Global Warming Science



http://faculty.unlv.edu/ganqing/Graduate-2008/Kump-2000-Annual%20Review-co2-isotopespdf.pdf

Please click the links. You must at least casually review these articles to understand what I am talking about.

What is the science or lack thereof behind “Global Warming”? It may surprise some people that the earth’s climate is a very complicated thing. Carbon dioxide can intercept infrared radiation at a wavelength of about 15 microns and heat up. When the earth heats up, it can release carbon dioxide. Which came first the chicken or the egg? The plain and simple fact is nobody knows. There is much more water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere; and, water vapor absorbs infrared radiation at a much broader band width than carbon dioxide. It is universally believed that water vapor accounts for the overwhelming bulk of the so-called green-house effect. Water vapor also turns into clouds. Sometimes incoming cosmic radiation can effect the formation of clouds. Clouds cool the earth significantly. Convection also cools the earth significantly. The effect of clouds and convection would completely overwhelm the effect of radiance in the troposphere. The classic view of climate change puts ocean currents and the position of continents in the driver’s seat. Volcanoes emit both co2 which supposedly warms the earth and sulfur which cools the earth. Forrest fires emit both soot which cools the earth and enormous amounts of co2 which supposedly warms the earth. Soot can also darken snow causing the snow to absorb more visible light. Weathering of minerals also changes the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Weathering of kerogen or carbonates can add co2. Much of the earth’s historic co2 has been sequestered in carbonates by living organisms. Weathering of silicates absorbs co2 and most of the earth’s surface is covered by silicates. The mechanics of earth’s movement through space (Milankovitch cycles) also exert a significant effect on climate. Solar activity has a significant effect on climate; but, not the way you might think. It seems the solar wind associated with sun-spots is a barrier to cosmic rays. You can find an abundance of articles on the web connecting sun-spots with climate including the observations of Edward Walter Maunder eighty years before this climate debate began. Living things have a significant effect on the earth’s climate too. Animals produce co2. Plants absorb co2 and also cool by vaporization. As if all this was not complicated enough, I can personally guaranty you that what we don’t know about the earth’s climate vastly exceeds what we do know! Yet it seems that the proponents of anthropogenic global warming have it all down to a computer model. I can only conclude that they must have the chips from the first “Terminator”.

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

By necessity, computer models are almost always cartoonish oversimplifications of reality. Both the code and the amount of processing time increase incredibly fast as one tries to make more realistic approximations of reality. Often these simplifications come surprisingly close to real world effects. Sometimes, they don’t. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi claims that the black body equations used by many so called climatologists are a gross over simplification of how radiative equilibrium works on a real planet. Dr. Miskolczi’s article published in Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40, which can be downloaded from: http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf. In defense of Dr. Miskoliczi’s article, many scientists believe that even though the partial pressure of co2 is equal to the air pressure outside the international space station, that the co2 in earths atmosphere completely extinguishes infrared radiation in it’s main absorption band of 15 microns in a few hundred meters. Carbon dioxide is like India ink to infrared radiation at a wavelength of 15 microns. The earth’s ability to maintain a relatively stable temperature is well known to earth scientists. So mystifying is the earth’s ability to maintain a relatively steady temperature that it has been given the whimsical misnomer “Gaia Hypothesis”. In fact no one really believes that the earth is alive or is being watched over by some Greek goddess and no one had any hypothesis to explain this fact until Dr. Miskoliczi published his article. Skeptical Science claims that extinction of co2 absorption spectra is irrelevant because of convection yet the cooling effects of convection are not taken into account nor any data set cited. Go ahead click their links. The sad fact is that we seem stuck like a broken record on these radiative transfer models. A doctor thinks he cures what you have and a specialist thinks you have what he cures. Dr. James Hansen specialized in radiative transfer models; but was never able to explain how greenhouse gasses could cause a planet to spin the wrong way. Many people think that Venus is hot because of its atmospheric pressure. In the troposphere radiative transfer is much less significant than heat conduction or convection. Conduction and convection is what your local weatherman looks at. This co2 based global warming thing is really based on a series of cascading positive feedbacks. Warmer air would contain more water vapor. The water vapor would multiply the co2 effect. Their collective effect would melt the tundra which would release methane, another greenhouse gas. These cascading effects would be triggered by the global temperatures rising above a “tipping point” beyond which the earth would be sent into an uncontrollable runaway greenhouse effect. It sounds logical; but it simply does not happen.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered

As I said, the earth has hot times and cold times; but always seems to bounce back to its “natural temperature range”. Currently we are at the cold end of that range. This is in fact an “ice age”. We just happen to be living during a short lived glacial retreat known as an “interglacial period”. Four of the previous interglacial periods were warmer and had more co2 than the current one. In fact for most of the past half billion years the earth has been warmer and had much more co2 in its atmosphere than now. Temperatures would have to go up 3-4 degrees Celsius and there would have to be three times as much co2 in the air just to get near normal. The earth is currently very deficient in co2. Even looking back just a thousand years it seems the climate was much warmer. A thousand years ago the North Atlantic was much warmer than it is now (medieval warm period MWP). Six hundred years ago the North Atlantic got very cold (the little ice age). In the 1800’s the North Atlantic began to warm up again. We don’t have rigorous temperature readings from these times; but, we have other proxies. Proxies are not all created equal. In school I found physics and math quite easy; but, geology was always a curve ball. Geology is all about evaluating proxies and the proxies don’t always point in the same direction. Tree rings can tell you if one year was better than another year; but, you can’t ferret out a tenth of a degree difference the way Dr. Michael Mann was trying to do. If you come across a frozen Viking farm; then you know that the climate had to be mild enough for whatever agriculture they were doing. Based on these proxies and the literature of the time; I can not see a thing remarkable about our temperature trend from 1800 to the present! Claims by the proponents of AGW that the Vikings were part of a vast right wing conspiracy have not been substantiated. There is nothing unusual about the current warming trend, even if you include a litany of exaggerated temperature readings.

