Silly Bits VIII

The end of the year (and that of 'Just Blowing Smoke') is apparently not one which provides a break for much of the silliness going on in the world today.  So while the calendar is winding down here, I thought it might be amusing to take one last shot at pointing out a rather glaring one.

In the Antarctica, there's a true bit of international silliness going on.  It seems that a Russian ship, the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, became trapped in the ice on Christmas Eve about 185 miles east of the French research station Dumont D'Urville.  A search and rescue mission was mounted, and a Chinese ice-breaking ship, the Snow Dragon; was expected to reach the beleaguered vessel a couple of days ago.  That mission was put on hold however, when the Snow Dragon was unable to reach the Shokalskiy due to ice that was more than ten feet deep.  An Australian ice-breaking vessel, Aurora Australis, is now on the way and closing in on the site in the hopes of completing the rescue mission.

Not to worry for the crew and passengers, who appear to be in good spirits with plenty of supplies on board to keep them content during their icy internment.  Some of the scientific experiments that they set out to complete are ongoing while they wait for their would-be rescuers.  The silliness of this particular situation comes in two parts:

1. The silence of the 'Climate Change' crowd over the stranding of a scientific vessel in an expanding ice pack at a time when the 'Chicken Little' cry is over the melting of such packs and glaciers around the world. 

2. While you're contemplating these 'sounds of silence' on the Global Warming issue, consider further that the Antarctic continent is currently experiencing its SUMMER.


    

Sell Crazy Someplace Else

"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." 

- Jack Nicholson from "As Good As It Gets.

That's it ... 'nuff said.

OK, I guess that I can't leave it at that, as much as I'd like to.  But let's face it, that train (the crazy train) left the station a long time ago; and not only is it not coming back, but as Ian Anderson said in 'Locomotive Breath', "the train won't stop going, no way to slow down".  It would be nice however, if somebody would let you off for a rest once in a while, especially during what has already become another never-ending election season.  You see, during election season, every time someone dares to turn one of our sacred cows into steaks, the mental wards seem to let loose great streams of naysayers to speak to the Media.  Don't believe me, then let me cite some examples:

Rick Perry says that Social Security is a 'Ponzi Scheme' and everyone is up in arms.  How dare he attack one of the most important programs in the history of this nation!  Of course the fact that Social Security fits the definition of a Ponzi Scheme like a glove (and not the ones from the OJ Simpson trial) is irrelevant. The facts get thrown out the window because Social Security is in fact part of the fabric of American Society (and that fabric seems to be more than a little frayed these days).  After all Rick Perry must be a kook since he's a Republican from the same state as George Bush and that strange Ron Paul guy (who's not only also skeptical of this unsafe safety net, but tells the not-so-pretty truth about most of the rest of this country's economic problems).  Besides, the AARP and a lot of the early investors don't want hear the truth about Social Security for fear that they'll lose out on the money promised to them when they were forced by the government to join it.

Some candidates are saying that Global Warming is true, some are saying its not!  OK, even if we concede some validity to the prospect that the planet is getting warmer (for the sake of argument), do we therefore need to concede that the sole cause of it is Man?  Yes, I know that Man's technologies produce carbon dioxide, methane, and other 'Greenhouse Gases', and that Man could therefore be part of the cause.  On the other hand, there's a lot of other things on the planet that produce Greenhouse gases that could be contributing (like cows and pigs, and oh yeah ... volcanoes).  If the planet is in fact getting warmer though, couldn't it also have something to do with that big bright ball of fire that we see in the sky.  You know ... the Sun.  Let's face it, this planet has been getting warmer and colder since it was formed; and a lot of the same guys that are telling us that the Man is causing the planet to get warmer now were telling us that Man was causing the planet to get colder 40 years ago.  Which is it?  Or do we need to concede both sides of the equation to them so that there's justification for massive government regulation designed to save us (if it doesn't kill us first).  Besides, the guys trying to make the case can't get the weather right from day to day or year to year, let alone decade to decade or century to century; and seem to change theories far more often than they change their underwear.  (Sorry, that's not fair.  I have no idea how often they change their underwear.  Hey, maybe we can get some government funding to do a study and find out.)

