Americans, Behold Your Future

In his second inaugural address our president assured us, "My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment." What moment? The moment when we seize the limitless possibilities of America. We are ending a decade of war, you see, and our "economic recovery has begun", you understand, and now "we will seize it — so long as we seize it together."

What are we seizing, then? Equal rights. The president quoted from the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and went on to assure us that all "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." That was the premise of his speech. Let's grasp these rights endowed by the Creator!

What rights? Certainly economic "fair play" is in view. (Read "We need to equalize the economy, taking away from those with more so that more with less have more.") Certainly "a great nation must care for the vulnerable" ... as long as "the vulnerable" are not the most vulnerable — unborn children. In other words, the "rights" endowed by the Creator will be carefully distributed by the government. The rich and the unborn will have less than the poor and the women.

How does that make sense? "We have always understood that when times change, so must we." Oh, I see. Got it. So what must change with the times? "A little girl born into the bleakest poverty" must have "the same chance to succeed as anybody else." That does not mean that she has to earn her way like everybody else. It means that we need to take away from those who have so that those who don't will. It means that, while "every citizen deserves a basic measure of security", the "security" in question here is universal health care. It means a nanny state to take care of everyone. And it means, above all else, that true happiness is found in having stuff. So we will need to provide stuff. It means that we'll have to stop climate change because certainly climate change is not security. And have no doubt, fellow Americans. It means that the perpetual, longstanding definition of marriage must change. Remember! This is due to the rights endowed by the Creator! Thus, the Creator demands that all of history and all of Scripture and all of the Church for all time admit its complete and total failure to comprehend this singular matter and agree that we have finally figured it out. Marriage has never been about husband and wife, father and mother, "the two shall become one". It has always been about personal preference and personal pleasure. God demands that we change. We must alter our view so that "our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Because, you see, "love" and "commitment" are the only acceptable definition of "marriage" today. And when times change, so must we.

Are you ready, America? You voted for it. You have given the "popular mandate". As understood by the current administration, you have decided that "equal rights" does not include "freedom of religion" if it violates your views. You have decided that those who earn more than others ought to lose that income in favor of those who do not earn as much. You have decided that God has changed His mind (or has lost it) and from time immemorial the human definition of marriage and the biblical definition of marriage has always been wrong. You have decided that "protecting the vulnerable" is a matter of selection, where the most vulnerable deserve no protection and we'll work our way up from there. That's what the president that you've elected understands you to believe. Be ready for the promised changes. You asked for it. As for me, I was not made for this moment. I was not made for the moment when our "limitless possibilities" include shaking our fists in the face of God, radical irrationality, and nonsensical administration. Not my idea of "limitless possibilities". We need to "seize it together" he said. You'll have to do it without me. But you guys go ahead. See how that plays out for you.

Inquiring Minds

I saw a report (which I can't find so I can't reference) on PBS about how Antarctica is melting and we're all gonna die. Okay, I'm exaggerating. They're quite sure, however, that we're in trouble due to global warming. They predicted something like a 20-35 foot rise in the ocean levels if the western shelf melts, which it appears to be doing now. If, as they said it would, the eastern shelf follows the western shelf, estimates are that sea level would rise by 200 feet or more. They were concerned, you see, because the levels of carbon dioxide are reaching dangerous levels. As I said, I couldn't find that report, but I did find another piece written as a similar warning up in the Arctic. In it we read that "Modern levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are now flirting with the same CO2 concentrations that triggered" temperature cataclysms of the Pliocene Epoch. That was something like 2 to 5 million years ago. Both accounts tell me that we are again reaching the levels of greenhouse gases that were reached during that time period ... and we're all gonna die. No, no, again, an exaggeration. But it will be bad.

Now, since we all know that global warming (sorry, "global climate change") is caused by humans with our industries and autos, here's what I want to know. What low-life mammals of the Pliocene Epoch were so careless as to drive their SUVs, build their massive factories, and clear-cut the forests so as to cause their own extinction? Okay, of course that's silly. But there were some large mammals around then. Maybe it was their methane (don't let your mind form that image too clearly) or maybe ... well, someone was to blame. (Kidding aside, I did find an accusation that Paleolithic hunters caused global climate change.) I mean, we know that this kind of "greenhouse gas" problem doesn't happen naturally, so who was to blame then?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Let's all do our part

The U.S. News and World Report touted this headline: "Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids". (Don't blame them. The story was everywhere.) The story is out of Oregon State University. Apparently the real cause of global warming is ... people. Oh, not just the things we do. It's our existence.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Want to do the most you can to save the planet? Stop having kids. That's the message.

Of course, that's been the message all along, hasn't it? What causes extinction among animal species? Humans. What is causing this whole global warming problem? Humans. What is tearing up the planet for resources? Humans.

Look, this is really, really simple. Can it be any clearer? Eliminate humans and the planet is saved. Why are we lollygagging about? Let's get this extermination of the human race going, eh? I mean ... you do want to save the planet, don't you?

Carbon Credits

Do a quick search online and you'll find multiple companies offering you "carbon credits". They figure out your carbon footprint -- the total amount of greenhouse gas emission that you are causing. You pay a fee. That fee goes to a wind farm in Texas or a reforestation project in Brazil, some program that offsets the emissions you are causing. Now, the version in the Kyoto Protocol was a little different. Designed for companies rather than individuals, the idea was to pay poorer countries to reduce their emissions while developed countries remained at the same level. Either way -- POOF! -- you don't have to stop your emissions. You just pay someone else to take care of it.

As it turns out (and this will likely come as a shock to all of you), the program is nonsense. Studies show that the results are being falsified or misstated. As it turns out, actually measuring the effectiveness of this concept is nearly impossible. Go figure.

But the numbers are still changing. Two scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have published their findings. As it turns out, the real cause of global warming is obesity. You see, obese people require extra food production which causes more carbon emissions. They cost more (in carbon emissions) to move around. They won't likely walk or cycle. See? Proof! Die, fat people!! Or not.

What's frightening to me is that this kind of stuff (like the odd fact that Al Gore pays his own company for carbon offsets -- yes, Al Gore has a company that makes money off the global warming frenzy) just drifts on by under the cover of the "global warming" religion that America has swallowed without a thought. People will look harder at the obvious idea that God designed the universe than they will at the unproven climate change issue or the "born that way" "certainty". Is there a point at which we say, "If you're that gullible, you deserve what you get"?

Solving the Energy Crisis

Yeah, this is a long post, so I put it on a Saturday ... you know, when most people won't read it ...

