Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Book Review
I received a free book because I suscribed to Newsmax. The book was "The Enemy at Home - The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" by Dinesh D'Souza. I found it puzzling and difficult to accept many of the claims made in the book. Today's email from Frontpage Magazine is a review of this book by Robert Spencer. It is not only very well written, but explains why I found the claims in this book difficult to digest.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pardon our Border Agents
PLEASE client the link Pardon our Border Agents and sign the petition. It is absolutely egregious that these men were sentenced for doing their jobs. If we don't help them, they (all border agents) won't help us.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Support Our Troops
Taken from the site thirdwavedave
THE NRSC PLEDGE
"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."
***If you agree with this pledge, sign the petition now and have your name and blog listed too. Many names--big and small--are on the list. Join the effort and let them know you're not going to be played for a sucker any longer.
THE NRSC PLEDGE
"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."
***If you agree with this pledge, sign the petition now and have your name and blog listed too. Many names--big and small--are on the list. Join the effort and let them know you're not going to be played for a sucker any longer.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Humans Cause Global Warming???
Our local "news" paper recently opined that we must do something about global warming. My husband who holds a degree in Aeronautics and studied meteorology responded. It is too good to pass up, so it follows. {Note: The Democrat controlled Vermont legislature has made this their number one issue this session}
My Husband wrote...
The Stowe Reporter editorialized that even if global warming isn't happening we should do something about it. This is like saying "Even if the earth isn't flat we should act as if it is, less someone falls of the edge."
The Stowe Reporter repeats the claim that "almost all scientists agree that humans are causing global warming." This claim is repeated so often it is accepted as fact. Yet I have yet to hear of a poll of all scientists or even all scientists in relevant fields to prove this statement is true. Lacking such a poll there is no basis for claiming how many scientists do believe humans cause global warming.
The bases for this claim appears to be the fact that 2500 so called "scientists" participated in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I say "so called" because the UN is fundamentally a political organization not a scientific one. Every country was allowed at least one scientist on the panel. Some countries are not exactly world super powers in science. Therefore some of these "scientists" had their degrees in Pharmacology.
Then again it is irrelevant how many scientists believe in human caused global warming. Science is not advanced by the most popular theories, but by the correct ones.
Before Galileo, almost all scientists said the earth was the center of the universe. In 1904 virtually everyone thought that Newton's F=MA was as far as things went . Then in 1905 Einstein showed that F=MA was not enough, now E=MC² was needed. In the 1940's many aerodynamicists thought that the "sound barrier" was a real barrier that could not be "broken" (they thought that drag builds up infinitely at supersonic speeds). Chuck Yeager proved them wrong.
There are very many flaws in the global warming theory and a book could be written on these problems. In fact many excellent books have been written about the flaws in the theory, but not just books, a number of articles in peer review journals point out flaws. Do to lack of space I will discuss just a few of the flaws.
One of the claims made in the general press and in recent movies on global warming is that Antarctic ice core samples shows an increase in CO2 followed by an increase temperature, however as Dr Robert Carter points out, the increase in CO2 is preceded by the increase in temperature not the other way around, and the increase in temperature precedes the increase in CO2 by 100 to 1000 years. For this he cites: Mudelsee, M. 2001, "The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature & global ice volume over the past 420 ka" Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589.
Global warming theory claims that the poles will warm faster than the equator, yet 80% of the Antarctic has cooled and there has been no net increase in polar temperatures my sources for this are: Comiso, J. C. (2000): "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements." J. Climate 13, 1674-1696 and: Doran, P. D., Priscu, Et Al. (2002): "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response." Nature 415, 517-520.
This is very significant, because many claimed that warming at the poles would be proof positive that global warming was occurring, and because computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCMs) use the temperature trends at the poles in many of there calculations (Computer are only mathematical model run on computers. If the mathematics is wrong so is the whole model). If these GCM are totally wrong in one very significant aspect then they are totally invalid. This is because GCM are suppose to represent the real world.
In an article titled "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?" published in the Journal "energy and environment" Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicts that the world will enter a cooling trend that will be coldest around 2030. He predicts that we will notice this cooling well before that.
He basis this on his and many others studies of solar activity. He also states that the IPCC estimates of human induced warming are way over stated. He points to a number of studies that shows flaws with GCMs. He cites too many studies to mention here.
Even if man made global warming is occurring it might make sense to "do something about it" if there was no cost to "doing something." However there is a cost. I have heard estimates from $500 billion to $1trillion per year for the United States to implement the Kyoto accords. That is real money.
