Editied 01/07: Who Will Control your Thermost from American Thinker ... hat tip: Protein Wisdom
and ... Low-energy bulbs 'could cause skin cancer'
Edited 12/20: from the US Senate Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
John Stossel on Global Warming
also read ...
The Cap-and-Trade Fraud
by Arthur Laffer And Wayne Winegarden, Financial Post
and the ethanol scam ... The Ethanol Fallacy
Still think 1998 was the hottest year in the last century ??? Global warming? Look at the numbers
Editied 01/07: Who Will Control your Thermost from American Thinker ... hat tip: Protein Wisdom
By William A. Whittle
TRINITY (part 2) RESPONSIBILITY POWER STRENGTH (part 1) STRENGTH (part 2) DETERENCE (part 1) DETERENCE (part 2) SANCTUARY (part 1) SANCTUARY (part 2) TRIBES
By Albert Jay Nock Isaiah's Job By Jeffrey R. Snyder A Nation of Cowards
This question needs to be examined in the context of who is being questioned and what those questions are. So in that light ...
What type of questions are we asking the Gitmo detainees and is it logical that coercion can work in any of these cases ?
1) Are we asking them to admit to a crime (i.e. Did you set that bomb ?) ?
2) Are we asking them for information on their terrorist cell and or contacts ?
3) Are we asking them their favorite color ?
In question number 1 I believe that under enough stress most people will admit to anything to relieve that stress. Of course even a willing confession to murder in the US court system is usually backed up by actual forensic evidence or the confessor revealing information that only the killer could know. We don't ask the chaps in Gitmo if they are terrorists, we already know they are.
Question number 3 of course would require very little stress to get an answer from almost anyone. It may not be the right answer but we would have almost no way of verifying that so coercive techniques in that sort of case would be a waste of time.
Question number 2 of course is exactly the sort of question we are asking the Gitmo guys. Most answers we obtain can often be crossed checked and verified. Thus most false answers would be exposed. Just imagine you are being held captive and are asked for your ATM Pin code. You could lie and if your captor lets you go without verifying it then even a coerced answer would of course be suspect. But if your captor didn't let you go and went out and tried your pin only to find out you had given false information I would venture to guess that there will be a certain level of stress that would cause you to reveal your real pin number eventually.
While a simplistic analysis I think it should be fairly obvious that depending of the data being sought coercive techniques can and do elicit valuable (to the questioner) information. (see waterborading and Sheik Kalihd)
So is waterboarding torture ? Who cares, it works.
For those gentle souls out there that claim we lose the "moral high" ground if we use waterboarding I would point out that every single one of the beheading victims of Islamic terrorists would have gladly been waterboarded instead of being decapitated. They are not the same thing and your "moral high ground" measuring system has some faulty moral equivalence built into it.
The Ghost ...
*** Spoiler Alert ***
To all you Ludlum fans out there you will once again be disappointed with the third installment of Jason Bourne.
The bullet points:
* CIA = bad people
* CIA Black bag Division in Midtown Manhattan = really, really bad people ... evil actually ...
Ok, the action was vintage "movie" Jason Bourne with great close quarters fight scenes and car chase/crash scenes. Unfortunately the usual Jason Bourne robot showed up whenever Matt had to walk thru a crowd and not be noticed by the dozens of killers on the lookout for him. You know, the blank stare combined with the stiff determined walk that is supposed to be Jason Bourne blending in but comes off as "spy trying to blend in".
Then there is the Black Bag outfit in MIDTOWN Manhattan that looks more like a bunch of computer programmers. I mean if you are running the most covert division at the CIA why wouldn't you setup shop at some midtown high rise, like you were a hedge fund. And curtains on the windows ? Come on, why worry about the HUNDREDS of offices across the street that have an unrestricted view of your desk, papers and computer screen. I mean couldn't they at least get some writers that try to depict covert operations with something approaching reality. Or at least a reality based on simple logic.
What is it about movie spy bosses and their fetish with keeping PAPER records of every misdeed their minions may have done. If you really were a vicious, do whatever it takes to protect America monster then in what alternate reality would you keep files on assassinations from years ago ?
The Bourne series of books is nothing like this anti-American rant from Hollywood. These movies could have been much more interesting if any of the themes of the books had been followed but that would not have bashed the US enough so this re-write is what we get instead.
The Ghost ...
To Liberals any 4 legged dog with teeth is a wolf ... they see teeth and they think wolf ...
To Conservatives there is a difference between a wolf and the sheepdog ... one preys on the weak, one defends the weak ...