The nation is up in arms. We need to save the planet! One of the key considerations for any presidential candidate is "What will he do about global warming?" The only allowable answer, of course, is to put an end to our use of fossil fuels. Al Gore has called for us to be fossil-fuel free (at least in energy generation) in 10 years. Global warming is clearly caused by us driving cars fueled by petroleum products and by producing energy using petroleum products and all that our Industrial Age is doing to ... well ... make things while spewing "greenhouse gases" (a term we all know but, I suspect, don't really know how to define). So, the answer, it seems, is "alternative energy".

It's a simple answer. We all know what that means. T. Boone Pickens, a legendary oil and gas executive, says that all we really need to do is switch to wind and solar power. We, of course, know that he's being a bit simplistic. We need to switch to electric cars, too. Changing electricity production isn't the only problem. Don't be silly.

Cielo Wind Power, a company based in Austin, Texas, touts wind power as a really big answer to our problems. They say they're have "developments equaling approximately 1,148 megawatts of wind-generated electricity." According to their FAQ, all told, wind power is producing about 6,000 megawatts of energy in the United States, enough to power 2 million households. In fact, "According to the U.S. Department of Energy, all U.S. electrical energy needs could be met by the wind in Texas and the Dakotas alone." Now, consider that for a moment. It's really cool to think that Texas and the Dakotas have all the wind we need ... but how do you harness all the wind in Texas and the Dakotas? How much land in those two states is required to harness that power? How do you transport the power when it is harnessed? What happens when the wind stops? The American Wind Energy Association (remember, they're in favor of wind energy) says that to power your house with wind energy would cost "from $3,000 to $5,000 for every kilowatt of generating capacity, or about $40,000 for a 10-kw installed system." That's for a single home use. And while we're currently producing enough power for 2 million households, the Census Bureau estimates that by 2010 we'll have something around 115 million households. Obviously, wind power alone isn't the answer.

We also need solar power. Solar power is the "end all" in a lot of people's minds, but there are many factors to consider. Solar power, for instance, costs about $9 per peak Watt to generate. Did you catch that? It was "Watt", not "Kilowatt". The website, HowStuffWorks.com, answers the question, "How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?" "You need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That's a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation." That's no small area and no small cost. Add to that a key question: How much sunshine is available? The truth is that, with the exception of a small area in the southwest, most of the United States simply doesn't have a suitable amount of sunshine to do the job. We could maximize that particular area (because it is, after all, desert), but then you have the problems of power storage and transportation. If one house needs 285 square feet of solar panel with good sunshine, how much would 115 million homes need? And at what cost? Yeah, that's a big number.

One of the really popular ideas today is the electric car. Why aren't we all driving them? Most people aren't aware of the problems of the electric car. The simple truth is that, currently we don't have electric cars that can go much farther than 40 miles on a charge. That is fine for short trips around the local neighborhood, but won't get a lot of suburban Americans to work and home. Consider this. Did you know that a gallon of gas has the energy equivalent of 33.5 KWh? "Yeah ... so ... what does that mean?" That means that a gallon of gas in a standard engine is far more energy efficient than a battery. Take, for instance, today's best lead-acid batteries. These hold about 35 watt-hours (WH) per kilogram of battery weight. That's 35 WH, as opposed to the 33500 WH in the gallon of gas. The highest capacity battery is the zinc-air battery, holding up to 240 watt-hours per kilogram. In other words, if you were using a zinc-air battery and wanted it built to the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, it would have to weigh about 140 kilograms. For the metric impaired (trust me, I went to a website to convert that number), that's over 300 pounds of battery ... to match 1 gallon of gas. In other words, the reason we do not currently have an electric car that can take us the same distance on a charge that your gas engine can take you on a tank of gas is not a product of some vast oil company conspiracy. It is a matter of the potential to store energy -- physics. In other words, electric cars are far more difficult than we imagined.

My point is not that we should not pursue these alternatives. My point is these alternatives are not the answer. They are part of a complex system of an answer. They are by no means simple. They are by no means "end all". They are extremely expensive and contain complications we're not ready to handle yet. We ought to engage them. We also ought to drill for more oil, expand the use of hybrids, build nuclear power plants, and sink money into research on alternatives. The reason we're not fossil-fuel free yet in the 21st century is because fossil fuels are so good at storing and releasing energy, and we just don't know yet what alternatives can do the same thing. It's a tough question without a simple answer, despite the claims of people like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore.

Lose-Lose

The singular criterion that many people take to determine whether or not something is true is this concept of "falsifiable". Is there a test by which you could determine that a hypothesis is not true? Atheists are really big on this one. "Since there is no way to prove that God does not exist, the concept of God is unfalsifiable and, therefore, nonviable."

Isn't it interesting, then, that everyone has jumped on this "global warming" bandwagon without considering the fact that it's unfalsifiable. You see, we're on the "save the planet" train now. Anyone who isn't on that train is an idiot. So we're mobilizing to save the planet. Well, we have no choice. If we don't save the planet, we'll all be dead soon.

So, let's examine the two possibilities: 1) human-caused global warming is real, and 2) what is going on is not caused by humans. We'll assume we survive the event. In the first case, our survival would have happened because of our concerted effort. Despite the naysayers, enough of the nations of the world worked together and staved off the crisis. Well done, human race! Okay, back up. If the second case is true, the natural cycle that caused the warming will end and the crisis will be over. So, in either case, the global warming alarmists will claim that their efforts saved the planet.

It seems to me that the only way to actually prove human-caused global warming is a) for humans to do nothing and 2) none of us survive. In that case, the last of the AlGorians will croak with their last breath, "See? We told you so." Lose-lose. Of course, that is not a possibility since it seems to be a "universal truth" that humans are causing global warming, so we need to act now -- which makes it unfalsifiable, doesn't it?

The Sky Is Falling

Oh, never mind. It's too late. We're lost. You see, Al Gore wants us to be fossil-fuel free by 2018, but experts are now telling us that we have ... 8 years. That's it. We have 100 months from August 2008 until global warming cannot be fixed.

I found the solutions in the article above fascinating. The solutions were almost exclusively financial in nature. Eliminate big financial institutions because small ones are easier to maintain. Eliminate corporate tax evasion. Take the oil companies' profits and put them in a fund to pay for ... "an Oil Legacy Fund". Raise the price of oil. (Yes, you read that right -- raise the price.) Eliminate exorbitant lending to eliminate over-consumption. Look, here it is in a nutshell. Take complete control of all aspects of the populace to control their finances, their lifestyles, their workplaces, their transportation, their consumption. That way, we can make our planet a greener place.