Then again can Vermont even do anything? It is estimated that If California stopped producing all CO2 It would reduce world wide CO2 by .02%. Because Vermont has a population of about 1/100th the size of California it is fair to guess that if Vermont stopped producing CO2 it would represent about .0002% of the world wide total.
It is imposable to completely stop producing CO2 (we have to exhale) therefore realistically Vermont would have even less of an impact, yet the cost would be huge.
It makes no sense to attempt to stop something that might not be happening and that we can not stop anyway and will cost a fortune to try to stop.
Thank You Tom!!!
My Husband wrote...
The Stowe Reporter editorialized that even if global warming isn't happening we should do something about it. This is like saying "Even if the earth isn't flat we should act as if it is, less someone falls of the edge."
The Stowe Reporter repeats the claim that "almost all scientists agree that humans are causing global warming." This claim is repeated so often it is accepted as fact. Yet I have yet to hear of a poll of all scientists or even all scientists in relevant fields to prove this statement is true. Lacking such a poll there is no basis for claiming how many scientists do believe humans cause global warming.
The bases for this claim appears to be the fact that 2500 so called "scientists" participated in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I say "so called" because the UN is fundamentally a political organization not a scientific one. Every country was allowed at least one scientist on the panel. Some countries are not exactly world super powers in science. Therefore some of these "scientists" had their degrees in Pharmacology.
Then again it is irrelevant how many scientists believe in human caused global warming. Science is not advanced by the most popular theories, but by the correct ones.
Before Galileo, almost all scientists said the earth was the center of the universe. In 1904 virtually everyone thought that Newton's F=MA was as far as things went . Then in 1905 Einstein showed that F=MA was not enough, now E=MC² was needed. In the 1940's many aerodynamicists thought that the "sound barrier" was a real barrier that could not be "broken" (they thought that drag builds up infinitely at supersonic speeds). Chuck Yeager proved them wrong.
There are very many flaws in the global warming theory and a book could be written on these problems. In fact many excellent books have been written about the flaws in the theory, but not just books, a number of articles in peer review journals point out flaws. Do to lack of space I will discuss just a few of the flaws.
One of the claims made in the general press and in recent movies on global warming is that Antarctic ice core samples shows an increase in CO2 followed by an increase temperature, however as Dr Robert Carter points out, the increase in CO2 is preceded by the increase in temperature not the other way around, and the increase in temperature precedes the increase in CO2 by 100 to 1000 years. For this he cites: Mudelsee, M. 2001, "The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature & global ice volume over the past 420 ka" Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589.
Global warming theory claims that the poles will warm faster than the equator, yet 80% of the Antarctic has cooled and there has been no net increase in polar temperatures my sources for this are: Comiso, J. C. (2000): "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements." J. Climate 13, 1674-1696 and: Doran, P. D., Priscu, Et Al. (2002): "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response." Nature 415, 517-520.
This is very significant, because many claimed that warming at the poles would be proof positive that global warming was occurring, and because computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCMs) use the temperature trends at the poles in many of there calculations (Computer are only mathematical model run on computers. If the mathematics is wrong so is the whole model). If these GCM are totally wrong in one very significant aspect then they are totally invalid. This is because GCM are suppose to represent the real world.
In an article titled "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?" published in the Journal "energy and environment" Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicts that the world will enter a cooling trend that will be coldest around 2030. He predicts that we will notice this cooling well before that.
He basis this on his and many others studies of solar activity. He also states that the IPCC estimates of human induced warming are way over stated. He points to a number of studies that shows flaws with GCMs. He cites too many studies to mention here.
Even if man made global warming is occurring it might make sense to "do something about it" if there was no cost to "doing something." However there is a cost. I have heard estimates from $500 billion to $1trillion per year for the United States to implement the Kyoto accords. That is real money.
Then again can Vermont even do anything? It is estimated that If California stopped producing all CO2 It would reduce world wide CO2 by .02%. Because Vermont has a population of about 1/100th the size of California it is fair to guess that if Vermont stopped producing CO2 it would represent about .0002% of the world wide total.
It is imposable to completely stop producing CO2 (we have to exhale) therefore realistically Vermont would have even less of an impact, yet the cost would be huge.
It makes no sense to attempt to stop something that might not be happening and that we can not stop anyway and will cost a fortune to try to stop.
Thank You Tom!!!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Milton Friedman Knew The Threat
This from the Opinion Journal
"Milton Friedman @ Rest
Email from a Nobel Laureate.
Monday, January 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
In July last year, the late Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics in 1976, granted an interview to The Wall Street Journal. Today we publish material from a question-and-answer exchange he had by email--shortly after their meeting--with his interviewer, Tunku Varadarajan, the Journal's editorial features editor.
