A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Friday, August 04, 2006

Today's Must Reads

Today’s Must Reads

By Special Libertarian Librarian Correspondent John Heeder

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=

The Brink of Madness

A familiar place.

By Victor Davis Hanson

“When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism…”


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.html

A Bit of History for Global Warmers: Look at 1930

By Randy Hall

“People sweltering from a heat wave in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. might find cold comfort in the fact that the temperatures of the past few days are not the hottest on record. That "honor" belongs to a summer 76 years ago -- decades before the controversy over "man-made global warming" began.”
Comments:
Hanson stated:

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

When I read that, I thought back to some of my responses to Nick's "On Appeasement" post. I added many responses to that post following the Seattle shootings, primarily due to Nick's assertion that There can be no negotiation with those without honor or compunction. You cannot appease terrorists. You can only root them out and crush them., and my belief that, while Nick's assertion is great in theory, the West currently lacks the stomach to actually crush our enemies.

When I read Seattle Police Chief Kerlikowske's statement that, "We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," I had to add the following:

Great. Let's protect the mosques as well, just in case Joe Sixpack goes after them.

Hey! Where is that kind of concern for the rest of us, just in case Haji comes after us? Oh, that's right; if we look for Haji before he kills, that is called profiling. To hell with us. Haji has rights, you know.


The West is in for a lot more pain. As long as we place each act of terror in a vacuum, considering the person or people responsible as just lone actors with no connection to a larger ideology, then we will facilitate the ability of the terrorists to act in small, independent cells.

It's just easier for most Americans to write off a shooter in Seattle, or the hit-and-run driver of an SUV in North Carolina, as nothing more than an unstable criminal. If an incident is the act of an unstable individual, and not an act of terrorism, then that unstable person can be arrested, tried, and locked-up or treated. There is a sense of resolution to that, it plays better within our way of viewing the world, and it allows us to remain the civilized people who maintain the moral high ground. Most Westerners need to view these small terror attacks (or the terror cells that are captured before carrying out a larger attack) in this manner because the other option would be to recognize those attackers, by their words and deeds, as followers of an ideology that is bent on destroying our way of life.

And therein lies the problem we face: If we recognize each of these attacks, in America and worldwide, as part of a larger ideology that is bent on attacking and destroying Western society, then we would either need to fight back against that ideology and its adherents in self-defense, or we would need to passively accept those attacks. Right now we seem to do much more of that latter, justifying such passivity by "not becoming what our enemy is," "not making judgments on the cultures of others," or other such statements that help to explain away our decision not to protect others within our society from a violent and deadly threat.

Until the West really is ready to crush our enemies without condemning ourselves for doing so, then the terrorists will be emboldened to plan and carry out more attacks, hoping that one of those attacks is big enough to make us give up any current and future resistance in the hope of living in peace, even if the price for that peace is giving up our way of life and submitting to theirs.
 
Mojo wrote:

“The West is in for a lot more pain. As long as we place each act of terror in a vacuum, considering the person or people responsible as just lone actors with no connection to a larger ideology, then we will facilitate the ability of the terrorists to act in small, independent cells…”

That is one of the best encapsulations of the Islamic problem yet. The media, at least, does just that; puts every terror incident in its own little bag and then files it away. They never connect the dots; few of them draw the bit picture.

Political correctness is literally going to get us killed. It already did get some 3,000 of us killed on 911.
 
Official National Weather Service observing sites provide data for hourly temperature readings, including the hourly average temperature, high temperature, and low temperature. These observing sites are usually at airports.

There are two important points to take into consideration in regards to these official observing sites. The first is that the area around many of these airports has built-up significantly over the years, providing more heat generating (vehicles, air conditioners, etc.) and heat retaining (brick, concrete, etc.) materials in the vicinity. This urban heat island effect helps to give a higher average recorded temperature at the official observation sites.