Liberals see gun and they think murderer ... no matter who carries it ... so they want to keep guns out of everyones hands ... they can't understand that the killer exists with or without the gun ...
Could it be any clearer, "Ban guns and only the Criminals with have them". How much empirical evidence is needed to break liberals out of their world view. I thought they were the "reality based" party ?
Inspired by Tribes by Bill Whittle at Eject!Eject!Eject!
The comments section of this post at WizBang Help-Help-Im-Being-Repressed reminded me yet again just how little intellectual strength the man made global warming believers can actually muster.
I am officially coining a new acronym, ICS or Infantile Correlation Science to describe the weak theory behind most of the man made global warming beliefs.
Correlation is not causation but in this case there is not even correlation.
In the last 100 years we have seen: 1) a sharp rise in global temperatures in the early 1900's 2) a definite cooling from 1940 to 1970 and 3) a rise from 1970 - 2000.
This temperature record does not correlate at all to: 1) no rise in CO2 in the early 1900's and 2) a definite rise in CO2 from 1940 to 2000. Temperatures went up when CO2 was stable and temperatures went down (1940 - 1970) when CO2 was rising.
Until anyone explains this apparent disconnect between CO2 and temperatures I'll contine to consider the believers in man made global warming as the true deniers of science in this debate.
The use of Ethanol to fuel automobiles releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than using gasoline for the same miles driven. Gallon for gallon Ethanol has about 80% of the energy of gasoline and emits about 80% of the CO2. So for miles driven it is about equal to gasoline in CO2 emmissions. Of course the real rub is that it takes burning the equvalent of 7-8 gallons of ethanol to make 10 gallons of ethanol. So when you tank up on ethanol you have already emitted 11 pounds of CO2 for every gallon you pump and add that to the 16 pounds per gallon you emit when you drive.
So lets do some back of the envelope math and compare 10 gallons of gasoline with 12.5 gallons of ethanol.
10 gallons of gas = 200 pounds of CO2 (20 pounds per gallon)
12.5 gallons of ethanol plus the 8.75 gallons of ethanol used to make the 12.5 gallons = 340 pounds of CO2 (16 pounds per gallon)
If we look at the raw material for ethanol today, i.e. corn, a food source, we see that we are taking sequestered CO2 and releasing into the atmosphere instead of eating it. So not only are we emitting more CO2, but we are using sequestered CO2 in a useful form and wasting it by not keeping it sequestered.
We hear alot of people throw around the term Global Warming in the news and yet I doubt that most people have any idea what the various commentators mean when they use the term.
When you hear some scientists talk about Global Warming they are talking about the increase in average temperature measurements over the last 100 years. Of course in that context one must ask several questions. Were all of the measurements done in the same locations, under the same conditions (i.e. in shade, in sun, etc.) and using the same type of instruments. How many measurement locations were used, 10, 100, 1,000 ? After all we are talking about trying to measure the average temperature across the globe. Would anyone seriously claim that GLOBAL temperatures are increasing (or decreasing) based on just measurements made in New York City over the last 100 years? Given that the average temperature in any location can vary 10-15 degrees in a single day its is easy to see that any measurements, past or future, are subject to many variables based on timing, location and equipment. Of course scientists make every effort to adjust their data to compensate for these variables. That means they change the data using educated guesses which makes thier "raw" not so raw or definative. Just what percentage of the raw data gets adjusted ? 10%, 50%, 90% ? So based on adjusted data from represenative (hopefully) locations over the last 100 years we are told that the average Global temerature has increased .6 degrees.
When you hear other scientists talk about global warming they are talking about the variables that cause global temperatures to rise or fall. Greenhouse gases are often cited as having a significant effect on trapping solar radiation in the earths atmosphere. Of course we hear about CO2 quite alot but less often mentioned are the other greenhouse gases, some of which are more significant factors in trapping solar radiation than CO2. The single most significant greenhouse gas is ...? Water vapor. Next in significance is Methane. It's strange that we don't hear much talk about those greenhouse gases. But wait, greenhouse gases are hardly the only variables involved in the trapping of solar radiation. There are clouds, the urban effect (making built up cities warmer than rural communities) and of course the actual amount of solar radiation the sun beams at us. Solar flare activity has a major impact on the amount of solar radiation that hits the planet and therefore can dramatically effect the amount of energy that can be trapped by these other variables. Is solar activity constant ? No, it is highly variable. So any reasonable discussion of greenhouse gases must include water vapor and methane and any discussion of trapping solar radiation should also cover clouds, the urban effect and solar flare activity. Seen any significant mention of these other variables in any of the global warming news programs, articles or movies ? Didn't think so.