What is the biggest risk to the world economy: America's deficits? Energy insecurity? Environment? Terrorism? None of the above?
Friedman: Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon.
Milton Friedman died on Nov. 16, 2006, age 94. There is a memorial for him today at Stanford University. "
God rest is soul...
"Milton Friedman @ Rest
Email from a Nobel Laureate.
Monday, January 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
In July last year, the late Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics in 1976, granted an interview to The Wall Street Journal. Today we publish material from a question-and-answer exchange he had by email--shortly after their meeting--with his interviewer, Tunku Varadarajan, the Journal's editorial features editor.
What is the biggest risk to the world economy: America's deficits? Energy insecurity? Environment? Terrorism? None of the above?
Friedman: Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon.
Milton Friedman died on Nov. 16, 2006, age 94. There is a memorial for him today at Stanford University. "
God rest is soul...
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Why is Jimmy Carter so Oposed to Israel?
Although I haven't read Jimmy Carter's book, I've read the reviews and heard the news of the exodus of his staff since the day it was released. I have more important things to do than read what is opined to be not only a rewrite of history, but blatantly anti-Israel/Jew.
It has puzzled me...why would a former president not only say the horrible things he has said about America and subsequent presidents in public on foreign soil, but why would he put such controversial language in print?
Today, some clarity came to me via my inbox. Below is an excerpt from a Frontpage Magazine article written by John Perazzo. The link to the full article follows.
"Some members of the Arab lobby in America are heavily financed with money from the Arab world. As Jacob Laksin recently detailed in FrontPageMagazine, for instance, the Atlanta-based Carter Center (founded by Jimmy Carter in 1982) has been a longtime recipient of Arab funding. Before his death in 2005, Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd made several large donations to the Center, including a 1993 gift of $7.6 million. As of 2005, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, had given at least $5 million to the Carter Center. In 2001 the United Arab Emirates (UAE) gave the Center $500,000. The previous year, ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers had jointly pledged $1 million, as did Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman in 1998. The Saudi Fund for Development has been another major contributor, as has the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. And Morocco’s Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah has collaborated with the Carter Center on various initiatives."
Well, that explains everything!!!
Frontpage Article
It has puzzled me...why would a former president not only say the horrible things he has said about America and subsequent presidents in public on foreign soil, but why would he put such controversial language in print?
Today, some clarity came to me via my inbox. Below is an excerpt from a Frontpage Magazine article written by John Perazzo. The link to the full article follows.
"Some members of the Arab lobby in America are heavily financed with money from the Arab world. As Jacob Laksin recently detailed in FrontPageMagazine, for instance, the Atlanta-based Carter Center (founded by Jimmy Carter in 1982) has been a longtime recipient of Arab funding. Before his death in 2005, Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd made several large donations to the Center, including a 1993 gift of $7.6 million. As of 2005, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, had given at least $5 million to the Carter Center. In 2001 the United Arab Emirates (UAE) gave the Center $500,000. The previous year, ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers had jointly pledged $1 million, as did Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman in 1998. The Saudi Fund for Development has been another major contributor, as has the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. And Morocco’s Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah has collaborated with the Carter Center on various initiatives."
Well, that explains everything!!!
Frontpage Article
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Troop Restrictions
"And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."
President Bush said these words early on in his speech last evening and quite frankly I was surprised that none of the pundits picked up on them.
Most people might infer that this refers to the Iraqi imposed restrictions on our troops from setting up checkpoints and restrictions on which cities/areas they can enter to ferret out the enemy.
I am hopeful it means more than that. As I have said all along, more troops on the ground will only be minimally helpful if the "rules of engagement" are not eased. I certainly hope the president will finally allow our troops to fight like they know how to fight, to engage preemptively when threatened and send a clear message "we intend to kill you before you kill us".
{We were without internet access for far too long - our DSL went down, but finally got back on last evening}
President Bush said these words early on in his speech last evening and quite frankly I was surprised that none of the pundits picked up on them.
Most people might infer that this refers to the Iraqi imposed restrictions on our troops from setting up checkpoints and restrictions on which cities/areas they can enter to ferret out the enemy.
I am hopeful it means more than that. As I have said all along, more troops on the ground will only be minimally helpful if the "rules of engagement" are not eased. I certainly hope the president will finally allow our troops to fight like they know how to fight, to engage preemptively when threatened and send a clear message "we intend to kill you before you kill us".
{We were without internet access for far too long - our DSL went down, but finally got back on last evening}
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