Republican candidates are saying The 'Theory of Evolution' is right, no wait it's wrong.  No wait, it's a still theory, not proven fact.  New evidence is coming to the attention of scientists every day that cause this 'theory' to be modified; but that's what you're supposed to do with scientific theories.  You test them against the evidence and change them to fit the facts.  The 'Theory of Evolution' has itself evolved significantly since first proposed by Charles Darwin; and while he'd probably still recognize it, I'm not sure he could stake a claim to it any more.  As for the alternative proposal, that every form of plant and animal on the planet was created in seven days, I for one am just as skeptical.  The only proof seems to be a book that has been translated more times than 'Gone With the Wind' and probably become more garbled with each translation than Brent & Stuart Tarleton's speech when they tried to chat up Scarlett O'Hara at Tara.  Factor in that many of these translations were done at the behest of the government in power at the time or by a Hierarchical church bent on proving a point or controlling the peasants, and maybe we should all be more skeptical.  That doesn't make what was written wrong, but neither does it make the latest translation proven fact. 

The Democratic candidate seems to believe we can spend our way out of the current recession.  The discussion really heats up when talk begins about how to get us out of our financial doldrums.  In spite of crushing debt in this country, there seems to be a body of opinion that says that spending more money that we don't have is the answer.  Red or Blue, take your pick.  Both have managed to ignore easily provable facts of mathematics and contributed to the continuing disaster by endlessly debating their reliability for more years than I have been around.  Recently they seem to spend most of their time with their fingers in their ears singing "la la la la la" when you try to talk to them, until you want to slap them sillier than they already are.  The two sides of the argument often seem limited to the ones who say it's really not problem in the first place and those that believe we can fix it without spending less.  When someone does at long last stick their neck out far enough to concede the proven scientific principles of addition and subtraction are true, they cut it off, castigate the perpetrator as an apostate or a loon, and propose a fix that involves not reducing the spending, but reducing the rate at which spending increases.  You know, it's this kind of thinking that normally leads people to grand new chapters in their lives ... usually Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. 

Ahhhhhhhh!  Where did I leave my damned duct tape?

Of course this list of insanities could go on and on (hmm, sounds like an old Stephen Bishop tune), but doing so could be considered symptoms of obsessive / compulsive disorder (yep, back to the Nicholson reference); and I think you're starting to get the idea anyway. Besides it's almost time for one of the twice weekly therapy sessions I attend during election season (which means year round these days) in the misguided hope that it will help me to cope with the madness. Let me tell you though, for those of us really paying attention to what's going on in the country these days, we're already getting plenty of crazy.  Go sell yours someplace else.

 

It Will Be A Cold Day

As Winter continues to maintain its icy grip on the Midwest, it cannot help but bring back thoughts of my youth (you know, the last Ice Age). I remember my parents chiding me over the often capricious requests that I made of Santa Claus each Christmas, and the similarly ridiculous requests that I made at birthdays and on various weekends throughout my adolescence; all of which went equally unfulfilled. "It will be a cold day in Hell when that happens mister," was the reasoned response that I usually received from them to such unreasonable entreaties. Knowing that they had only my best interests at heart, I therefore reasoned that strange and probably unhealthy things would only happen to me when the temperature dropped in the netherworld. 


These thoughts now often come to mind as I consider the frigid temperatures in the early days of 2011 and the nature of the things that have gone on in this country recently, without any request from me. Government spending is out of control; but not to fear, the Republican Party has taken over control of the purse strings. Unfortunately the Republican Party that often claims to be fiscally conservative seems intent on proving it by cutting federal spending by amounts only visible through a microscope. 