But what about the significant increases in severe weather we have seen in the last several decades, isn't that a sign of Global Warming ? Some commentators have claimed that hurricanes have increased in severity and frequency in the last 10 years and claim that global warming is responsible. But they seem to be very selective in choosing what they are comparing recent storms to. The cyclical nature of GLOBAL huricane/typhoon activity is well established and the recent storm activity is well within what would be expected when reviewing that longer term cycle. Since they are talking about GLOBAL warming we should expect to hear them cite a global increase in storms. Why is it that we have only heard about an increase in hurricanes per year and not in the decrease in storms in other parts of the world and that GLOBAL storm acivity has shown no significant increase ? Are talking about global warming or Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico warming ? At least one senior hurricane scientist who had contributed to the last two Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments and had primary responsibility for sections describing the past, present and future behavior of tropical cyclones has resigned over the distortions being pushed by others involved in the IPCC. His letter of resignation is enlightening 2500 minus one.
How about some of the other effects of Global Warming such as glacial an ice cap melting ? We are told that glaciers around the globe are shrinking and some commentators claim that all of the Greenland ice cap could dissappear within 100 years. How many glaciers are there ? 10, 20, 1000 ? How many of them are shrinking or another question, how many of them are increasing ? There are over 70,000, and scientists have studied a tiny fraction of them. While they have found some are shrinking them have also found that others are increasing in size. Again we don't hear about increasing glaciers today, but it wasn't too long ago that GLOBAL COOLING was the scientific consensus. (according to the article in NEWSWEEk magazine in 1971). Greenland ice has been the focus of many articles, news stories and movies. We are told that ice is being lost to the sea at an alarming rate and that sea levels could rise 20 feet if the entire Greenland ice cap melts. But is the Greenland ice cap actually melting ? Well, the folks at the University of Missouri-Columbia didn't think so Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes, Researchers Say.
"In every circle, and truly, at every table, there are people who lead armies into Macedonia; who know where the camp ought to be placed; what posts ought to be occupied by troops; when and through what pass that territory should be entered; where magazines should be formed; how provisions should be conveyed by land and sea; and when it is proper to engage the enemy, when to lie quiet and they not only determine what is best to be done, but if any thing is done in any other manner than what they have pointed out, they arraign the consul, as if he were on trial before them. These are great impediments to those who have the management of affairs; for every one cannot encounter injurious reports with the same constancy and firmness of mind as Fabius did, who chose to let his own ability be questioned through the folly of the people, rather than to mismanage the public business with a high reputation. I am not one of those who think that commanders ought at no time to receive advice; on the contrary, I should deem that man more proud than wise, who regulated every proceeding by the standard of his own single judgement. What then is my opinion? That commanders should be counseled chiefly by persons of known talent, by those who have made the art of war their particular study, and whose knowledge is derived from experience, by those who are present at the scene of action, who see the enemy, who see the advantages that occasions offer, and who, like people embarked in the same ship, are sharers of the danger.If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to give advice respecting the war which I am to conduct, let him not refuse the assistance to the State, but let him come with me into Macedonia.He shall be furnished with a ship, a tent, even his traveling charges will be defrayed, but if he thinks this is too much trouble, and prefers the repose of a city life to the toils of war, let him not on land assume the office of a pilot. The city in itself furnishes abundance of topics for conversation. Let it confine its passion for talking to its own precincts and rest assured that we shall pay no attention to any councils but such as shall be framed within our camp."
Liberals and anti-war protestors are always claiming that they support the troops.
I think I understand what they mean now.
They mean support as in, we cloth you, feed you and house you with our tax dollars.
Just like convicts in prison.
Now it all makes sense ... they "support" the troops but not the war ... just like they "support" criminals but not crime ...
When I hear the Defeaticrats claim yet again that they "support the troops" I can't help but compare their "support" of our troops with their support of some of their other causes.
Do they support the troops like they support the right to abortion ? Do they support the troops like they support racial diversity/discrimination programs at colleges ? Do they support the War on Terror like they support the War on Poverty ?
AMERICA SHOULD BE SO LUCKY ...
Can you imagine their kind of "support" for a cancer patient ?
Gee, I really hope you get better but I can't help but notice that you look like hell today. You say you feel much better and can't wait to start that new round of treatment ...
I'm sorry but I have to speak the "truth to power" yet again. You do know some people still don't survive even with this new treatment. Don't you think it would be better to just quit now while I don't have to feel bad about the consequences of you fighting your illness ?