When I wrote my tongue-in-cheek piece about the topic, I sarcastically proposed a radical fix. It appears that the true believers are out to one-up me, because their fix is much more radical and not the least bit sarcastic. Eliminate freedom. Take control of all people. Stop life as we know it on the planet. You see ... we don't have time to think about it. Just do it!

Lord, save us from "experts".

Global Warming - A Solution

"Mom! He's doing it again!" Yes, Al Gore is at it again, calling on the U.S. to have every kilowatt of power we produce be fossil-fuel free by 2018. At the cost of $3 trillion, he is planning on fixing our global warming problem. Now, if sarcasm bothers you, go read the news item and don't bother reading further ...

[Begin sarcasm]

The world is coming to an end ... soon. I think we all know that. Global warming, an indisputable scientific fact (now, now, don't go pointing to scientists with scientific data that disputes it ... that's not science), is caused by humans and is so very bad that it has ceased to be "warming" and has simply become "climate change." If we don't stop it now, life on this planet as we know it will end ... soon.

So, what is the cause of the problem? "Well, it's carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels." No, no, that doesn't help. First, science can't actually draw a corollary between carbon dioxide levels and climate change as a cause-and-effect item. No, be specific. Okay, first you must realize that the United States is the real problem. Other countries are problematic, to be sure, but it is us, the U.S., that is to blame. So what is happening in the U.S. to bring about the end of the world? Well, it seems that 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel powered electricity, with 93% of those coming from coal. (For the record, then, Problem #1: Electric Power.) Next on the list is the emissions of internal combustion engines, comprising 33% of our carbon dioxide emissions. (That means Problem #2: Automobiles.) After that there is a decreased but significant problem with emissions from airplanes followed by emissions from buildings. (I'm sorry ... I don't know what that means. I'm just reporting what I found.) (Let's ignore "buildings" since I don't know what it means and say Problem #3: Airplanes.) A big part of the "greenhouse gases" is water vapor. Sorry ... not much we can do there. Indeed, they're not really sure if it's good or bad. Moving on. Nitrous Oxide is produced by oceans and rainforests, but man-made sources include nylon, fertilizers, catalytic converters, and the use of N2O for anesthetic. Apparently, though, the #2 cause of global warming is deforestation, with pollution being the primary cause. Between cutting, burning, and the loss of the forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide, this is the second largest problem. (Sigh ... okay, let's reorder this. Problem #1: Electric Power. Problem #2: Transportation. Problem #3: Deforestation.) Now, this website lists a slightly different set of causes. 1) Pollution. 2) Human population.

Okay, we've narrowed down the causes. (Hey, back off! I know that there are loud voices in the scientific community that are in sharp disagreement with these views. Ignore those people behind the curtain. We can't be bothered with facts. Anyone who disagrees with the problem is clearly divisive, ignorant, and immoral.) So, having determined the danger (the end of the world) and the causes of the danger (humans), what are we going to do about it?

I think the solution is pretty simple. Step One: While the U.S. is obviously the primary offender (We're the primary offender in anything, aren't we?), it is equally obvious that all of the civilized world is heading in the very same direction, adding their own, albeit decreased, contributions to the problem. So, what we need to do is go bomb them into oblivion. I know ... too much smoke will be a problem. I think it's a necessary risk to bring about the kind of change we need. And we can carefully limit our targets. We need to take out oil fields, petroleum processing plants, electricity generation stations, and automobile factories. Hey, take down the power plants and you've pretty much shut down the world anyway. Step Two: Having eliminated the rest of the world, now it's our turn. Dig a really big hole and bury everything. That would include our cars, trucks, airplanes, tractors, tanks, anything that burns fossil fuels to propel it. Step Three: Put a radical and sudden end to our electricity generation. Sure, more smoke, but it will dissipate, and, trust me, the results will be the salvation of the solar system. It's worth it.

There it is ... we're done. Having terminated the use of fossil fuels, we would almost entirely eliminate pollution. With the complete disabling of the world market, we would eliminate any need for deforestation. The world-wide bombings coupled with the (short-lived but deadly) aftermath likely removes a significant portion of the population. Centralized agriculture and sprawling cities become a thing of the past because there is no means to grow, harvest, or transport food, goods, or people over large areas. Most people would likely starve, further aiding in the problem of population pollution. We'd end up with a small, communal existence, much like it was back before the Industrial Age. It will be good! And if humans die out in the process, it will be even better! We, after all, are the ultimate problem.

"Oh, come on," my detractors might argue, "that's going too far!" Well, how about an alternative? We cannot maintain the current technology and lifestyles of humans around the planet with our current methods. It has already been reported that even if the U.S. cut out all emissions entirely, within a decade the rest of the world (the Third World) would have replaced all U.S. emissions. China and India are rising rapidly with complete disregard for the environment and with larger numbers of people who will have larger needs for electricity and fuel. The only way to affect real change is to affect real change, not minor fixes. We cannot sustain cities. We cannot sustain industry. We cannot sustain transportation. We have to impact the two problems: Pollution and Human Population. I haven't yet heard a reasonable plan that would change those two items. Mine would.

So ... who's with me? How soon can we start?

[End Sarcasm]

Who's Wagging What?

In his latest presentation, Al Gore argues that we can't just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. Mr. Gore is leading the way on this matter. In 2007, we learned that Al Gore's home in Tennessee consumed more than 20 times the national average in 2006. But he turned that around by replacing light bulbs and installing solar panels. And now we've learned that his usage ... went up more than 10%. Wait ... wait ... what's up with that, Al? You're telling us to "walk the walk" while you walk all over the thing yourself?

You see, the best indicator of what someone believes is what they do. If I tell you, "There is a bomb in this room" and I don't act on that information, you can be fairly sure that there is something wrong. I'm either lying ... or I'm psychotic.

So I ask myself, is Al Gore wrong or psychotic? I don't doubt that he's wrong. There are a growing number of scientists that are coming out and saying, "Well, maybe we're getting warmer, but there's no way that this doomsday report about human-caused end-of-the-Earth stuff is real." Still, Mr. Gore has that same information and he holds his position. Why? Perhaps his latest presentation has the clue we need to answer this question.

According to Mr. Gore, we need to invest heavily in alternative energy companies. He includes a list of companies that he recommends. And then he makes the telling admission. "Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these." Now wait a minute. Here is Al Gore's message. "I have invested heavily in these companies. I think we ought to mandate that the government subsidize these companies, and I think you should invest in them, too." How can we not conclude the obvious corollary? "I really want to make a lot of money. If I can get all that money flowing into these companies, I'll be filthy rich." It would appear, then, that while he is probably wrong, he isn't psychotic. He's sly.