Such paltry striving does not prevent Democrats from demonizing them however and obstructing even these insignificant efforts. Political rhetoric has been deemed never so pointless or rancorous as it is today (the latter a premise that I disproved in a previous post). Nevertheless Democrats, having complained about being kept silent during prior Republican majorities, refused to allow Republican voices to be heard when the tables were turned. Not content with being bad winners at the time, they added insult to injury by accusing their gagged opponents of having nothing to say but "no". Now the tables are once again turned (at least in one legislative House), and they now have little to say, except in the Senate where they seem to have nothing to say but "no". Republicans, having so recently suffered in stoic silence; took the reins in the House and proceeded to once more silence Democrats. (Proof that whatever comes around goes around, or that no idea in history is dumb enough that it does not repeat itself.) 


Never fear however, because the United States is the bastion of capitalism and the defender of the rule of law. Then Legislators forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back and demonized these institutions for getting into financial trouble by doing so. Soon after, the federal government in effect nationalized two major auto manufacturers in this country, ignoring both the Constitutional considerations of doing so and existing case law on bankruptcy for these corporations' debtors; while imposing its arbitrary will on all parties concerned. Having carefully considered its position, government ruled in favor of union pension funds over other legitimate debt holders and became partners with those unions in owning these companies. After saying it had no interest in running them, it then dismissed the president of one (GM) in favor of one more to its liking, decided on advertising policy and the scope of product line, and went on to purchase a number of cars from ... well, itself. 


At least we knew however, that Congress would not violate the sanctity of the founding documents and the principles of private business practices. Then it mandated who private insurance companies would provide health coverage for, what rate increases will be found acceptable for such coverage, and what doctors would be reimbursed by these companies for care. In doing so, they refused to consider whether such steps will allow either the doctors or insurance companies to make a profit or even survive as free market entities under these regulations. Most amazing of all, most stood by in mute ignorance as a government which wouldn't understand even the concept of truth if it bit them in the ass told us that they could insure 30 million more people under a government program without it costing taxpayers more money. 


The Executive branch of the federal government, not to be outdone by these shenanigans, decided that it could ignore the rulings of the Judiciary branch (with which it is supposed to be equal); at least as they pertain to implementing the aforementioned health care legislation or its executive orders and bureaucratic bans on off-shore drilling for petroleum products that this country now desperately needs.

With the ball back in their court and seeking a new level of the ridiculous, Congress passed legislation that allows the government to determine how many fund-raising bake sales can be held at public schools and what fat and sugar content of the items sold at them will be permitted. If all of this serendipity were not enough to signal the coming Apocalypse, the fourth branch of government (Bureaucracy), feeling left out the mix in exercising power that it was never intended to have under the Constitution, issued new dietary guidelines for those of us no longer in school, and made every cow fart and every breath we exhale into a toxic substance contributing to the planet's doom. The fact that such regulations support a theory coming increasingly under question was considered of no consequence in the process. (Though admittedly, expecting facts to be the basis for political decisions is probably a bit crazy anyway.) 


Speaking of crazy, I wouldn't mind getting a little sanity in the media in the days ahead. Though having some of the pundits and personalities curb their imaginations, reduce their volume, and eliminate their 'fire and brimstone' preaching would make it a less target rich environment; a little less doom and gloom might make some of the other madness more bearable. I also wouldn't mind having government stop trying to help me as much as they seem to want to lately. Quite frankly, I am coming to believe that their motives are suspect, their help is more than I can afford, and their giving it is more likely to do me harm than good. If it's all the same to those in Washington, I would like them to stop before they help me to death. 


In spite of this however, and the dire predictions for December 21, 2012 by the Mayans for the 'End of Days', I still remain unprepared to consider that my place of residence is becoming Hades. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I did once live in an Ohio town only one letter off from one of its other appellations (a little town called Gahanna), but that was long ago. 


I cannot further help but recognize while there is an amusing irony involved in the contemplation of Global Warming while staring at the low level of mercury in the thermometer, and I chuckle occasionally when thinking of the name of the NHL team currently passing the puck around in New Jersey, I refuse to take such things as a sign. 


Nevertheless, I cannot help but find myself occasionally amused over the long ago remonstrations of my parents and the frozen conditions we are enjoying. And while we have assurances from Puxatony Phil that spring is around the corner, I cannot help but think:

"It will be a cold day indeed ..."