“Also I cannot believe that there is not a concerted protest at the secrecy that surrounds this statistical composite from Phil Jones. You’d think that figures as widely quoted as this should be public (in the same way the satellite record is), but you’d be wrong.”
-Steve McIntyre: http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/26/hadcru-temperature/

It’s not just a matter of data being available in some generic form. There is tones and tones of data out there. Which data set goes with which paper? Is the data available? Even today they don’t make it easy. Remember; it’s your tax dollars that are paying for all this data. As these figures become available to the public more and more “errors” are being found. Failures in NOAA satellites went unchecked and the NOAA tries to doge FOI requests. Steve McIntyre discovered the Y2K bug in GISS data. A few months later they found more slipshod work from the house of Hansen. Data from Russian stations was cherry picked. This is particularly important because Siberia is one of the few places in the northern hemisphere where you can get rigorous data from pristine environments. An unexplained bias is added to New Zealand data and a smoking gun is found at Darwin Zero. Once the GISS data was fixed and the Darwin Zero data was un-homogenized the both indicated that the hottest year was in the 1930’s. This is significant because the proponents of AGW often claim that the medieval warm period was regional; not global. They also claim that the lack of data in the Southern Hemisphere proves this. Only for AGW does a lack of data prove anything. Furthermore it’s not up to Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre to disprove the AGW theory. It’s up to the proponents of AGW to prove their theory and they have not come close to that. The vitriol aimed at Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre is incomprehensible. Scrutinizing the integrity of the data is the first order of the day in any scientific endeavor. It is the difference between science and religion. Is the data driving the theory or is the theory driving the data?

Is it possible the sun has something to do with the climate? The AGW proponents say no. They claim that the suns brightness has not changed much in fifty years. Fifty years ago the northern hemisphere was well into its warming trend. The proponents of global warming have never produced the satellite records from four-hundred years ago, before the warming began. Furthermore the theory that it’s the sun has to do with sunspots. There is in fact a very good correlation with sunspots. When there are a lot of sun spots the suns atmosphere is very active. When the sun is active it injects more plasma into the solar wind which acts as a solar atmosphere stopping cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are thought to stimulate cloud formation which has a significant influence on the earth’s climate. That theory might not explain the global warming on Mars and Jupiter; but, something is happening that has nothing to do with people.

Proponents of AGW claim that carbon isotope analysis proves that humans have caused a 33% increase in atmospheric co2. Humans produce only 4% of the worlds co2. How can humans be responsible for a 33% increase in co2? It simply is not possible! That would be a total violation of both chemical and biological laws of equilibrium. In fact there is only a fractional difference δ13c and δ12c in the biosphere due to photosynthesis. Plants seem to have a slightly higher amount δ13co2. The co2 in the air seems to be lower in δ13co2 than you would expect from burning plants. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks peaks in sea surface temperatures might have caused the difference. In his post in WUWT Dr. Spencer compares:

The monthly C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa (1990-2005) are available here:  ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2c13/flask/month/mlo_01D0_mm.co2c13
The monthly Mauna Loa CO2 data (1958-2007) are contained in the 5th file listed here:  ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/

I find the claim that we know exactly how much co2 volcanoes produce to be questionable. Most of the worlds volcanoes are under water and very difficult to explore. Furthermore magma that encounters limestone would release huge amounts of co2. Marble comes from mixing limestone with magma. Simply examining a few volcanoes tells you nothing. The amount of co2 produced could vary greatly depending on what kind of rock the magma encountered. I know of no large scale census of volcanoes. In my last post I mentioned how a disproportionate number of most cited papers in the geosciences seem to deal with climate science, at least for American geologists. Where’s the “shake and bake”; that’s what gets people interested in geology in the first place.

“There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.”
-Dr. Roy Spencer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/spencer-the-inquisition/

The idea that these AGW scientists just got together and in twenty years they got the Earths climate all figured out is the most ludicrous claim I’ve ever heard. If these people are really that good then they should develop fusion power and make the whole debate academic. In fact there is little historic data to go on and use of proxies is not well understood by theoretical physicists. I haven’t even gone into ocean currents, only three of which are generally discussed. Biology would be a whole new chapter in the discussion by itself. Co2 is one factor of many. In the future other factors influencing the climate will probably be discovered. Take another look at what this much maligned man said: Balling
 
One of the things I like about Anthony Watts blog, WUWT, is how enlightened the comments are. In one post, Searching the PaleoClimate, the third comment states:

“The analysis of Royer et al. (2004) assumes an unrealistically high pH correction. First, it neglects the ice-volume effect, which changes the relation between δ18O and T. Second, this large pH correction implies high temperatures for seawater even during times of extensive glaciations. Moreover, the analysis of Royer et al. (2004) consists of bootstrapping, by introducing a correction to T that is an implicit function of RCO2. It is then not surprising that a correlation between T and RCO2 is obtained. This would be the case irrespective of the RCO2 model utilized.”
Referring to: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RoyerReply.pdf

Many of these peer reviewed articles, promoting the theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” have professional looking citations. There are thousands of articles by somebody et al. It is humanly impossible to begin to cover a fraction of them. Every time I’ve chased these musical “et al.s“; I find somebody et al. cited somebody else et al. who cited somebody who made an assumption about something they could not possibly know and had no physical reason as to why it should be so. (i.e. 100 year half life for co2 persistence in the atmosphere)

Personally I’m extremely skeptical of the theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW); but, that’s not really the point I’m trying to make here. The point is that things are allot more complicated than you’ve been told. The theory of AGW is not close to being proved and we are not close to understanding the earths climate.

Climate Change Politics

I have never challenged the idea that human emissions of co2 might have some effect on global temperatures. My problem was that the earth had been much warmer and had much more co2 for the past 500 million years. Why then, conveniently after the Arab Oil Embargo, suddenly a few parts per million co2 pose a threat to humanity? Even doubling the quantity of co2 would not get us near normal for this planet.

As I began to look deeper into this “Global Warming” controversy; I became astounded by a level of fraud no tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist could dream up in a thousand years! For one thing; I don’t remember CNN mentioning anything about Climategate E-Mails. Surely if these people were interested in some answers then the best place to start would be the geological record.

“I observed that there was anguishingly little effort to apply the climate prediction models to past climate changes… some effort could have been put into comparing the model-predicted effects with those of high CO2 atmospheric concentrations from the geological record. This is an obvious check and no one was eager to do it. This is a clear warning sign…”

http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/03/charles-r-anderson-phd-climate-denier.html

In fact it is for this reason that many geologists are very skeptical of Global Warming. I don’t think the global warming crowd like geologists very much. The claim of consensus is in fact greatly exaggerated. Geologists are not real climate scientists! Note that few of these “climatologists” actually have a baccalaureate in climatology. Most climatologists are displaced physicists and mathematicians. Geologists have been studying climate change for 200 years. Climate change is partly the basis for the geological time scale. It seems that anyone that challenges AGW must be a “shill” for the oil companies.