There was a movie that came out in the '90's titled Wag the Dog. In it, the president was caught in a nasty scandal shortly before election time. To get the public view off the scandal, they drummed up a fake war and, with judicious use of the media, convinced people that there were bigger problems than some crummy old presidential faux pas. Now we have Al Gore waving his hands about and shouting, "There's a war on against environmental catastrophe and if you don't invest in the companies that will make me big money now, we're all doomed." In the meantime, he still drives his SUVs, still rides in private airplanes, and produces more greenhouse gases than ever. So ... is this the tale that will wag the dog?

The Sky is Falling

There is a crisis upon us. For some reason, some are skeptical. I admit it; I'm one. But I'm obviously wrong. Everyone but me, apparently, knows that there is a global climate crisis. Ask anyone. Ask Al Gore. He'll tell you that anyone who denies it is the equivalent of those who deny that America put a man on the moon or that the world is round. (Seriously, that is his accusation.) No, no, there isn't a thinking, informed person on the planet that doubts that we're all doomed.

No, I guess that's not right. But that's only because they don't actually know the extent of the crisis. According to an article in the Telegraph, "Carbon emissions from developing countries will result in a climate crisis within a generation." Twenty years, they say. If the northern hemisphere -- the developed nations -- managed to immediately eliminate all emissions, "Within 20 years they will be producing more CO2 than the rich industrialised countries." We are without hope.

And what would it take to eliminate the problems the developed nations are causing? One article tells us everything that will be required to solve the problem. Let's see what they have in mind. We need to make our houses so energy efficient that we could heat them with a candle. We need to eliminate electricity usage. Flat-screen TVs and dryers are out of the question. The remaining power requirements must be clean power. Al Gore's group, We Can Solve It, assures us we'll need to spend trillions to change to clean power. We'll need to stop cross-country trucking and settle for local products only. And no one is saying it, but we all know that one of the primary problems is methane, and we all know that cows produce an unbelievable amount of methane, so we'll need to eliminate beef entirely. Sure, the extinction of a species is extreme, but the world is at stake here. Beyond that, we'll have to eliminate the global community and develop small, local communes. Socialism is the answer here. That and a measure leap backward. No industry. No automobiles. No travel. Communism, really, with everyone getting along with simple food and no income. Really ... you'll love it.

Paul Epstein from Harvard has some other suggestions. Cooking food is a bad idea. Anything at all that uses fossil fuels or produces carbon will be a problem. You'll need to stop driving and ride your bike. Life won't be as comfortable unfortunately because we'll be giving up things like "carpets, paints, fertilizers and pesticides." And listen, while we're at it, we have got to give up plastics. I mean, seriously, you all know that plastics are an eternal environmental nightmare.

Maybe that's too extreme. Maybe all we need to do is eliminate George Bush. That's what a lot of people seem to think. The current president is standing in the way. You see, whatever the problems are, it's America's fault, and whatever America is doing wrong, it's apparently President Bush's fault. Well, it's certainly not Al Gore's fault. I mean, he's the good guy who told us about the problem. Sure, he's still producing the same amount of emissions as before. He still lives in a home that consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home, still flies in private jets, and still drives in SUVs, but he's concerned about the problem, so he's off the hook. You see, you don't really have to do anything about it; you just have to be concerned. You know, like the Kyoto Treaty. It's a wonderful plan. You don't actually have to change anything. You can just be concerned enough to pay someone else to change. Like buying "carbon credits."

The ironic thing is this. If the whole crisis is a crock, we'll never know it. See, here's what will happen. The Earth will stop its warming because it hit the top of its natural cycle and is now cooling again (and watch out for the "Global Cooling" and "There's an Ice Age coming!" calls). We'll never know that it was a natural cycle. Al Gore will pat himself on the back and assure us all that he not only invented the Internet ... he also saved the Earth. All the "Global Climate Crisis" alarmists will say, "Whew! We did it! We averted the problem. Good thing we were so loud." And who can say that they didn't? We're easily swayed by "2500 scientists who signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report" and we're swayed by what everyone else is saying. (And, please, don't start that "But lots of them have sued because they didn't intend to sign it" stuff. We can't be bothered with facts here.) How can we deny that they didn't save the universe? Well, it's just a good thing that we have our Chicken Littles around here to set things right.

(What do you think? Too much sarcasm? Maybe. But every once in a while ...)

Problems of Global Warming

Oh, man! There is a global warming event going on in Bali and those stupid scientists over at the University of Rochester have suggested that the current global warming models are wrong! It doesn't help that one of the scientists who have published this information is also one of the "consensus" group from before that assured us that global warming at the hands of Man was a scientific fact.

Think about this. China currently has 22 million motor vehicles, producing 4 million in 2003 alone. Currently the US has 243 million vehicles. China is predicting 150 vehicles per 1000 people in the near future. (For 1.3 billion people, that's 195 million vehicles.) The US has an estimated 500 cars per 1000 people. Currently India is rising in its vehicle numbers. In 2005 alone over 1 million passenger vehicles were sold in India. Currently they are at 7 cars per 1000 people but expect to surpass the US in numbers of vehicles in the next 40 years. (For 1.1 billion people, India has over 7.7 million cars.) Apparently the US will not be the primary source of auto emissions in a very short time. The only reason that China and India are currently producing less greenhouse gases than the US is because they are only just now beginning to catch up with the US economically. China is rapidly building coal-burning power plants. The price of petroleum is skyrocketing because of the growing demand from China and India. So if China and India are to be the models of low emissions, does that mean we should return to auto-less, poor living?

The claim is offered that the US cannot sell its cars in China because their emission standards are too stringent. The truth is that China didn't even have emission standards until 2000. Currently the Buick is a top seller in China. Daimler Chrysler is selling Dodges in China. In 2005, Ford sold nearly 80,000 cars in China and Buick sold about 128,000. In fact, GM has been selling cars in China since 2003 (after the emission standards went into effect). They have a factory in Shanghai that expects to sell 1 million cars this year. That's not bad for banned cars.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the largest contributor to global warming and air and water pollution is not American factories or automobiles. It is the world's livestock. There are a variety of suggestions as to what to do about this problem, but you won't likely hear about this in the global warming cries for reform.

The Kyoto Protocol is a big sticking point. Everyone else is doing it; why aren't we? While some 172 "parties" (mostly countries, although the EU is a "party" of its own) have ratified it, only 36 actually have to do anything. One hundred thirty-seven of them only have to monitor their output. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Those 36 either have to decrease their emissions or they can do "emissions trading". The EU ETS (European Union Emission Trading Scheme) is the largest of these trading schemes. In this process organizations can decrease their output of emissions or they can pay a fine or they can pass off their emissions to an organization with smaller emissions who will take credit for the first organization's emissions for a price. In other words, there is no real reduction; it just looks like it. Bottom line: Individual companies are free to choose how or if they will reduce their emissions.