Global Warming Likely To Take Another Hit

As if those touting the imminent dangers of global warming have not taken enough of a beating recently with the e-mail scandal and the revelation that many of the sensors used to gather information for study were improperly placed, the very planet now seems to be conspiring against them as well. 


The ash cloud from a volcanic activity which began on March 20th in Iceland, and as shown in recent NASA photos posted in Examiner.com has increased and is now wreaking havoc with visibility in the UK, canceling hundreds of flights there and across western Europe. These ash clouds, which spread quickly when they reach the upper atmosphere, are also known to reflect back a good bit of the sun's energy, causing cooling temperatures across the vast areas of the planet that they eventually cover. 


Have no fear however, there will undoubtedly be climate change scientists that will blame the Icelandic activity on the very global warming that will be reduced by its occurrence.

Global Warming: The Conspiracy Conspiracy

It appears that in spite of Al Gore telling us that the debate on man-caused global warming is over, that this is in fact far from the case. As the furor over recently released emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit shows (the definitive source of information on the subject), what we may know about the debate is that instead it has been being manipulated. 


As reported this week the the Wall Street Journal, it appears that there has been a systematic effort to suppress, refute, and repudiate any dissenting views other than that global warming is man-caused. When the scientists (and I use this term sarcastically) disagreed with an opinion not their own, they simply denied publishing access in prestigious publications to it. When the publication was not under their "peer-reviewed" control, they dismissed the publication itself. 


Having now had their nefarious goals and means revealed to the unwashed public, the claim is simply that the emails in question are being taken out of context or misunderstood. There is also a claim that the timing of the release of these emails, right before the Copenhagen Climate Conference scheduled for December 6-18, is more than suspicious. 


Even granting this to be the case however, none of the people in question are denying that the emails released are false or fabricated, or that they did not in fact say the things in these emails. 


For myself, I find it interesting this the most fascinating part of the story. A group which has been systematically acting as a Conspiracy to suppress any dissenting opinion and ridicule any dissent of its position is now crying "Conspiracy" when their own is revealed. Rather than actively defend what are apparently manufactured and predetermined results to the data gathered, they simply claim that the other guys isn't playing fair. I have never believed that the scientific debate on global warming is over, simply because I believe that the debate on no question of science can ever truly be over. We still debate Relativity, The Big Bang, and Evolution; in spite of the overwhelming evidence to some degree of truth in each. 


That is the job of science; to constantly question the established views, to debate the facts and their interpretations, and to reject any theory which does not explain all of the facts as we currently know them. Global Warming appears to be the scientific exception to the rule, with such debate squelched hardly before being uttered. 


In fact, I believe that there has been no such treatment of a scientific questioning since the Catholic Church's aggressive suppression of the growing body of knowledge of astronomy in the 1600's. (Though perhaps a Church of Global Warming was founded while I wasn't looking.) 


So how now do we view man-caused global warming? Is it fact? One can hardly say so when those who believe in it are forced to cook the data. Is it a failed theory? Perhaps, but there is much information yet to be revealed and who knows how real scientific debate will interpret them once they are. At the very least however, I think that we can safely say now that the debate is far from over, and that any action taken on the basis of the current "published understanding of the facts" may be premature. I think that we can also say that the current defense of the theory by the CRU is little more than a Conspiracy Conspiracy.

Why Couldn't Al Be Right?

I'm dreaming of a White Christmas ... oh wait, that's what I am looking out my window at. In fact, it appears that most of North America north of the Mason-Dixon line will be looking at it was well. 

From Seattle to Secaucus, there appears to be a blanket of white that has little chance of leaving us before the Holiday. This appears to be assured by the fact that the temperature in this geographic region will not get above 0 degrees Celsius through the end of the week. Don't get me wrong, I find nothing wrong with winter. I love it however the same way a love my relations, something to be taken in small doses (I am sure that any of them reading this now feels much the same). 

Perhaps it is simply the cowardice that comes from the two years that I lived in Georgia. Winter was a much kinder, gentler thing there than it is here in beautiful Toledo. Cold was something that usually went away by noon, and ice was something that you put in a drink because it was relatively warm outside. Perhaps that it is because I'm tired of driving my skateboard of a car on roads better suited to a hockey game. Perhaps it is simply that I am getting older and less tolerant of the cold (and pretty much everything else, but that's another story). 