“The one thing the Flat Earth theorists, Creationists, and religious fundamentalists including Church of God, Assemblies of God, the Holy Inquisition, and Al Qaeda have in common is that they all try to discredit the idea by attacking the person, instead of attacking the data to discredit the idea. To further their own agenda, such cults deploy various fallacies because in place of truthful arguments about verifiable facts; polemics, fallacies, and outright fraud sound convincing (Archer, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1988d; Brown, 1988; Falconer, 1988; Ritchie, 1988; Strahan, 1988; Price, 1990; Plimer, 1994). I have observed the same pattern of behavior amongst the global warming catastrophist camp (Royer et al., 2004; Oreskes, 2004; Armitage, 2005; Jones et al., 1990; Wang et al., 1990) with fallacies & abuses exposed by (Shaviv & Veizer, 2004; by McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006; Carter, 2007; Keenan, 2007; Harper, 2007). Windshuttle & Elliot (1999) discuss the difference between a false argument or fallacy and a correct argument.”

http://climate.geologist-1011.net/

The point is that these “Global Warmers” never challenge the science they simply try to denigrate anyone who challenges their theory. In fact they often denigrate those who challenge AGW as having not been published in peer review journals while at the same time trying to prevent publication of any challenge to their “science”.


“Legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”-Mann

Note that Stephen McIntyre was eventually proved right and Mann is under investigation. The sad Penn State “white wash” did not cut it with anybody but the “true believers”.

“If you are saying on the one hand that you will not take notice of someone until they have been published while on the other you are working behind the scenes to stop any such publication, I would venture to suggest that you are not operating with any degree of bona fides either towards the media or the legitimate scientific process.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/

The true believers don’t think the millions in grant money that scientists receive for touting global warming hysteria does not constitute an agenda. In fact governments spend 100 times as much money (as oil companies) trying to force scientists to support the global warming agenda. Even beyond the money is the kind of denigration and vitriol directed at scientists that don’t go along with this “consensus”, especially when the global warmers can not challenge the science. I have also noticed, when looking at http://isihighlycited.com/, that it seems that a disproportionate number of most cited papers in the geosciences seem to deal with climate science, at least for American geologists. This should be extremely disturbing, as it seems the only way to move up in the academic world is to go around yelling “Climate Change”, no matter what your field is.

The mantra I hear most often is oil companies bad and government good. Oil companies are evil, profit driven greedy monsters. Oil companies make a profit by providing what people need including substitutes for whale and forest products. Governments don’t have an agenda. Governments would not lie or intimidate scientists. We are talking about those very same governments that have wantonly murdered tens of millions of people to gain dominion over the earth and all it resources, aren’t we?


(1917) Woodrow Wilson: archetype progressive
Woodrow Wilson was a leader of the Progressive Era. Woodrow Wilson takes the country to war. WWI:

“But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Wilsons War Message to Congress
He is also considered a master at controlling information, a form of “mind control” ie Gun Control, Web Control, Mind Control.

According to Prof. Stone, however, “some of the most repressive legislation with respect to free speech” in the nation’s history was the work of Woodrow Wilson.

“Wilson had his administration create the nation’s first public propaganda machine. The federal Committee for Public Information produced a flood of editorials, letters, and speeches intended to generate hatred of both Germany and critics of the war.”

“Woodrow Wilson set the tone of an utter intolerance for dissent and disagreement.”

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?event_id=102943&fuseaction=events.event_summary

This tactic is totally familiar to anyone whom has argued against AGW. Wilson said “for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments”. A year earlier T. E. Lawrence said, referring to an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire that the British were instigating:


(1916) T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) described the Arab Revolt as:

“beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic 'bloc' and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states [Sharif Hussein] would set up to succeed the Turks would be … harmless to ourselves … The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion”


The Middle East of today is not an accident; it is by design. Woodrow Wilson had already gotten the United States in the war even as he promised to keep the United States out of the war. That is why the German Submarines were attacking American Ships. In fact no tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist could have dreamed this up in a thousand years either.

(1918) The Hogarth Message:

“The Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world. This can only be achieved by the Arabs themselves uniting, and Great Britain and her Allies will pursue a policy with this ultimate unity in view.”

With respect to Palestine:


“Since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favor of a return of Jews to Palestine and in as much as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further as His Majesty's Government view with favor the realization of this aspiration, His Majesty's Government are determined that insofar as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realization of this ideal.”

Thus Israel is created though they did not make it official untill 1948. By then it was too late to do much about it. There is no oil in Palestine so don’t blame the evil oil companies for this; but, there is oil in Iraq.

McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

(1919) Woodrow Wilson tries unsuccessfully to get the United States into League of Nations. The Republican congress prevented this from happening; nonetheless, the agenda went on. Even as our politicians pretend to be resisting the Kyoto Protocol the United States is one of the nations pushing the “Global Warming” agenda.
 
(1920) League of Nations, British Mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq)
In Iraq the British were interested in oil, though power does not always have rhyme or reason.


(1922) League of Nations, British Mandate for Palestine (Israel)
In the case of Palestine the British always claimed the Mandates were coming from America.

And so “useful idiots” were used to form the very “jealous principalities” that T.E. Lawrence had talked about in 1916. By the time the Palestinians understood the depth of the betrayal it was already too late. In 1948 Palestine became Israel. What does this have to do with “Climate Change”?
 
(1973) Yom Kippur War:
The United States of America threatened to nuke the world if Israel does not win. Note also that it was now clear that the traditional methods of domination were failing. Our proxies were turning against us. The Middle East was still divided into petty jealous dictatorships as "Lawrence of Arabia" had planed; but, they weren't our petty dictatorships.

(1973-1974) Arab oil Embargo:
 
During this same time James Hansen became fixated on radiative transfer models while trying to understand the atmosphere of Venus. His work in the late 60’s and 70’s was considered ground breaking. It gave governments the tools they needed to control carbon and thus the world economy. Long before the creation of the IPCC, many governments were crying “Global Warming”.
 