It seems, in fact, that the Kyoto Protocol approach is Al Gore's approach ... and many others like him. In any given gathering of folks concerned about the environment you'll find an abundance of ... SUVs. What's up with that? Most people deeply concerned about global warming are still driving, still flying, still producing the same "carbon footprint". Their answer for themselves is not "Stop it!" It is "Have someone else do it!" They pay for a tree to be planted somewhere and say, "There, I've made up for the fact that I won't change my ways but want everyone else to."

But the real question I have that has yet to be answered apparently is what are we to do? It seems manifestly foolish to suggest we should "Stop driving." I mean, Al Gore, with all his fervent ardor over the issue, is producing his own massive amounts of greenhouse gases traveling about spreading his message. We could stop producing cars or outlaw autos, but that makes no sense. We could cripple the US economy (since the US is the biggest offender), shut down the factories, put millions out of work, stop the need for driving about, and that might stop the US from "offending", but it won't change China (the #2 offender) or India or any of the other nations developed or developing that would be more than happy to pick up our slack. Surely we need to switch from oil dependency, but that's not a global warming problem. That's a simple matter of limited supplies. Estimates currently are that we'll run out of oil in 40 years, so obviously we need to do something about it. But simply decreasing the amount of power we use or increasing the gas mileage we get won't fix this problem if it is the problem they say it is. What are we supposed to do?

In the movie, Independence Day, the President asks the alien what they wanted. What would it take to appease them? Its one word answer was, "Die." I suppose that would appease the environmentalists in their global warming terror ... but isn't the goal to make the world better for the future generations? I don't suppose eliminating the human race would accomplish that, would it?

Think About It

Yesterday I wondered why we believe what we believe. The example was my nephew's views on global warming. (Notice that yesterday's post did not have a "Global Warming" label on it ... because global warming was not the topic.)

So now Google is going green. On the surface they are trying to "produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal", but underneath their real goal is to "deal with climate change."

I suppose we shouldn't fight it. It appears that everyone with a brain is convinced that the planet is in danger because of mankind -- Americans, to be specific. Environmentalism is the new religion of the country. Jim pointed me to this fascinating quote by Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as Religion.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

It's hard to disagree with him. We all know, for instance, that the native Americans were at one with nature. No one doubts it. Disney proved it with their Pocahontas documentary. All modern sources affirm it. The fact that native Americans are hoping to hunt bald eagles for religious reasons fits right in with that, right? The wars between them were likely due to their passion for life on this planet.

Native Americans aren't the enemy. We are. We have forgotten how to think or to examine the facts. We operate in sound bites and think that it's nourishing news. We have eliminated logic and the arts from schools and pushed "new math" as if math is a variable, but we still maintain good, solid sports programs. Dismissive insults and cruel rhetoric pass for dialog and discussion. You will actually find people, for instance, that buy the idea that "one's religious views shouldn't affect their politics." Religion is the new enemy and Christianity is its face. People cannot distinguish, it seems, between Christian Children's Fund, for instance, that takes care of needy children, and Islamofacist terrorists who fly into buildings and think it's good to die killing others.

Sadly, Christians aren't a whole lot better. We're buying this stuff as well. Too often we think that faith and reason are separate entities. Too many believe in the total separation of Church and Mind. So you'll find people calling themselves Christians arguing that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, sex outside of marriage is a valid form of recreation, and "Who really cares if I steal from the government as long as I don't get caught?" None of these things define "Christian", but all of them fly in the face of "Jesus as Lord", which does define "Christian".

Well, I suppose I'm the enemy here. I don't doubt that the planet's temperature is increasing, but I have no reason to believe that we are causing it or that we can stop it. Google may argue that it's okay to fly around in company jets because "you have to tackle the big problems. To think that people are going to stop traveling is unrealistic." That doesn't make it reasonable or supportable. Al Gore may have received an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize for his movie, but that doesn't make it right or reasonable. And just because there are a growing number of voices out there calling for the end of Christianity doesn't mean that their arguments are sane. We need to think. We need to examine. We need to ... renew our minds.

America's Pastime

Welcome to our crazy, litigous society. Last month, we got this:

In a landmark ruling, a US judge endorsed a lawsuit charging two federal agencies with wrongly funding international oil and gas projects that promote global warming, court documents showed.

The science is in question. The cause is undetermined. Whether there is a need to change things is under debate. The outcome -- good or bad -- is a matter of opinion. And we're filing lawsuits. Yes, "lawsuits", plural. On the positive side you'll find these stories:

Judge Loretta Preska dismissed a global warming lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General of eight states and the city of New York and two private citizen groups against American Electric Power Co., Inc., Cinergy Corp., Southern Co., Xcel Energy Inc. and the Tennessee Valley Authority. (Source)

A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday poked a gaping hole in California's bid to make the auto industry pay for any contributions it makes to global warming. (Source)

It's good news that there are judges who are dismissing these nonsense suits. It's bad news that there are not merely misguided citizens, but states that are bringing these lawsuits. Then we have a state senator who decided to file a lawsuit against God. Will it never end?

In years gone by, baseball was America's pastime. Now, it looks like litigation is surpassing baseball, with "stupid litigation" closing quickly.

Imprimis on Global Warming

In their August issue of Imprimis, Hillsdale College has published a lecture by S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. Now, Dr. Singer is not a "right wing religious nut." He's not some religious wacko. Nor is this piece one laced with overblown arguments. He simply addresses some of the evidence of Global Warming and asks if it is man-made or natural. Based on the title of his most recent book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, I think you can guess his conclusion.

Dr. Singer brings up some interesting points. He addresses, for instance, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report so often referred to as "consensus" by the pro-Global Warming folks. On this he points out, "Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s "Summary for Policymakers.'" And, as we know, science doesn't work on "consensus"; it works on pushing the envelope. It functions by going beyond consensus to places that people don't agree to settle such questions. Dr. Singer doesn't deny that the temperature around the world is rising, but he points out a basic fallacy: "What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation." He points to various facts that contradict the man-made global warming theory, such as the fact that the climate has cooled at times during the last century of accelerated CO₂ production by Man's industrialization. He suggests that the computer models that are predicting the end of the world as we know it have failed to accurately depict what is occurring, and have failed to do so because they have failed to take into account relevant data. In fact, Dr. Singer suggests that the most likely culprit for global warming is not Man, but the Sun. He goes on to suggest that it isn't necessarily all bad news; there may be large benefits from an increase in the Earth's temperatures.