I find myself however, in the curious position of wondering why those dire predictions of global warming do not seem to have come to pass. Why couldn't we ignore the scientific evidence of sunspot activity pointing towards a global cooling? Why can't we ignore the growing number of scientists who are beginning to question the "irrefutable evidence" of a climate that's warming? Why couldn't we just ignore the global temperature statistics that tell us that the planet is getting cooler? 

Now for those of you who know me, this next is maybe the hardest thing that I have ever asked. Having to give credit or credence to the "inventor or the internet", our former vice-president of the United States is difficult for me. Having to give any credibility to a Nobel Prize winning empty suit is almost more than I can stomach, but here it goes:

Why couldn't Al Gore be right about global warming?

OK, I said it and I won't apologize. Sorry, but I'm freezing my butt off here and I will grasp at any straw to warm up a little. Now if you'll excuse me, I think that I am going to be unwell ... 

Global Warming - It "Could" Happen

I was struck recently by the release of a scientific report that said that one of the effects of Global Warming "could" be a decrease in the number of hurricanes that hit the US. The reason that this information had such a profound effect on me was not that it might mean getting some good out of the doom and gloom preaching on global warming. It was instead curiosity, since Al Gore had told us in "An Inconvenient Truth" that global warming would increase the number and severity of hurricanes. It made me wonder how both could be true. After pondering this poser for some time, I realized that both statements only talked about what "could" happen and not the realities of what will happen in the future.
WOW!
In a moment of sanity and clarity (which seem to come about as often as the recent February 29th), I realized that if this were the case, then anyone can comment on the possibilities and anything is possible. With that in mind, I take up my trusty keyboard, place tongue firmly in cheek, and attempt to do so for the enlightenment and amusement of those who read this.
- If Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS would take off all of the talking head segments on their shows (especially during election years) that try to interpret the news instead of just reporting it, the resultant reduction of carbon dioxide "could" begin to reverse the effects of global warming and save the planet. (As a side benefit, there would also be a savings to landfills passed on through a reduced use of duct tape to keep our heads from exploding.)

- If the Federal government mandated the use of anti-gas tablets for all US residents, the resultant decrease in methane emissions "could" seriously reduce our carbon footprint.
(You will please note that I said residents and not citizens. Without attempting to appear racist or get into side issue, some ethnic foods produce more gas than others. White Castles, unfortunately for me, would simply have to be banned as a bio-health hazard.)

- If Congress would limit the length of floor speeches to 90 seconds (which is after all considered long enough for the answer to a question in a political debate), global warming in the US "could" be reduced significantly from a simple lowering in hot air production.
- If Al Gore and Michael Moore would make only one copy of the movies that they produce and just show them over and over again, we "could" significantly reduce the oil used in film, video tape, and plastic DVD disc production. (Better still, they could either recycle their movies before showing them, or simply not make them in the first place.)

- If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie would adopt children in this country instead of flying half-way across the world to find their latest offspring, the resulting reduction in greenhouse gases "could" reduce the number and severity of typhoons in the Far East.

- If grocery stores would go back to the use of paper bags instead of the plastic, it "could" have a significant impact on the environment. Not only is paper a more renewable material than plastic, since it uses trees and not oil; but the process might encourage the planting of trees, one of the planets natural filters. Such new timber stands in the US "could" make the US self-sustaining in grocery bag production and might also help the planet recover from the the increases in carbon dioxide production and the decimation of the Amazon rain forest.

- If everyone would just drink tap beer, the world "could" significantly reduce the energy costs and environmental damage done by the manufacture and use of bottles and cans that would be otherwise used. (Personally, I suggest Guinness; but I'm just saying...)

- If everyone on the planet would just become Amish and go back to horse-drawn carriages, then the effect of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases "could" be reversed (in about a thousand years). Besides, I really like the hats.