(1975) The term “Global Warming” is used:
On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?” in the journal Science. This is just a little too convenient!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

(1981) James Hansen was appointed head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at Columbia University in New York City. James Hansen is not an earth scientist. It’s good for a Physicist to break nature down to its simplest components and fixate on those components. That is what physicists are supposed to do. For an earth scientist; that kind of thinking is catastrophic. Later excursions to Venus would prove that Venus had a massive and recent collision that melted the planet and caused it to spin the wrong way superheating the atmosphere. James Hansens models were based on a false premise yet in 1988 they were used to create the IPCC. His models are still being used today. This isn’t science.
 
(1988) The IPCC is created:
This is a megalomaniacs dream come true. The IPCC opens up the possibility of controlling everything in a way no military could ever dream of.
 
The bottom line is this: If you want to harness the sun and fight “Global Warming” either to grow food, use solar cells or grow that salt water algae, the place to start is North Africa. North Africa is the sunniest and hottest place on earth. Land and labor are inexpensive. We don’t do that because “Global Warming” was never about saving the earth anymore than WW1 was about spreading democracy. Both were about power.
 
"Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”
- Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody tell you there is.”
- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology research at Chubu University in Japan.

Senate Minority Report

Referencing an audit of internal consistency of the IPCC third report…surprise it did not pass also a good quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen, a PhD in atmospheric physics from Harvard, a professor of meteorology at MIT:

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves listed as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse."

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/239719-james-quinn/18170-global-warming-fraud

This article goes on to reference sourcewatch, a website that exists for the explicit purpose of denigrating any scientist that challenges AGW. While “sourcewatch” portrays any scientist challenging AGW as either incompetent or a stooge of the oil companies, it fails to show how much money scientists are getting to support global warming claims.

Some of you might have heard that scientists involved in the “Climategate” scandal were cleared of wrong doing. That’s not exactly what happened. Though there is little doubt that the actions of these scientists constituted a clear violation of the “freedom of information act” (remember these guys work for us) “no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior”. Unbelievable!

http://www.climategate.com/uk-freedom-of-information-act-flaw-prohibits-prosecution-in-climategate-scandal

“PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
-Professor Phil Jones, in charge of climate research at the CRU

Climate Change

I always let myself get tangled up in a discussion of whether global warming is real and man made. That is a distraction from the most important points. The most important points here are that:

1. Throughout most of the earth’s history the earth's climate was much warmer than it is now.

2. If the earth’s climate did warm up; it would not be the disaster that some people are claiming.

3. The IPCC has carefully selected a time frame to support their Global Warming agenda rather than doing rigorous science.

If you went to see a movie and they only showed you one frame out of thousands of frames in that movie; do you think you would know what the movie was about? Physics, Climatology and Paleoclimatology are distinct disciplines. The physicist and climatologist look at one frame and they think they know what the movie is about. The paleoclimatologist stays to the end of the movie. A climatologist looks at clouds and differential equations. A paleoclimatologist looks at fluid inclusions and isotope ratios. Paleoclimatology is part of Geology and there is a war brewing, geologists vs. IPCC climatologists.

To a geologist; if the direst predictions (temperature wise) of the IPCC actually happened; it would barley register. If the global climate warmed by 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit; North Africa would become wetter and greener. The greening of North Africa and the longer season in Siberia would be a huge co2 sink. There would be a slight lag time for the oceans to catch up with the land masses in temperature. During that lag subtropical deserts would grow; but, they would soon green up with more rain. This would be a net benefit for humanity. That is one advantage to the slow release of co2 by industry as apposed the radical one, two punch associated with the Siberian traps or the Decan traps. Catastrophic volcanic activity blackened the sky. When the sky finally cleared; the plants and phytoplankton that would have mitigated the effect of the co2, were dead. The pp. co2 was 20 times what it is today. That was climate change.

Today the pp. co2 is about .006 psi. That tiny bit of co2 is getting all the blame for heating up the earth. Unscrupulous scientists like Stephen Schneider publish exaggerated claims to whip the global warming mafia into a frenzy. (yes, I’ve read the pitiful attempts of liberal bloggers to defend him) Legitimate scientists risk their careers and reputations simply asking the kind of questions that must be asked to make the science rigorous.

What is local and what is global? Can you find a pristine place to measure in the northern hemisphere? If you found a pristine place would you have a history of measurements? Consider a small outpost in Alaska. A hundred years later the city has a hundred thousand people. How would you compare the measurements? No place demonstrates this better than Antarctica. You’ve heard one side say the ice is melting and the other say it isn’t. They are both right! On the peninsula that almost touches South America the ice is melting. The Antarctic peninsula has registered the fastest warming of any place on earth. Away from South America the other 96% of Antarctica does not seem to be warming at all. Furthermore there is no detectable warming in the troposphere; and, that is significant. This indicates that at least some of what is being measured is urban or more correctly suburban sprawl.

Particularly damning is the convenient time frame the IPCC is using. The IPCC is using a time frame custom designed to promote the global warming agenda. Right as we go from the Little Ice Age, caused by the Maunder Minimum, into a warmer period. Even NASA says the models don’t work unless you include the solar intensity. How much is sun? How much is suburban sprawl and deforestation? How much is co2? The IPCC’s computer models were never designed to do anything but push the global warming agenda. Though it is generally assumed that the solar cycles can account for a third of the warming; many scientists are beginning to reassess that assumption. Is it possible that deforestation and the ubiquitous black asphalt might have enhanced the suns effects? Have any of you ever stepped on the street on a hot summer day in bare feet? Do you remember Antarctica? Is it all beginning to make sense now? I could just as easily used the year 1050 as my start point and claimed that there has been almost no global warming in 800 years! A hundred years or 800 years is a geologically meaningless time frame. That is why neither a climatologist nor a physicist can give context to their findings. The oldest ice cores are less than a million years old and that is still geologic plank time. Nonetheless if you follow the temperature from the year 1050 till the present; you would realize it’s just the earth doing what the earth has been doing for 4 billion years. (temperatures inferred from tree rings)

The other thing that is intellectually dishonest about the IPCC is this “Climate Change”. What is climate change? The climate is always changing. The IPCC is pushing global warming and some kind of carbon control scheme. I don’t know what or who is behind it but it isn’t science at least not rigorous science.

The final straw was when the IPCC tried to infer that all responsible scientists were onboard with Anthropogenic Global Warming. The geologists never were. I remember 30 years ago reading an article in Scientific American. A frustrated physicist addressed a conference of geophysicists about “Global Warming”. The geophysicists were delighted to find out the world was warming up. The frustrated physicist didn’t think the geophysicists understood. The problem was the geophysicists had seen it all before. Even scientists that believed that man made co2 was the overwhelming cause of global warming have felt bullied by the populist global warming mafia. Many scientists were beginning to realize that this wasn’t rigorous science. The physicists and climatologists are now jumping ship.

