Saturday, March 22, 2008

Standby for riots

VATICAN CITY - Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service.


This one has been around a while

but I just happened on it in my fav list and just have to post it.

Theories and theories

weeder gander has a disaagreement re global warming. He opines:

Weeder Gander said...

(I had written)I see that you engage in the usual blather of the know nothing Left when you can't answer a question...

I did, but you choosing to ignore my answer doesn't mean it didn't exist.

(I had written)Shorter, the politically correct answer is that it was warm enough for Greenland to be green, and without any cars to blame, it has to have been a "local" thing.

What part of

"records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2]

don't you understand?

(I had written)"I'll stick with the sun. Waxing and waning as it has done for millions of years...

Try Occam's Razor.

It slices your argument."

Not if you actually understand the science:

Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

This is almost a year old:

“Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings”

Here's a list of the fly-by-night lefty organizations that believe in AGW with their reasonings:

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[23]

US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[36]

Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[37]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[38]

American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[39]

Care to apply Occams' razor to this?:

Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[40] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

March 22, 2008 4:09 PM

I see that now that we know Global Warmig is a hoax, you have decided to call it "temperature change."

As for science, shall we look at your qualifiers?

"Some uncertainty remains.." Do tell.

"but it looks like..." Oh, really?

"In the judgment of most..." Why am I not surprised?

"consensus of the..." Is that the same consensus that, at one time, stated that the earth was flat??

" The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues...." Not true..as the head of the IPPC acknowledges.

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."


And then: "American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists."

This is, at best, total horseshit to keep money flowing to people vested in studies and the politics of transfering wealth from the haves to the have nots.
I repeat. A theory is a theory no matter how many people believe in it. The temperature increase has stalled at the same time man is pumping more carbon d into the air.

That's game, set and match.

The man who would be king

and this is how he plans to "listen" to us.

But, I admit it is "change."

My thanks to Mike L!

Dumber and dumber

On March 16 I posted this, which was essentially some comments on the failures of the CIA. As part of that, I linked to this WSF article.
Now comes Anonymous who writes:
"bin Laden determined to strike"..............
That was ignored when WHO? was President?

Now in the context of the article, I really don't know. But since the fact that 9/11/01 was during Bush's first term, the snarky intent of the know nothing question is clear. I would mention that Clinton was President for 8 years, and Bush had been President for not quite 8 months, but such facts never seem to penetrate the minds of someone who ask such dumb questions, so I must resort to facts and links.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

In case Anon has forgotten, Clarke was Clinton's NSA, so I think he would know. And that point is very damning, don't you think? No plan after 8 years, WTC I, US embassies being blown up, USS Cole hit...etc.....????? But let's go on.

(Clarke) And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent

So Clinton had no plan, but they had a strategy. Now remember. A strategy is not a plan. They did have a policy. And the Bush Administration decided immediately to pursue that policy. And...

(Clarke)And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

So here we have the Bush Admninistration taking action within two weeks that the Clintons had let lie for 8 years. Do you like that?? No? I thought you would be grumpy. Have some more.

(Clarke)And then (Bush)changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

The above come from this article/

Now, much has been made of the PBA of 8/8/01 in which Bush was told about the threat, but in which he appeared to pay little attention. Did you ever think it was because he already knew about it? Read the following. It quotes Condi Rice:

(Clarke)"At the special meeting on July 5(2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

Well, well. Thirty four days before 8/8/01 and about two months before 9/11, we have Bush's NSA calling all the troops together and given them a warning of a clear and present danger.... Did it work? No.

But don't give me this sh*t that Bush's administration, and Bush, wasn't doing anything. And no charge for the education.

And if you really want to scratch your head, we have this March 1997 interview with bin Ladin by CNN's (then) Peter Arnnet. It follows.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

That is as clear a declaration of war against the US as could be, yet the Clinton Administration chose to ignore it. Why such gross ignorance??

That is the question, dear Anon. Why such ignorance??? Both then, and now by those
on the Left who think we can do business with such people.

I wonder why

On Wednesday I wrote:
One year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we're seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) the cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6)1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Last night:
Anonymous said...
Why doesn't the President "jawbone" the OPEC countries, as he suggested for President Clinton to do in the 2000 Campaign?

Well, to be fair, we don't know what Bush has been saying to the Sheiks of Arabia and the Castro Wannabee in Venezula, plus Cheney's trip. But we still don't know. So the question is fair enough. But since Bush isn’t doing what this unknown Leftie wants, I wonder why he doesn't call Harry “The War is Lost” Reid and cover some of the following points.

Why doesn't Hussein and Hillary come out demanding that these robbers on camels cut prices and/or increase prodcution? After all, Hussein told Canada that NAFTA wasn't going to change and to pay no attention to what he was saying in Ohio.

And why did the Demo Congress dither and blather about the "recovery plan checks" rather than just pass it?

And why hasn't the Demo Congress passed a law extending the current tax cuts?

Uncertainty over them is hurting the markets.

And why hasn't the Demo Congress "cut" the Federal Gas tax .40 cents/gallon, thus saving the tax payer $6.00 on every 15 gallon fill up?

Why hasn’t the Demo Congress demanded that Bush open the Strategic Reserve?

The facts are that the Demos believe that a poor economy helps them win elections, so they have no reason to try and help the economy.

Nice people, eh???