Climate Change & Bali

Well the final word has been spoken on Global Warming at the Climate Change Conference 2007. This has been done because Nobel Laureate, inventor of the Internet, and the self-appointed John the Baptist (feel free to substitute Chicken Little here) of Global Warming has pronounced that, "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here.." as quoted in an article in Time http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1694259,00.html?imw=Y  

Boy, I hopes he's right. I won't go into the debate on global warming again, I've already voiced my opinion on the subject http://justblowingsmoke.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming.html so I won't try to bore you with repetition (though one should never be afraid of pointing out the facts any time the opportunity presents itself). 

Here's the problem that I have today... Why Bali? I know that there are people terribly concerned about global warming. I know that people concerned for worthy causes need to gather, exchange information, and come up with plans to work toward solutions. But don't they think that we would take them more seriously if they weren't basking in clear blue skies, swimming in crystal clear waters, and working on their tans on the island of Bali in the dead of winter? 

Wouldn't their protestations gain more respect and better press if they were, oh hanging around a power plant in China which was spewing dark smoke into the air, coughing up their lungs in the haze of Mexico City, or even choking on the smog in LA? Wouldn't pictures of them standing outside with the very places where the greenhouse gases that they are concerned about are visible in the background send their message more effectively? 

While I'm at it, I might as well ask what the carbon footprint of all of these people flying half way around the world to an island that probably doesn't have much of one is? Or should I ask how many of them flew down on private planes instead of going commercially? I guess that I am just confused as to why government officials, bureaucrats, and celebrity hanger's on feel the need to hold their gatherings at places that none of the rest of us can afford to go to, and probably at someone else's (taxpayers) expense. 

Actually, I know why they do it ... cause it's good to go to a tropical paradise in winter. I just wonder why the rest of us accept that such meeting should be held in exotic and no doubt expensive locations. I get confused with what tropical islands might have to do with global warming anyway. After all, its already warm there, and has been for a long, long, time. Perhaps such things are simply beyond me. After all I am not, have not, nor ever expect to be part of a government delegation to anything (unless I get a spot on the group being sent for the next worldwide Village Idiot's Convention). 

I also read in this same article that Sen. John Kerry, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and dozens of officials from California were in attendance as well (Arnold wanted to go, but has a pesky little budget problem in California). Since none of these people is part of the official US delegation, one has to ask why it was necessary for any of these to attend. The answer, of course, is as obvious as the picture in the Time article where Mr. Gore is pointing his finger at the audience. (Did anyone else notice that this finger pointing thing seems to be a habit of members of this former administration? Is there a message here, or is this simply the equivalent of Pinocchio's nose?) I guess that these guys know a good vacation spot too. They also know where the press is going to be and where to be seen and photographed as "people who care". 

As always, it is more important to be someone who cares than someone who accomplishes something. And while the mayor of NY is basking on a tropical island, who is running his city or trying to reduce the pollution that the buses, cars, and cabs in NY are putting out? While John Kerry is seeing and being seen, who is casting his vote on important legislation in the Senate?  

OK, OK. I know that this is probably nothing more than another feel good conference that will accomplish nothing for the goals for which it was intended. After vasts amounts of money and time were spent, the Kyoto Accords were produced, but most of the countries who signed them did not meet the very goals that they agreed to. That's because governments don't accomplish things, people do. 

People created the power generation systems and the internal combustion engine that seem to be at the heart of this problem (real or imagined) and people will come up with any of the solutions to begin to resolve it. Governments are only good for getting in the way of solutions and diverting our attention from the money and the freedom that they are stealing from us. I guess that such feats of legerdemain require an exotic stage for the performance, and in Bali they succeeded.  

Just a side note, but I am still angling for one of the Village Idiot Convention spots. I hear that they are going to someplace warm, Death Valley. 