Computer models of even the simplest of systems are not simple. I have mentioned only a couple variables. Assumptions were made about how long co2 stays in the air and in the ocean. Assumptions were made about many things they could not possibly know. A computer model is no better than the assumptions it is based on. There are too many wholes in the IPCC’s “science” to cover in one article. The IPCC was specifically created to push the global warming agenda, yet the faithful act like anyone who challenges them is a heretic. Claims of a general consensus among scientists that work on climate change simply mean that people who depend on climate change grants want them to continue. We can’t go around, like Chicken Little, crying “the sky is falling’ every time the earths climate hiccups. You have to remember we are talking about a 1.25 degree increase in global temperatures and a 25% increase in pp.co2~.006psi. if you believe the IPCC.

Some articles for those that are interested:

UN Climate Scientists speak out

Minority Report

It’s a bit technical but this guy thinks the suns role in “Climate Change” might be under rated: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_PP23E.html

Robert Balling thinks the subject is complicated. Ya think? http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

Basically Glassman thinks the IPCC is an outright fraud: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html

These guys found some curious anomalies in Greenland ice cores that don’t quite fit the “Global Warming” agenda: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/

This guy questions the scientific rigor with which temperature measurements were made: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Scare tactics of the past: Earth Day 1970

Housing Crash

Why did Alan Greenspan continue to raise interest rates past 4%? Back in 2005 the fed under Alan Greenspan was raising interest rates. I understand that interest rates could not stay at 1% (Fed funds rate). A long time ago in economics 101, I was told that the sweet spot in our economy was with interest rates at 4%. I’m not as smart as Alan Greenspan; but, after a 3% increase in interest rates; common sense would demand taking a breather. This isn’t hind sight. Even at the time I remember thinking, “what is he doing”. I thought maybe the need to borrow money for our war against Islam might have caused the need to raise interest more than would otherwise be necessary.

In all fairness, our government can’t completely dictate interest rates. The Fed, in theory, acts like that little lead weight they put on your tiers. The Fed must balance the governments financial needs with the market. That said, the U.S. government is a huge factor in the market and it has a disproportional influence on interest rates.

You can’t directly correlate the “Fed funds rate” with adjustable mortgages; but, any one who claims they did not see this real estate crisis coming needs to learn to count on their fingers. You can’t raise the fed funds rate 4.25% without having some effect on mortgages. Shortly after the fed funds rate reached its peak at 5.25%, Ben Bernanke succeeded Alan Greenspan as Fed chairmen. Greenspan blamed low interest rates for the housing bubble. The problem was not the bubble; but, the way they let the air out of the bubble, too fast. Ben Bernankes own Bernanke Doctrine says not to do this. In 2006 Ben Bernanke still had time to drop interest rates according to his own doctrine and administer a soft landing for an inflated housing market.

Between them, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, have more letters after their names than the Chinese alphabet. Alan Greenspan acted like a drunk and Ben Bernanke did nothing to undo the damage as the economy crashed. And now where are interest rates. This is yet another reason to keep the state small and the individual big.

Have either of these guys ever explained why they kept interest rates artificially high, knowing it would cause a cascading economic failure?

Save NASA

Excessive Government spending on programs that are only designed to buy votes with the people’s tax money is crippling this nation. The politicians say that most of this spending is built in to the budget. Well who built it into the budget? Much of it has to do with President Johnson’s Great Society. Social security was stolen and much of the money that BP has set aside will never reach the people who need it. Roosevelt’s New Deal actually made the great depression worse. Large government programs rarely benefit we, the people. The government, any government, is a black hole which swallows the people’s hard earned wealth. Invariably these programs are put in place to make the powerful more powerful. This is what Progressivism has become. By the very nature of governance the government does not produce wealth or improve conditions for people. Government programs do not improve the economy and they are riddled with fraud. As far as I know there is only one exception to this, NASA.

Almost unique among government programs NASA has achieved an extraordinary level of success. Their Hubble telescope has exceeded what anybody could possibly have expected. Discoveries made by the Hubble telescope have shaken physics to its core. The shuttle too has exceeded reasonable expectations. The shuttle was a first attempt at a reusable space craft; 25 years later there is still no substitute for it. I feel we will regret putting them in “moth balls”. Tracking hurricanes has saved thousands of lives. NASA technology is all around us, improving our lives every day. Their technology has done far more to improve life than the Progressives ever have. Some people claim that the government’s investment in “green technology” will produce the same results. I think that unlikely.

The space program as we know it was originally conceived as a form of “one-ups-menship” during the cold war.  Exploration of space is an extraordinary challenge. The government should do the things that only the government can do. For now the risks associated with space exploration put it far beyond the tolerance of any private business. The challenge is one of the things that make NASA unique. This reaching beyond our perceived limits goes to the heart of what it means to be an American.

I said NASA was “almost” unique among government programs. Many decades ago they interviewed some of the people who worked on the Panama Canal. These people worked under conditions that were miserable beyond comprehension in the modern world. Nonetheless every person interviewed only remembered being so proud to be part of a great and meaningful project. The challenge and the fact that this kind of exploration goes to the heart of what it means to be an American is why NASA has been so successful. I doubt that any of these “green projects” will ever come near that kind of achievement.

While irresponsible politicians spend tax dollars on irresponsible projects, NASA is dieing.

Corruption of the environmental movement:

In the 1960’s we had a real problem with pollution of the soil and ground water. This is indeed a most insidious and difficult problem to deal with. Over used insecticides, heavy metals and just nasty stuff poisoned our soil and water. Uncontrolled air pollution over our cities was a problem too; but, unlike the pollution in the ground water and soil this was easy to deal with. By far the most dangerous pollution is ground water pollution. You can’t clean that up and it will take a hundred years for nature to flush it out.

All you hear about today is global warming. There is no nice way to put this, Global warming is a lie. The fact is the earths mean temperature would have to go up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit before the question even made sense. We’ve known for 70 years what direction the earth’s temperature is going and it isn’t up. Responsible scientists anticipate 2000 ft of ice in downtown Manhattan in the next few thousand years. The people who understand long term climate trends (Geologists) either work for the government or for oil companies. If some one works for an oil company CNN will say he’s a puppet of big oil. If some one works for the government CNN will forget to mention that people, who don’t carry the global warming line, will not work for the government very long.