The second point to consider is that equipment for recording those temperatures has greatly improved over the years. Mercury and spring thermometers, which have been replaced by digital thermometers at most official observation sites, took longer to record a change in temperature than their digital counterparts. Due to this improvement in recording equipment, temperature spikes that would not have been picked-up by the old equipment are now registered by the new equipment, helping to give readings of higher high temperatures and lower low temperatures, regardless of the duration of those temperatures.

Besides the effects of the urban heat island and improved technology on official recorded temperatures, there are many other aspects that haven't been fully researched in regards to global warming. Many of the climate models rely on assumptions from data extrapolated from ice cores, tree rings, and other similar methods used to create a historical temperature record; the varied assumptions are a primary reason for the large discrepancies in the results from different climate models, even if they are using the same data. The accuracy of climate models is also in question due to the fact that the models cannot currently predict solar and volcanic activity. This is especially important in attempts to predict regional or global temperature trends since recent discoveries show that sun spot activity is related to global temperatures, and nearly 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of volcanic origin.

It's been seventy-six years now since the summer of 1930 and, even with all of our improvements, we have yet to record a hotter summer. While there have been great strides in climatology research, many of the global warming theories have failed to do much more than to show correlation as opposed to causation, all of which leads one to conclude that global warming is an unproven theory which needs reproducible results and much more other proof before it can be taken as scientific fact.
 
While there have been great strides in climatology research, many of the global warming theories have failed to do much more than to show correlation as opposed to causation, all of which leads one to conclude that global warming is an unproven theory which needs reproducible results and much more other proof before it can be taken as scientific fact.

Ummm....no.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/super-computers-make-global-warming/20060804230209990009?cid=2194

http://climatecrisis.org/

I know it is fun for you folks to disregard An Inconvenient Truth because it came from that eee-vil Al Gore, but the reality is that the science does indicate causality.

You are correct that generally, correlation does not prove causality. However, when multiple correlations keep pointing to the same cause, it becomes more and more likely that there actually is a causal connection.

And this is the state that environmental science is in. Do they have all the answers, and has the entire mechanism been identified? Shit no. That's never been claimed. And it would be pointless to wait that long. You certainly didn't want to wait for anything approaching the level of supporting evidence when the issue was invading Iraq; at least be consistent in your requests for supporting evidence.

The reality is that out of thousands of peer reviewed articles and studies, NOT ONE contradicts that global warming is happening, and that humankind has a significant part in it.

Look, I know that Rush et al keep telling you, but the reality is that NOBODY is trying to take away your SUVs. If that's what you need to be happy, whatev. But this tactic of continually sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is getting tiresome, and isn't doing anybody any good.
 
I know it is fun for you folks to disregard An Inconvenient Truth because it came from that eee-vil Al Gore, but the reality is that the science does indicate causality.

One of the big sources for Al Gore's theories is Dr. Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" graph. Dr. Mann's methodology has been challenged in peer-reviewed journals. At this point, Dr. Mann has withdrawn some of his finding due to those challenges, and more questions regarding the "hockey-stick" temperature studies occurred last month at hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.


The reality is that out of thousands of peer reviewed articles and studies, NOT ONE contradicts that global warming is happening, and that humankind has a significant part in it.

From New Study Points to an Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming:

"The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean all projections of future climate change are unreliable at best," said David Legates, author of the study and the director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research. "Science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures, nor claims of human influence on weather events or extinctions."

Many respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals disagree with global warming theories, such as:

Australia
Dr. Bob Carter - James Cook University

Canada
Dr. Tim Peterson - Carleton University
Dr. Ross McKitrick - University of Guelph
Dr. Christopher Essex - University of Western Ontario
Dr. Tim Ball - University of Winnipeg

Finland
Dr. Boris Winterhalter - University of Helsinki

Sweden
Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn - Stockholm University

United Kingdom
Dr. Dick Morgan - University of Exeter

United States
Dr. Robert Balling - Arizona State University
Dr. Randall Cerveny - Arizona State University
Dr. Eric Posmentier - Dartmouth College
Dr. Willie Soon - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Henry Linden - IIT
Dr. Richard Lindzen - MIT
Dr. Christopher Landsea - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Dr. John Christy - University of Alabama
Dr. Roy Spencer - University of Alabama
Dr. David Legates - University of Delaware (quoted above)
Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld - University of Colorado
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. - University of Colorado
Dr. Robert Davis - University of Virginia
Dr. Patrick Michaels - University of Virginia


Look, I know that Rush et al keep telling you, but the reality is that NOBODY is trying to take away your SUVs. If that's what you need to be happy, whatev. But this tactic of continually sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is getting tiresome, and isn't doing anybody any good.