One of the things that I appreciated in the article was that Dr. Singer was the first I've read to offer reasons why there is such furor over the topic when science is so undecided. What is the motivation for pushing this Global Warming Catastrophe scenario if it isn't true? If global warming is such a certain catastrophe, why does the Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012? If it is such a serious problem, why do they allow for the "Clean Development Mechanism" in which a major CO₂-producing nation can avoid reducing their production by coming up with a reduction scheme for developing nations? What's wrong with this picture? Dr. Singer points out that power companies and other entities are collecting "windfall fees" from consumers to reduce emissions without actually reducing emissions. He points out,

Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest.

We've arrived at an interesting point in history. If you don't agree with the "consensus" (which Dr. Singer questions), you aren't merely in disagreement. You are "anti-environmental." If you don't believe the absolutist claims that Man in general and the U.S. in particular are to blame for global warming, you are a wacko with something to gain at the cost of the entire world ... bordering on criminal. Instead of the "religion" of our age -- science -- being allowed to do its job, people are simply leaping on the misinformation bandwagon and pointing accusatory fingers at those of us who say, "Wait! Perhaps we ought to examine the evidence?" We aren't counting the cost or considering the consequences or asking the questions. That is neither right nor safe.

News and Commentary

There's so much going on in my head this morning that I'm going to try a different approach. Let's see how this flies.

Stan Smith News and Commentary

Dateline: Iraq and Afghanistan

Commanders in the field are reporting great success with the influx of additional soldiers. Thus far, there appears to be a dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq. While the incidents of mayhem haven't completely stopped, it seems that the "surge" is having such a positive effect that the Army has decided it needs to extend the stay of soldiers in the field for 3 months to continue the effort. Congress and the media assure us that the commanders in the field are wrong, that no soldiers should be there at all, and anyone who listens to any of that positive stuff is a dunderhead.

Dateline: Washington D.C.

Congress is still quite sure we're losing in Iraq and demand that the President bring the troops home. No negotiation. No discussion. They are perfectly willing to negotiate with Syria and Iran, known terrorist nations, but not with the President. How, exactly, they classify "losing" I'm not sure. We all know on a daily basis how many Americans have been killed, but I haven't seen the body count of the enemy yet. What classifies us as "losing"?

Dateline: US Broadcasting

MSNBC has decided to immediately drop Don Imus's show from its lineup because of his stupid, uncalled-for comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Major advertisers dropped off and there is a general outrage against Imus. Another talk show host in Pennsylvania asked listeners to repeat what Imus had said as a dare and was fired outright. The Rutgers team has gone on record as saying things like "This will scar us for life." We used to hear "I think you are completely wrong in what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Fortunately for America, that is apparently no longer the case. While I personally abhor Imus's comments and think getting rid of his talk show is a service to America, I think doing so for this incident is a little like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion. And while MSNBC absolutely has the right to make whatever business decision they want regarding who to broadcast and who not to broadcast, I wonder exactly how far Americans are willing to go to allow real censorship today. I was told as a kid, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." I was lied to. Despite the great skill and courage of the Rutgers women's basketball team in getting to the final four against all odds, it appears that their well-being and self-esteem is entirely tied up in only having nice things said about them from all sides ... including idiots like Imus. And why is there so little outrage over the dismissal of the charges against the Duke players? If anyone is "scarred for life", it would be them. It's not easy to step out from under a rape charge once it is made public. The coach lost his job over the false allegations. So how far will America go in allowing censorship? It's okay to censor racist remarks; it's not a problem to allow false allegations against white males. It's okay to refuse to print comics offensive to Muslims, but making insults to Christians on a nearly daily basis is acceptable. How far is too far?

Dateline: Jerusalem, Easter.

The Foundation for Freedom from Religion has finally proven that there was no Resurrection. It's simple. Try to align the biblical accounts of the Resurrection. You can't. And ... poof! ... the story vanishes in a puff of logic. I'm trying to get my arms around this approach. The idea is that with "a jury of its peers" (so to speak) the story would not be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". So, since it is being stated in terms of a trial, I'm imagining this process as an actual court event.

"Your honor, the People have had scientists testify and tell you that no such event has ever been recorded in modern medical history. We've heard the testimony of those who have found what they claim to be the bones of Jesus and his wife, Mary. Historians have testified that some early writers were known to highly spiritualize events. The Jesus Seminar people have testified to the fact that any miracle is impossible and all of that stuff is likely myth. The prosecution rests."

"Would the Defense like to call its first witness?"

"Yes, your Honor. We call Matthew."

The court listens quietly to Matthew's testimony, then says, "Your Honor, we object. Move to strike."

"On what basis?"

"Matthew told of the soldiers' interaction with the Pharisees. He could not have been there and, thus, it could only be hearsay."

"So what do you move to strike?"

"All of it! Strike all of his testimony."

"Next witness."

"The Defense calls Mark."

"Your Honor, we object! The last portion of Mark's account is not readily documented."

"Shouldn't you wait until we hear the testimony?"

Mark gives his testimony.

This goes on through Luke and John.

The Prosecutor again objects. "Your Honor, move to strike all this testimony."

"On what basis?"

"There are discrepancies. Matthew appears to say that the stone was rolled away after the women arrive, but the others indicate it was before. It is unclear on how many angels there were, if they were angels, exactly what they said when they said it, how many women went to the tomb, who spoke to whom, who saw Jesus first ... too many discrepancies, your Honor."

The Defense pipes in. "Your Honor, I think there is a viable explanation of all these so-called discrepancies, but I have a question. Is there any doubt that all of these accounts agree that Jesus rose from the dead? Even if we admit (we don't, but even if we did) to discrepancies in details, is there any doubt that there is one single fact being attested to by all accounts -- that Jesus rose from the dead?"

The Judge to the Defense: "Do you have any more witnesses?"

"Just one, your Honor. We call Paul."

Paul testifies that Jesus rose from the dead and that there were 500 witnesses. Go and ask them.

"Your Honor, we object! Eyewitnesses have nothing to do with this proceeding. Clearly science shows that no one rises from the dead and 'biblical scholars' have demonstrated that this is all myth. We have Jesus's bones, for goodness sake! Obviously the discrepancies in the details proves that it didn't happen."

I'd like to hear the Judge say, "Sit down and shut up," but in today's courts, who knows. Nonetheless, we have finally arrived at the point where the "science and reason" side is saying, "Don't bother me with evidence; I know I'm right." How exactly any possible discrepancies in minor details eliminates the undeniably coherent claim of the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond me.