The latter-day environmental movement has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Most of it has to do with rich people who are afraid that their day out on the yacht will be ruined by the sight of oil derricks or giant windmills. They worry that their property values will go down because of electrical lines. These people use much more gas and electricity than the rest of us. They remind me of the medieval lords who would not let the peasants hunt or have any kind of life. If they don’t want electric lines or oil derricks in their neighborhood that’s their right; but, they should not get gas or electricity. The latter-day environmental movement has made it clear that they want the rest of us to live like peasants while they live like kings.

Much has been said about the new electric cars that save gas. Batteries are the most inefficient devices known. To get 1 kilowatt hour out of a battery you have to put 2 kilowatt hours into the battery. What happens when we throw the battery away? I don’t know about the new batteries; but, the old ones were pretty toxic. It takes a very strong chemical reaction to produce even 1 volt. Here we are with the ground water pollution again and you can’t just plant a tree to fix that. On the other hand we could green up North Africa if we were serious about global warming. If there is anything to this global warming, which I doubt, North Africa will green up naturally. A 3 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures will turn North Africa green and that will be a huge sink for carbon dioxide.

Fission based nuclear power has been proposed as an alternative. On the hole I’m in favor of exploiting everything we can. Fission based nuclear power has a serious waste problem. God help us if that gets into the ground water. Several countries have begun reprocessing the waste. By reprocessing the waste, waste can be reduced by 90%. Still we need to use caution and common sense so these rich people can enjoy their day on the family yacht.

People are comparing the slow release of carbon dioxide through automobiles to the sudden release of carbon dioxide from natural events like the cataclysmic volcanism in Siberia 300 million years ago. Then global temperatures went up 10 degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of a decade. Furthermore this kind of event cause global zigzagging. In part 1 they block out the sun killing plants and causing global temperatures to drop precipitously. In part 2 the stuff that blocked out the sun drops out of the atmosphere and global temperatures rise 15 degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of a few years with no plants to mitigate the effects. Then the ocean currents could not adjust to the climate change. This is totally different than the slow introduction of carbon dioxide from cars and there is little evidence of global warming man made or otherwise.

Personally I’m for exploiting all of the resources at our disposal. That has nothing to do with global warming, it’s just common sense. We need to stop thinking about 24 hour power. The sun provides power during the times of peek usage. Think about how much burden we could take off the grid if individual houses and businesses just slightly reduced their power consumption with a simplified solar power scheme designed to run one appliance (like the air conditioner) during peek hours. In America we tend to over complicate things.

Finally we need to address the possibility of nuclear fusion. My god we are using government resources everywhere but where they might do some good. We need to develop sustainable practical nuclear fusion now. Failure is not an option.

We also need to cut off all oil and gas going to Florida. We will see how well the tourist industry works when the jets and air conditioners stop running!

The Truth Ban

Has the truth been banned from public discourse? Is George Orwell really rolling over in his grave? It would seem so.

Helen Thomas was forced into multiple mia-culpas the other day when she accidentally let the truth slip out. Referring to an act of piracy carried out in support of an illegal blockade imposed by an occupying force because the wrong people were elected in Vichy-Palestine. Both Fox and CNN showed an utter lack of journalistic ethics by referring to her remarks as “controversial” when in fact they were simply factual. Not conservative nor liberal nor anti-Semitic, just indisputable historical facts. All of Israel is occupied Palestinian land. Where the Jews should go is not the Palestinians problem. This is the inconvenient truth!

CNN is now doing a special on the poisoning of America with Sanjay Gupta. It’s is part of the whole anti industrialization anti corporation theme. They started with insecticides. CNN described how cavalier usage of these dangerous chemicals in the 1960’s lead to problems in the 1980’s and how many of us have these chemicals in our bodies. As far as that goes they are right. CNN did not mention that every year, insecticides save more lives than all the doctors and all the hospitals and all the wonder drugs in all the world in all of history, did they? CNN only tells half the story. Global warming is also part of their agenda; but, CNN forgets to tell people that for most of the last half billion years the earth was much warmer than it is now. Neither CNN nor the environmental lobby wants you to hear these two inconvenient truths; they’re not PC. Any one who has tried to mention them is ignored or belittled.

Now, to be really politically incorrect; we need the oil companies! Nobody thinks that these companies are run by saints. Oil companies are run for profit and that’s not a bad thing. Between the mess in the gulf and the enormous debt our democratic leaders are running up we better hope that oil companies, especially BP make allot of profit. We better hope that we will always have companies willing to take risk. By the end of this month BP will be the only company in the world that knows how to cap a well under a mile of ocean.

CNN interviewed an oil company executive who said we would not have to drill in such deep water if the government would open up federal lands and shallow water areas to oil exploration. CNN never followed that up, they just ignored the guy. Irresponsible environmentalists don’t even want to let people see how much oil might be there.

Lawyers and politicians who take no risk and produce nothing can always find fault. The Obama administration has taken an adversarial stance to the oil companies. Rather than working together to contain the problem the Obama administration pointed fingers and the BP executives used dispersants to hide the problem. Obama wants the government to do everything but what it needs to do. His lackluster response to this accident, when it was still containable was the real disaster here.

Politicians and lawyers always look for some one to blame. This only forces BP executives to run for cover and exacerbates the problem. Lawyers and politicians risk nothing and produce nothing but hot air. In the real world producing anything entails risk. In the real world shortcuts are taken and mistakes are made. No lawyer or politician has ever put one drop of gas in your tank. How long would the Florida tourist trade last without gas?

We need to work together to find out what went wrong. It will be impossible to do this if all the executives are running for cover. Government and industry must work together develop safer ways to do deep water drilling. Government must respond better next time to prevent an accident from becoming a catastrophe. Whether purposely or by sheer stupidity Obama let the gulf coast die to promote his green agenda.

Addendum:
I was amazed to see those robots work. The technology here is beyond beyond.
Some people are under the illusion that oil will stay under ground; it will not. Oil must eventually come to the surface. When oil comes to the surface is can cause an ecological disaster that lasts for thousands of years like the La Brea Tar Pits.

Disaster in the Gulf

This is a disaster; no one in their right mind would say otherwise. While we are stewing in righteous and justified indignation; we need to understand, if we make these oil companies risk averse; we will be the ultimate losers. We need these companies to take risk.