I work during the day, and am unable to listen to Rush Limbaugh and most other talk-radio hosts. I don't think that anyone is trying to take away my SUV (not that I have one), an I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears to avoid listening to a variety of views on the topic. Instead, I read what is available on the topic from respected sources such as the twenty-two Doctors that I listed above; and since they tend to disreagard authorities such as Al Gore, so do I.


Do they have all the answers, and has the entire mechanism been identified? Shit no. That's never been claimed. And it would be pointless to wait that long. You certainly didn't want to wait for anything approaching the level of supporting evidence when the issue was invading Iraq; at least be consistent in your requests for supporting evidence.

There is a big difference between scientific evidence that can be replicated in repeated experiments, and the best available intelligence. That's an apples and oranges comparison.
 
One of the big sources for Al Gore's theories is Dr. Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" graph. Dr. Mann's methodology has been challenged in peer-reviewed journals. At this point, Dr. Mann has withdrawn some of his finding due to those challenges, and more questions regarding the "hockey-stick" temperature studies occurred last month at hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Umm, not really. First of all, the movie does not reflect Al Gore's theories, but are a summary of the state of current understanding of the situation. He is not proposing a theory, but presenting the work of thousands of climatologists.

The graph in the movie used to show the escalation was not, in fact, Dr. Mann's hockey stick, but raterh a more generic presentation of the data. The graphic that comes the closest to the 'hockey stick' profile was actually based on the work of Dr. Lonnie Thompson, and demonstrates how closely CO2 concnetrations over time correlate to global temperatures- and it shows the precipitous increas in CO2 over the last 50 years.

There is a big difference between scientific evidence that can be replicated in repeated experiments, and the best available intelligence.

kind of exactly the point of the first cite I put in my first comment. The computers they are working with not only support global warming as real, they validate the predictions being made twenty years ago.

You can't really experiment on the globe. Kind of big to put into a test tube, you know? So as a scinece, my understanding is that climatology has to look at the available data, extrapolate from that using several models, and see which ones bear out over time. Which is what they've been doing, and which (to repeat myself) forms the basis for Mr. Gore's movie.

Many respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals disagree with global warming theories...

I'm thinking you got these names mainly from the report issued by the Heartland Institute.

Looking at several of these guys (haven't looked 'em all up, like you, I've got a life and limited time) but at least several of them are indeed respected scientists, and I don't doubt their work is published in peer-reviewed journals; but it looks like their disciplines may not, in fact, actually be climatology. Take it or leave it.

But the Heartland Institute is a right wing think tank funded by ExxonMobil, Philip Johnson, and of course the Scaifes and Bradley foundations. It was originally created to provide pseudo scientific cover for the cigarette companies against the mounting evidence of causal connections to cancer, and looks to me like it has expanded to provide ideological support for the oil companies in environmental and energy issues. In any case, I don't think the article that forms the basis of their argument was subjected to authentic peer review. At the very least, it casts the report on a poor light, and opens the door to accusations of tainted science.
 
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are roughly 97% of volcanic origin. Surface temperatures are greatly influenced by solar activity. Neither of those are able to be predicted by current models (see the work of Dr. Tim Bell). It doesn't matter how big your computer is; the same model running on an old computer versus a state-of-the-art computer will still produce the same inacurate results.

Doesn't matter what facts are presented, though, TC. After all, you have a life, so you can't be bothered to look up any facts other that those presented by Al Gore and those thousands of uncontested peer-reviewed papers that you noted, but failed to cite. Besides, your point was probably just subtler.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?