other than man-made CO2 increases was driving climate change?
Like Nature?
Annie, your 2,500 IPCC scientists and my 15,000 scientists protesting Kyoto prove nothing because science is facts, not consensus. Not long ago scientific consensus was that the world was flat, and skeptics could be burned at the stake.
I shouldn't give Liberals ideas.
Annie, you have wishes, I have facts.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Bigger and Smaller
The San Francisco Chronicle was the biggest loser in 2005, and has done worse since.
Deservedly.
As San Francisco Chronicle pictures get bigger, at times covering almost half of the front page, Chronicle news stories shrink both in size and significance.
Not long ago the Chronicle regaled us with breathless reporting of Mark Foley’s (Resigned Rep, R-Florida) suggestive emailing to former Congressional pages. For a brief moment it looked like the Chronicle was becoming judgmental, quite a change from formerly ignoring the page-penetrating proclivities of the late Gerry Studds (Retired Rep, D-Mass).
I wondered, did the Chronicle become moralistic, or was it just a difference in the way it treats R’s compared to D’s?
The envelope please!
The answer, of course, it that the Chronicle has a double standard of reporting, depending whether the subject is a Republican or Democrat. To the Chronicle, a Republican sending suggestive emails to a former page is much worse than a Democrat physically having sex with one while perfoming official duties.
The most recent evidence of the Chronicle’s double standard is their in-depth and total non-reporting of Diane Feinstein’s (Sen, D-Calif) conflict of interest on military contracts. As she abused her position as the chairperson of the United States Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON), and through her husband’s investments added millions to their family fortune, the Chronicle has been steadfast in preventing any allegations of her conflict of interest from appearing in print.
The fortunes of war? Not bad!
I thought only Republicans did defense contracting, according to my Democrat friends.
Since the Chronicle of all the world’s newspapers has the greatest vested interest in reporting all things Feinstein, the Chronicle’s reticence at covering significant allegations in its own “backyard” is indecent.
Of course, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is only alleged. No charges have been brought (yet), but that has never stopped the Chronicle from reporting allegations about the misdeeds of Republicans, and others whose primary identity is not Democrat.
Caught red handed!
(The newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues)
In fact, allegations about steroid use involving Major League ballplayers first surfaced by the Chronicle triggered investigations, charges, and some convictions.
Rather than infringement of Feinstein’s rights, the Chronicle is now infringing on its readers’ rights to a full disclosure of her possible conflict of interest.
Just as we must assume a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, so the Chronicle must not assume that allegations are not newsworthy if they are about a Democrat instead of a Republican.
Let all the people, not just the Democrats, decide!
"Feinstein, War Profiteer" - even this nut beat the Chronicle to the story.
As all good Democrats know, it's a waste of political power if you don't abuse it.
Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Escape From National Health Care Hell
This cartoon reminds of my friend in the United Kingdom, who was scheduled for a hip replacement, then had the operation repeatedly postponed over a several-year period to the point that when he finally got it, he was already permanently crippled and the operation was wasted.
A friend here in Gualala is a staunch supporter of government programs, particularly universal government health care, and he called me to task for saying that the government pays “pennies on the dollar” when billed for medical care provided. Ignoring his comments, I further stated that health insurance companies follow the government example, and also reimburse doctors and hospitals at very low rates. I said the reimbursement rate was roughly 25%, my friend said it was more like 75%.
Since Alice and I have government provided medical insurance, Tricare Prime, because of my status as retired military, when I got home from the meeting where we argued over reimbursement rates, I grabbed a recent pile of payment advisory notices from Tricare and added up what had been billed, and what Tricare paid.
The thirteen monthly statements were for the most part small amounts which have a relatively high reimbursement rate. Of the total billed of $5,770, the government paid $1,730, or 30%.
I was surprised the reimbursement rate was as high as 30%, because when I worked for Kaiser Permanente auditing large payments for member claims for services provided Kaiser members outside the Kaiser system, the overall reimbursement rate was closer to 20%.
In fact, the Kaiser rate was similar to the experience another friend told me of today. She had been billed $84,000 for a recent four-day hospitalization. She turned the claim over to her insurer, and Blue Cross paid $14,000 or 17%.
My debating buddy is a staunch Democrat, so I knew he favored government-funded universal health care as all good Democrats do.
Therefore, it was interesting to note as I Googled for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates that there were several news articles featuring Democrat politicians complaining about low reimbursement rates.
Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., not only complained that Washington was being penalized when compared to Florida reimbursement rates, she also noted that the government rates were so low that some doctors would not accept Medicare patients, and that others left the state.
Another complaint by Democrat politicians representing rural areas, such as one by Senator Feingold, D-Wis, was that the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates there are much lower than for the same procedures in urban areas.
Senator Schumer, D-NY, complained that low Medicare reimbursement rates threatened to cause cancellation of ambulance services.
In Connecticut they complain that low Medicaid reimbursement rates force hospitals to shift costs to private individuals and insurance.
Psychiatrists complain that low Medicaid reimbursement rates for psychiatric services reduce Medicaid patients' access to psychiatrists and cause the low rate of acceptance of Medicaid patients by psychiatrists.
So far, it seems the only ones happy with the government reimbursement rates for medical services are people who think they are, or will be, much higher than they really are.
Maybe they think doctors are paid too much, and that doctors should be forced by the government to accept whatever the government thinks is fair.
There are nations that handle their national health plans along those lines, giving their doctors low pay and heavy workloads, with the result that many of their best and brightest, well educated, very experienced, and highly motivated, come to the United States to practice medicine. When they find that Kaiser Permanente will give them a good salary, great benefits including generous vacations, and a comfortable workweek and case load, they realize they have truly escaped National Health Care Hell.
It wasn’t long ago that we were tantalized by the prospect of “Hillarycare,” where doctors would have to take any and all patients, and it would be illegal to have a private practice.
Even a lot of Democrats saw how undemocratic such a health system would be, forcing doctors to be de facto government employees with no option of having a private medical practice.
For those Democrats who felt or still feel that such an arrangement was fair for doctors, who are already in short supply, why don’t you try it on lawyers first, of which we have an overabundance?
Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)