All I’ve heard from the beginning is who’s liable. We are going to hold BP and Trans Ocean responsible and gouge them to the fullest extent of the law. How is this kind of talk helpful when part of the problem is that these guys are already running for cover? For gods sake people think. Real conservatives believe that the government should do what only the government can do and not micromanage every aspect of your life. The Gulf oil disaster is just such a situation where government needed to work to contain the oil spill while industry tried to plug the hole. All we have is a lynch mob of useless politicians with law degrees who would not know science if it bit them on the ass.


Who is really responsible for the worst environmental disaster in America’s history? In my opinion this disaster was caused by the unholy alliance of Government and the environmental lobby. Ridiculous restrictions on exploration and government policies pushed the oil companies out into deep water where they can’t fix things if their fail safes fail. We just had an oil spill in Alaska; a guy went out and fixed it with a wrench because it was onshore and he could get to it. It was after all our government that pushed these companies into deep water.


Obama just gave a speech where he said that the fact that BP was in mile deep water was because all the easily accessible oil was gone. Plain and simple, Obama lied and none of the press core challenged him on it! The government owns one third of this country and 95% of federal lands are off limits to oil exploration. The fact is we need to develop government lands. You may have heard dishonest politicians say America only has a few percent of the worlds oil reserves. Oil reserves refers to known oil containing structures. Oil does not bite you in the ass, you have to look for it and nobody knows how much oil is on federal land. Estimates range from 50 years to 1,000 years on land and in shallow water. In these places even a catastrophic failure could be contained. The total idiocy of banning oil production in ANWAR is unbelievable. Since it may take ten years to develop ANWAR, we need to start now! The same dishonest politicians have claimed oil companies are not using the leases they have. Once again you can blame the environmentalists as there are many reasons for non producing leases.


I neither excuse nor dismiss the abominable behavior BPs executives. This is a catastrophic ecological disaster. I spent many summers on Alabamas Gulf coast. Alabamas Gulf coast is probably the most beautiful place in the world. There is plenty of blame to go around and those that are pointing fingers (the government and environmentalists) are just as guilty as those that are hiding (the executives of BP and Trans Ocean). Instead of pointing fingers we could have set three layer boom completely around the well to contain the spill. The boom would have to rise three feet above the water and have a skirt shat drops 50 feet below the water.


We can’t make these companies so gun shy they stop drilling in deep water. Your clothing, medicines, fertilizers and even wind turbines are made of crude oil. There are over 3,500 wells in the gulf that survived Katrina and function every day with little environmental consequence. By far the most dangerous thing to our environment is the environmental lobby.


These rabid environmentalists are simply elitist that tell us we can’t continue the living standards of Americans while the environmentalists live at five times the consumption rate of the average American. They don’t want to see oil derricks off their beach. They don’t want to see wind turbines either. They don’t want to see power lines which would greatly increase the efficiency of the electric grid thus reducing pollution. They think they are the lords and you are peasants. It was the environmental lobby that put timber companies out of business. Timber companies were the best protector of the environment.


Number of environmentalist lobbying for fusion power: 0

Number of environmentalists living in town houses: 0

Number of environmentalists proposing real solutions: .001%

Number of environmentalists driving gas gulping machines: 89%


We can drill for oil where even catastrophic failures can be contained. In a situation like the BP oil disaster instead of pointing fingers and making threats government and business need to work together to minimize the damage. If we make these companies “risk avers” we will be the big losers. Someone needs to hold the environmental lobby accountable. What would it do to the environment if 50,000,000 Americans started cutting down the forest to heat their houses? Should we start hunting whales again?


A lawyer might risk a paper cut. An environmentalist might risk some embarrassment when the truth is known. A politician risks not winning the next election. To keep this country running, oil companies risk hundreds of millions of dollars, lives and their own future every day. Last April BP lost that risk.


In the final analysis we could try something almost unheard of … working together to fix the problem!



http://ditelhead.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/disaster-in-the-gulf/

Whose Law

Whose Law?

These guys that make the law keep talking about rule of law. What do they mean? Do they really think that we should march to whatever tune they want to play like mindless automatons?

That is exactly what they think! We the people are puppets and they are pulling the strings. Who is pulling their strings? Could it be corporations, doctors, lawyers, evangelical Christians or Jews? Does it really matter? When governments powers are unrestricted the outcome is never good. I’ve repeatedly mentioned the Middle East as an example of this. The Middle East we know today was made in the U.S.A. I’ve mentioned this as one of the most extreme examples of abusive excesses both the United States and Britain are capable of if the leadership feels unrestricted. Oh, I forgot, the British did the same sorts of things in Ireland a few hundred years ago. That worked out well.

After this latest botched attempt at terrorism in New York; the calls went out from Senator Lieberman and Mayor Bloomberg for more gun control. Gun control was never about protecting the people from violence. Gun control is about protecting the government from descent. Once the people are de-clawed neither your votes nor your rights will have any meaning. At least according to one lady I was talking to, we are close to that already. She was complaining about property taxes being raised three times in six years.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

People today are afraid of their government and the major internet companies folded at the slightest pressure from the government. It seems the people who make the law are not themselves in any way restricted by the law. They claim they were elected. We voted out the Democrats because they were corrupt and the Republicans became even more corrupt. We voted out the Republicans and elected a newcomer as a way of saying none of the above and Obama is straight out of an Orwell novel. Obama has made no attempt to conceal the fact that he wants the government to control every aspect of everybody’s life including the internet.

This is crazy! People think for a minute, please. In the Middle East the right to keep and bare arms was based on ideology, not weather someone was violent. If our government was concerned about people’s safety it would not have declared war against Islam in the first place. The only way you can interpret the “British Mandate” is as a declaration of war against Islam. Furthermore while these idiots get their names on bills and their faces in the papers they are letting this nations dams rot. If even a medium sized dam bursts the death toll could rival a nuclear attack.

Every time someone mentions repairing the infrastructure our congressmen think they have another excuse to buy votes with the taxpayers money. Practical, goal oriented maintenance of the infrastructure is not optional. Maintaining the highways will save more gas than any of these hair brained schemes. Maintaining the dams will save as many lives as preventing a nuclear attack.

Finally how many jobs has our government sent over seas in return for backing one of it’s international agendas. How do you think our ambassadors convince other nations to back us up or at least not veto us in the U.N.?