Dateline: The South

Farmers in the southeast US are reporting major losses of fruit crops after experiencing some of the coldest temperatures on record for this time of year. If this global warming gets any worse, we really are going to freeze to death.

Exactly Which Inconvenient Truth

The Right Reverend Al Gore, the preacher of the morality of environmentalism, is here today. Yes, here, at my place of business. He came to speak to a sold-out crowd at Gammage Auditorium at ASU. No, I didn't go see him. I didn't have the up to $300 that people were paying to get a seat. And I had to wonder exactly how descriptive "sold-out" was for that crowd. I mean ... was there a double meaning to that term?

Mr. Gore says that the problem isn't a scientific one; it is a moral one. That's the aim of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth -- to warn people of our moral problem. I have to wonder, having never seen the movie, exactly what "inconvenient truth" should be spotlighted. We could look at the fact that consensus does not make for good science despite his best objections. We could note that there is a large and growing number of scientists that are questioning the conclusion that America or even mankind is to blame for any possible warming of the planet. Or maybe it's more personal. Exactly how dedicated is Mr. Gore to his moral issue when his speaking fee here is reported to be $100,000 plus expenses. I mean, there are a lot of people who would be willing to claim a lot of things if you paid them that kind of money each time they said it. And isn't it odd that his contract includes the condition that the media be excluded? I mean, if your goal is to get out a worldwide cataclysmic warning, wouldn't you want the media around to help? Strange. Or how about the report that Mr. Gore's personal lifestyle doesn't seem to match his loud alarms (source). One might think that with speaking fees like that and a moral issue to which he's dedicated, he'd be able to afford to cut out a lot of the things he's calling on everyone else to cut out ... if he's really so dedicated to the issue. The problem isn't that he's not doing what he's telling us to do. The problem is that human beings always act on what they truly believe. If I tell you, "There's a bomb in the room" and I don't do anything, you can tell that I really don't believe it. His actions suggest that he really doesn't believe it.

Maybe the "inconvenient truth" lies elsewhere. He claims to be religious and favors abortion. He is a Southern Baptist without any of the trappings of being a Southern Baptist. In the 2000 campaign against George Bush, both candidates were asked leading questions at various times. George Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, to which he responded, "Jesus Christ." The uproar was loud. You'd think he had said that he planned to run the White House by asking, "What would Jesus do?" ... which was exactly what candidate Al Gore answered when asked how he would make his decisions in the White House if elected. The outcry against Mr. Gore was zip, zero, nothing. Why? Likely because no one actually believed that he held any real life-affecting religious views. Another "inconvenient truth"?

Where exactly is this "inconvenient truth"? Maybe it's in the fees he charges to sound the alarm that it is our moral duty to fix the Earth. Maybe it's in the disconnect between the alarm he sounds and the lifestyle he lives. Maybe it's in the gap between the religion he claims and the views he espouses. Maybe it's elsewhere.

I don't actually have an ax to grind with Mr. Gore. He's acting exactly as I would anticipate ... living what he really believes. But if you felt a twinge (or more) of outrage at what I said here, if you felt a rise of righteous indignation, what I'm hoping is that you'll use it to test yourself as I do myself. Are you as guilty as he? Am I one who claims to believe one thing and acts another way? Are you "sold out" for Christ ... as long as He gives you what you want? If love is the principle indicator of a Christian, is it a principle component of our lives? We are called to test ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Let this rise in emotion be an opportunity to do that for ourselves.

Solar System Warming

In an earlier (and clearly less than serious) article, I suggested that we should execute those of us responsible for Global Warming. Well, it appears that the problem is worse than we suspected.

It appears that NASA has discovered (or rather known for years) that the polar ice caps of several planets, dwarf planets, and large moons in our solar system are shrinking. I've seen reports from 2001, 2003, and 2007 documenting the decline of the Mars ice caps. Wow! Apparently the middle class, SUV-driving, fossil-fuel-consuming, refusing-to-recycle United States has a larger impact on the universe than we had originally imagined! Not only are we destroying our planet. We've managed to warm the solar system.

And while I might question this source, it still makes me wonder: Why is it that the leadership of the middle class, SUV-driving, fossil-fuel-consuming, refusing-to-recycle United States hasn't made their own move to alter their lives to fix this crisis? Consensus aside (because, as has been pointed out by multiple sources, "consensus" is not science -- ask Galileo), if this is such a crisis, why is it that those who are so convinced that it is such a crisis aren't acting on it themselves yet? If it is true that you always act on what you really believe, one has to wonder ...

I Get It

I get it now. I didn't before, but I do now. The term was (and, mostly, still is) "global warming". I didn't get it. How could they blame something called "global warming" for both heat waves and cold spells? How could something called "global warming" be responsible for both the warmest January on record and the coldest January in more than 30 years? That was irrational. So they've renamed it "global climate change". Now we have a ball game.

So I've done my research and am climbing on the "global climate change" bandwagon. I think the evidence is irrefutable. According to records kept in my area since the 1800's, there have been indications of a climate change. It appears that every year, around May, the climate here begins to change to something quite warm. By mid July it can be above 110°F. However, as the year progresses, these temperatures begin to fall off. By December the high temperatures are barely over 70°F. As further proof of this phenomenon, I have been able to determine that this same sort of fluctuation in temperature appears to occur over a 12-month period throughout the northern hemisphere. See? "Global climate change". It's real. You can't deny it.

What is causing this? Well, clearly it is America. How do I know? Because this particular effect that has been documented to be 180° out of phase in the southern hemisphere. Quite clearly the effect has originated in the U.S., then radiated to the rest of the northern hemisphere and been inverted by passing the Equator. Deny it if you wish, but I think it's pretty hard to get around the facts.

Now, we need to be fair. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the fault lies with "the U.S.", as if everyone in this country is to blame. No, indeed! The primary problem is greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are produced by major factories and large SUVs. Who owns the vast majority of these? Obviously it's the rich to middle class white males. So the blame for this documented global climate change lies squarely in the laps of American white males.

Now that we've figured all that out, I'm pretty sure the solution is obvious and easily accomplished. We simply need to start executing American white males. You may think that this is a bit extreme, but think about it. Global climate change is to blame for a lot of horrible things. It is the cause of every major climatic event for the last hundred years. It caused the earthquakes that destroyed San Francisco in 1906 and Anchorage in 1964. It caused serious damage, loss of life, and injury in Oakland in 1989. New Orleans has never recovered from Hurricane Katrina, obviously caused by global climate change. How many people died in the tsunami of of December 2004? Droughts, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, cold weather, heat waves ... how many people have died over the last 100 years because of weather? And worse! It is a well-documented phenomenon that when the temperature goes up, so does crime. Clearly, global climate change is responsible for crime. How many people have died or suffered serious injury from crime? When you add up the cost of crime and the cost of weather simply in terms of human life, it is a staggering number. Has anyone asked how warm it was on September 11? Well, they will, because it's clearly the reason. So I ask you ... is it unreasonable to make those responsible pay for their evil?