Global Warming - Local Indoctrination

By now, many of you have probably heard the story from Holloway Elementary School in Holland about the presentation made on global warming Greenpeace stirs up controversy at local school : News : NBC24 . My own opinions on the subject are well documented, having been covered in a previous posting "Global Warming", dated 9/15/07, so I won't repeat them. I have to say though that if I were a resident of Holland, and especially if I had a child in Holloway, that I would be outraged. How I would react if that child were in the class lectured simply scares me. Now I know that we are not supposed to question Global Warming, or the motives of those trying to educate us. I am however, outraged here about a couple of things:

1. That tax dollars would used to provide a forum for liberal indoctrination on any subject. I am especially concerned that this would be done to those at such an impressionable age.
2. That facts currently in debate on the potential impact of Global Warming on polar bears should be used to scare children into accepting the opinion of the presenter.
3. That fourth grade students would be asked to copy a letter to Rep. Marcy Kaptur word for word on the subject of the "Safe Climate Act", just another meaningless law to make us feel better about ourselves.
4. That the principal agreed that the students in question were not doing these letters voluntarily, but were instead doing what they had been told to do and that this was "part of the learning experience". (By the way, what kind of learning experience are we talking about here?)
5. That the school brought in not a professor or teacher; but a student and a representative of Greenpeace, an organization that has often been categorized as an "eco-terrorist group".
6. That no opposing point of view was brought in for discussion and the principal laughed at the idea of doing so.
7. That the superintendant of the district said that an opposing point of view might be brought in, if one could be found that was "credible". Are we talking truly credible, or simply as credible as Greenpeace?

I can only hope that the report on this presentation stirs some additional debate. I would also be interested in hearing what the local Board of Education has to say on the subject and that Channel 24 takes the opportunity to follow up with a response from them.

Global Warming

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I have repeated this phrase from Chicken Little before, but it appears to be more true each time that I do. According to environmentalists, people who are considered to be reputable scientists, and a former vice-president; the world is on the brink of imminent doom due to the human impact on the effects of global warming. 

Now don't get me wrong, I am willing to concede that the world is getting warmer (after all, I have had my air conditioner on for the last couple of weeks straight), but I question whether we are on the brink global disaster. I further question whether human beings are the harbingers of doom in this situation. After all, environmentalist are usually whack jobs, half of the scientists in school graduate in the bottom half of their class, and if history has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that intelligence has never been a requirement for the office of vice-president of the United States.  

So what about this global warming thing then? Well I, like most of the people voicing their opinions on the subject, am not qualified to put forth anything more than mine (We all know about opinions, they are like butts. Everyone has one and most of them stink.) So rather than burden you with my interpretation of the evidence, I will take this discussion in a slightly different direction (like you couldn't see that coming).

• Why should I believe the experts in the environment and the climate, when they can't predict the weather three days from now, let alone three decades or three hundred years from now?
• Hasn't the climate of the planet changed periodically even before Man was able to exert any noticeable effect on climate? (Do the words Ice Age mean anything to anyone?)
• Aren't a lot of the "greenhouse gases" that seem to be tagged for global warming generated by things like volcanoes and cattle farting?
• Didn't most of these same people predict a global ice age just a few years back?
• Even if they are right, would putting Florida and parts of California under water be such a bad thing?

Like most Chicken Little situations where someone is expecting me to take their word as fact and that we are therefore in a state of crisis, this one seems designed to tell me two things:

1. That I am responsible for the problem, should really feel guilty about the way that I and my fellow man have treated the environment, and need to do something to fix it immediately.
2. That fixing the problem is going to be a long and complicated process which will require a great deal of sacrifice and an equally large cost, both apparently mine.

Well I don't know about you people, but I have a list of things that I feel guilty about that's longer that's I am willing to discuss in this or any other venue. If the environment is an item that I need to add to that list however, I may be willing to comply; but not on the strength of what I have heard so far. I am especially resistant to doing so knowing that Al Gore has already admitted to "stretching the truth" in the name of a higher good in what purported to be a documentary while flying around the world in a G4 lecturing on the evils of fossil fuels. Perhaps if there such a thing as Global Warming occurring, it is the heating of the planet by all of the hot air being generated by liberal politicians and activists. Not being one who wants anyone to believe something just because I say so, I will leave you with the words of two noted writers (also of fiction):

• Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton
• Ninety percent of everything is crap. - Theodore Sturgeon