Our government needs to go on a crash diet and take care of the things that need to be taken care of. Those politicians who were remiss in maintaining our infrastructure should be publicly embarrassed.


Gun control, Web control, Mind control

The Price of Freedom:

And so it has been said, by the wisest among us, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Few people truly understand this. The vigilance mentioned here was meant to be directed towards ourselves. The greatest threat to these United States is these United States. Let me say this again, even in the first days of this insipient republic, the framers of the constitution recognized that the greatest threat to this country would always be internal. Now that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth; it is even truer that the real threats are internal. Why would this new age all consuming central government surprise anyone? Our once great nation trashed the constitution when it entered World War I.




The new imperial America began with our entrance into World War I. Until then most of our conquests were in geographically close areas. These places became states and had representation. At the beginning of World War I there were two global bullies (Britain and France) and two upstarts (America and Germany). Germany was being squeezed by Britain and France who wanted to relieve Germany of its colonies. When Germany fought back Britain and France found Germany a tougher nut to crack than they had anticipated. Soon Britain and France came begging for help. This gave America a short cut to global domination. By casting its lot with the old world bullies; America would become the heir to their colonial empires. Hidden in this agenda was Turkey. Though we think of this as a war with Germany; Britain had its eye on Turkey for a long time. By the time of the Crimean War British Protestants already had begun their campaign for Zionism. The European powers had begun dismembering the Ottoman Empire long before World War I began. Palestine would be an important prize in the currency of power.



What benefit is any of this to you and me. There is no benefit for John Q. Public at all. He will pay high taxes and watch his children go off to war so that the men in Washington can fill their pockets with the currency of power. This is as true for health care today as it was for the conquest of Palestine in 1917. It’s about power unrestrained by the constitution. The path that takes us to the government’s current quest for all encompassing power began then, in World War I.



How does one spend the currency of power? You can’t go to McDonalds and say: “My uncle is a congressman, give me a big mac”. That would be far more honest than the way it’s done. Throughout the middle east are illegitimate governments installed by the United States and Britain. The Americans claim the British were responsible and the British claim these illegitimate dictatorships were the price the Americans charged for backing them in World War I. Make no mistake about it; the middle east we see today was made in the USA. Any businessman wishing to do business in these countries is beholding to Washington. If you want to do business in the country of nowhere then you put congressman Donothings nice on the board of your company. This takes us back to the idea that the greatest threat to the United States is the United States.



Behold; congressman Donothing appears before the Protestants and Jews, having brought back Israel from the trash heap of history. This is the currency of power and the classic example of why the second amendment to the constitution was writ! Words worms, people who believe words have meaning, say that in its narrowest interpretation the second amendment does not strictly prohibit the United States from initiating a holy war. Words have no meaning in any known language. Every school boy and girl knows the second amendment to the constitution was writ in the context of a thousand years of religious persecution in Europe. Our policies in the middle east constitute precisely the kind of religious persecution the second amendment was writ to prohibit. The constitution is not about geography; it is about us. Do we believe that there should be limits on the power of government? Do we believe that government should be able to interfere with the free practice of religion? Today it is the Protestants and Jews doing the persecuting and they want the government to march to their drum beat. Beware; worms have a nasty habit of turning. Tomorrow Protestants and Jews might find themselves on the wrong side of the unholy union of church and state. The second amendment protects them also.



Behold; congressman Donothing appears before the huddled masses and offers free health care. Who is going to pay for this free health care? In one of the most insidious ponzi schemes of all times our leaders have put the cost off on to the next set of elected officials. Obama and his cronies will get the credit for providing free health care and the people in power a few years from now will have to shoulder the burden. They will have to raise taxes even more or raise the debt ceiling and probably both. The real cost of this free health care will not be known for twenty years; but, like social security and Medicare it will almost certainly grow out of control. The immediate cost of this is that our government will control even more of your life. We know what a good job our government did with the middle east. Only market forces can control the medical mafia. These people exact ridicules payments weather they do any good or not and don’t feel the need to improve. You are already being forced to contribute to doctors mansions as their cost is hidden in everything.



Why does it surprise anyone that the same power mad thugs who decided that Arabs have no rights during the British Mandate, have been hacking away at your rights all the time? If anyone’s rights are trampled everyone’s rights are weakened. I once complained about the smoking ban and a girl said to me “I don’t think you should be allowed to smoke”. That’s the attitude here. As long as someone else’s rights are being trampled we just don’t care. By the time the government gets around to our rights it’s too late to care. Gun ban, smoking ban, prohibition, hamburger ban, salt ban, hate speech ban, and coming soon a breathing ban, after all, breathing releases a green house gas. Don’t get me started on “Global warming”, that’s a bigger lie than Israel.



Gun control, Web control, Mind control

Health Care

Did anyone know forty years ago when President Johnson proposed his great society that these entitlements would grow uncontrollably to such monumental proportions? How could they. Who can see the future? Social Security and Medicare are uncontrollable and nobody knows how we will fund these in the future. Nobody ever foresaw these programs growing to 100% of the nation’s economy. That is to say that we are fast approaching a point where the government will have to tax 100% of everybody’s paycheck!

We stand on the eve of initiating a new order of entitlements that will dwarf President Johnson’s great society; which, at the time was only a small portion of the nation’s economy. Furthermore our fine representatives in Washington intend to raid Medicare the same way they raided Social Security! Imagine stealing form an already bankrupt entitlement. Since no congressman really wants to be caught with his hand in our cookie jar; our esteemed representatives have constructed a convoluted way of passing this unpopular legislation with out passing it explicitly. It doesn’t surprise me that these people intend to pass this regardless of what the people want. We all know that these Washington lawyers who never produced anything but hot air are smarter than everybody else.

Don’t you think before we pass this new order of entitlements; we should figure out how we will fund the entitlements we already have? How will young people get their first job if businesses are required to provide an extra $5,000 in health insurance? How can anybody possibly know the long term cost of this giant bureaucracy? The cost has been estimated based on the idea that nothing changes. The fact that a giant government bureaucracy is pushing up demand for health insurance will drive the price even higher than it already is. Government will double medical inflation.

The only possible solution to the problem is for John Q. Public to pay out of pocket. When John Q. Public looks at his doctors and asks them where they get the nerve to ask for that much money the medical mafia will begin to change.

Gun Control => Web Control => Mind Control, sooner than you think.