I suspect that as soon as we eliminate American whites (and likely their less culpable but equally suspect European counterparts), life will get better. Women will be treated better. Children will be happier. The climate of the Earth will stabilize. You (Since I'm an American white male, I don't include myself in the joys of the aftermath) will enjoy an unprecedented peace. Of course, unemployment will be rampant (because those evil white company owners hire a lot of people) and civilization as you know it will collapse (because it is the evil white Industrial Age that is the problem), but it will indeed be peaceful. At least, they say it's very peaceful in the grave.

The Terror Within

They're raising the alarm. The global warming problem is certain. And they are 90% positive that humans are causing it. (For the uninitiated, in "science speak", "90% positive" means "there is no doubt".) Some suggest that even if we stopped dumping greenhouse gases into the air, the effect would continue for centuries. And, apparently, it is primarily the United States who is to blame for this problem.

But, don't stop there. They're raising the alarm. The AIDS epidemic is out of control. Millions are getting the disease around the world, but especially in Africa. There is no cure and precious little treatment. Children are contracting it from their infected parents. Babies are being born with it. It's a horrible problem worldwide. One of the saddest tragedies in this problem is that the United States isn't doing enough to solve it.

And they are still raising the alarm. We're losing in Iraq. It is a poor strategy with insufficient reason and inadequate goals, and we are not likely going to succeed in Iraq. Americans are dying almost daily. Worse, Iraqis are killing Iraqis in sectarian violence brought on by the U. S. intrusion into the area. Iran is feeding the violence. Syria is recruiting young men to go to fight in Iraq. It is a $400 billion mess, costing the lives of more than 3000 Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis.

And they're still raising the alarm. President Bush is the worst thing to happen to the United States since ... I don't know, I guess since its inception. He is incompetent, irrelevant, ill-advised, and dangerous. He hasn't had a good idea since he took office, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.

Surely you can see by now that this list can go on. There is disaster around every corner. It's unclear that there's anything good at all happening anywhere. Calamity is upon us from all sides. The most difficult part is that there are no answers -- just problems. "Okay, let's say that there is a problem with global warming and that Man is to blame. Now what?" The answers are either inane or non-existent. According to wikipedia, the primary sources of human emission of greenhouse gases are the use of fossil fuels, livestock, landfills, chlorofluorocarbons, and the use of fertilizers. So ... if we'd all stop driving, eliminate the use of electricity and refrigerators, stop making trash (and going to the bathroom ... one of the specific problems cited), and stop growing food with fertilizers, well, then, this global warming problem would go away ... after about 200 years ... when we're all dead. I checked one website which made practical suggestions on how each of us can decrease emissions. I already do most of them without thinking of emissions. Some of them I don't do because the cost is prohibitive. They're suggesting that if each of us properly inflated our tires and took shorter showers, well, then, the problem is fixed! (I'm over-simplifying. But the list is overly simplistic and non-effective.) The only thing that humans can do to stop this problem we've caused is to eliminate most of the human population and all of our technology and civilization and return to prehistoric times where we didn't live anywhere long, there weren't too many of us, and we had no technology.

The list goes on. There is no cure and no prevention available for AIDS. What do they recommend we do about it? There is already several ongoing investigations into cures, treatments, and immunizations. That's not enough. The epidemic is out of hand. Do something! Do what? What do they recommend we do in Iraq? If we stay there we've lost. If we pull out we've lost. What is the recommendation? What do they want us to do about our President? Shall we impeach him? Assassinate him? Tar and feather him and ride him out of Washington on a rail? None of these are useful, practical, responsible suggestions. What do you want us to do?

I sometimes wish we could make a law. "Don't complain about a problem if you aren't going to offer a viable solution." As it currently stands, all this raising of alarms is simply terrorism. It raises fears with no possibility of fixing the situation. There is no productive use for this kind of alarmist tendencies and no one is offering suggested solutions. There is very little difference between this kind of running around yelling, "The sky is falling" and the terrorism of the radical Islamist.

Here's what I suggest. For every minute that you spend listening to the fear mongering news media, spend an equal amount of time in prayer and in your Bible. For all the garbage you take in, spend an equal amount of time renewing your mind. Maybe that will help. (Just trying to offer a viable solution.)

Global Warming

Global warming has become a bit of a joke around here lately. Here in the desert we have experienced snow where snow never falls. We had the coldest temperatures since 1990 (I mean, who ever heard of 18°F in Phoenix?) and the coldest consecutive days since 1978. I'm afraid that if this global warming keeps up much longer we're likely to freeze to death.

But global warming is no joke. Them's fightin' words to some. Do not impugn the eminent scientist, Dr. Al Gore or his fine piece of science, An Inconvenient Truth. Look ... it got two Oscar nominations. How much more proof do you need? Do not question the facts of global warming. Do not question the science of global warming. There is no question to be had. The uncontested scientific opinion on the subject is that the temperature increase over the last 50 years is directly due to human activity. If you question this, you are a closed-minded, head-in-the-sand, equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. You probably still think that the Moon landings were done on a Hollywood sound stage. Only an idiot would question any of the facts.

So when science disagrees, it is stupid, willfully ignorant, politically motivated, or simply not worth considering. When Chris De Freitas, Associate Professor at the University of Aukland, says that the satellite data denies that there has been any significant warming of the surface in the last 20 years, he's a buffoon. When a group of scientists say that the temperature of the Earth may be rising, but suggest that the cause is not known, they're disengenuous. When a large number of scientists agree that the Earth is getting warmer, but link it to natural causes, they're liars. There is even one, Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University, who has suggested "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO₂ enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and global warming." Liars, buffoons, idiots, perhaps even criminals, every one.

Me? I'm not opposed to the science of global warming. I'm not a scientist and wouldn't stake a claim on the topic. But when one group decides that the best response to the argument is derision, insults, wild accusations, and attempts to silence the discussion, it makes me leery. When Man decides that Man has the capacity to alter Nature to the extent that the loudest voices are suggesting, it makes me leery. And when Christians begin to tout this as a matter of spiritual necessity, it makes me very leery. Perhaps we can take the rhetoric down a peg.