Thursday, December 27, 2007

Speak On, Oh Learned Voices!

I press on in an effort to inject a measure of intelligence into a topic that, of late, has long been devoid.

One of the pillars for man-made global warming proponents is that human behavior is the largest contributor of atmospheric greenhouse gases (read "carbon dioxide") which in turn causes an increase in global temperature (read "insane").

It won't take a gladiator with Sampson-like strength to knock this one down, folks.

What GW alarmists often overlook is the influence the sun has on our earth and its atmosphere. It does not take a doctorate in atmospheric science to grasp the role of the sun in our seasons. Heck, most of us learned about the seasons by age 8. For those of you who were sick that year, the northern hemisphere is hotter in the summer due to direct sun angles and is conversely affected in the winter due to indirect sun angles. The same thing is true for the southern hemisphere just during opposite times of the year.

FACT: The sun is the biggest driving force on the earth's weather and climate.

Yet, when looking for reasons as to an apparently "shocking" rise in global temperature, Al Gore and the like ignore the sun's increased brightness and overall output while pointing the finger directly at rich, white, Christian nations because, after all, they are the obvious culprits.

Those damn SUVs!

Well, one of the 400 scientists from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's recent climate report thinks otherwise.

[The following is a direct quote from the above report]

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa converted from believer in CO2's driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007.
Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature
of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from
believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results
began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle
investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I
switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were
astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of
cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time,
[geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to
how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted.
Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However,
as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me
to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to
climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion [about climate change]. I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warming of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what [media and governments] are saying, [is] we're about three quarters of the way [to disaster] with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

I am not proposing that solar output is the only factor in global climate change. I am suggesting, however, that much more evidence points to this possible answer than any of anthropogenic global warming. This is one of the many reasons why discussion must not be cut off.

Time must be spent pouring over the growing mountains of facts before fortunes are spent curbing something that is likely beyond our control.

I urge you to read more about the possible role our sun plays on climate.

This is just a place to start.

Monday, December 24, 2007

A Return to Renaissance

Now that my marathon work schedule has been momentarily haulted, I can resume bloviating to my heart's content about subjects that both amuse and enlighten.

Today's post is really the first of a series that will include excerpts from the U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee report released last week that aims to debunk the idea of "scientific consensus" on the topic of man-made global warming.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Report Released on December 20, 2007 by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority).

This report is a compilation of the works of more than 400 scientists, many of whom are or were on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and decry most of the Global Warming alarm-ism that is running rampant in Hollywood, Liberaltown, U.S.A., and Al Gore's backyard.

The next several posts will merely feature direct quotes from these learned men and women from the field of climatology and other physical sciences. It is important to understand that while their opinions range from "questioning" to "out right rejection" of the current popular global hysteria, they all stand firm on the foundation of the scientific method which does not include a step called "consensus".

The topic of man-made global warming is one that needs to be discussed if not for the sole reason that so much physical evidence exists that supports a hypothesis contrary to that of the elite in Hollywood. Our world's climate has been changing since it was created and it is a natural process that will carry on even after human life on her has ceased. Sadly, scientists who recognise this are not given fair time in media outlets to properly educate the public. That is why I must do my part as a scientist to foster a forum for scientific discussion and discovery.

I'm not saying conclusively that the world's climate isn't indeed changing (as it has before and will again), but that the verbal and cognitive door must be left open so that new information that can piece this puzzle together can move about freely to the experts and the masses.

Now - the words of one of more than 400 scientists who want truth to replace the man-made global warming myth.

Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences dismissed alarmist climate fears of all of the world's ice melting in a March 27, 2007 article. "The planet may rest assured," Osokin wrote. "This hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years," he explained. "Today, scientists say that the melting of the permafrost has stalled, which has been proved by data obtained by meteorological stations along Russia's Arctic coast," Olokin added. "The (recent) period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa."

Thank you for reading. Check back here regularly for more direct quotes from real scientists and what they have to say about the frenzy into which your local and national media nightly fling themselves.

Bless their hearts.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Two Handguns, a Rifle, and a God-fearing Security Guard

A single gunman is reponsible for two Colorado church shootings police said Sunday.

The following is a paraphrased abstract from Judith Kohler's AP story as seen on

The gunman was identified as 24 year-old Matthew Murray, who send his
guns blazing once, then drove to another house of worship 65 miles away and
started shooting again. The shootings happened within 12 hours of each other.

The first attack took place at Youth With a Mission, a training center for
missionaries in the Denver suburb of Arvada; the other occurred at the New Life
Church in Colorado Springs. Two teenaged sisters were killed in the second

Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot the assailant who was found with a rifle and two handguns police said.

Church leaders are hailing Jeanne Assam as a hero who prevented further loss of life and so do I. We should all tip our caps to the U.S. Constitution (and her framers) for the guaranteed freedom the second amendment provides law-abiding citizens.

Jeanne Assam is a hero and deserves to be treated as such.

I wonder how many lives could have been saved at Omaha's Westroads Mall last week if someone had taken advantage of Nebraska's newly passed concealed weapon law.

Legislative Bill 454 will allow Nebraskans 21 and older to obtain a five-year permit to carry a concealed weapon if they pass an approved handgun training
course, criminal background checks and mental health background checks. A permit
holder must be fingerprinted and pay a $100 fee. (April 2006)

As it is, eight Omaha families will sit down to their dinner tables this Christmas with an empty chair where a loved one once sat. You can count five more Colorado families to that list.

A gun is not the answer to every problem but a few well placed, perfectly timed rounds could have kept body counts from rising.

Jeanne Assam's gun sure did.

"I identified myself, I engaged him and then I took him down," she said at the press conference. "I didn't run away. I didnt' think for a minute to run away. I knew I was the one given the assignment to stop this thing." `~ article

Thank God for all who fight for the second amendment.

Thank God for the Constitution for making it possible.

Thank God for Jeanne and hundreds of thousands of Americans like her who are prepared to do what is necessary to keep me and my family safe.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Front Porch Pickin'

Honestly, it's like I'm shopping for people.

The presidential election season is getting ready to take a wild leap from somewhat interesting to may I have your attention please and I don't feel quite prepared for it. In recent years, I've already had my candidate of choice in mind before the primaries even start and this year I find myself uninterested in the lot of viable and acceptable candidates. When folks start talking about presidential hopefuls I just have to sit on my hands and listen because I don't have all of the facts, stats, and voting record tidbits at the ready.

Something must be done about this.

So, I've come up with the first poll in modern history that has to be taken by the candidate instead of a member of the electorate. It's like a one of those surveys that one of your friends e-mails you asking about your favorite color, dog name, last time you were kissed, and shoe size even though this friend should already know these things about you but you go ahead and fill it out because you don't want to be the only one who doesn't reply. Well this survey is way less annoying and way more important.

The directions are simple. I'll list what I want from a president and then I'll rely on your input on which candidate best foots the bill. Here we go.

Give me a President who...

  • Uphold the laws, statutes, and amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Is not afraid of going to war but who would only take us there if American lives depended on it.
  • Will tell the United Nations to either backup their sanctions or get out of New York.
  • Build a fence at both Canada and Mexico's borders YESTERDAY!
  • Cut off all international aid. We have debt here we need to fix first.
  • Immediately cut off 80% of all entitlement programs. The other 20% will receive budget cuts.
  • Begin domestic drilling for oil. ANWAR or not, it can be done efficiently and safely with little repercussion on the environment.
  • Will tell those proclaiming Anthropogenic Global Warming to take a flying leap.
  • Will work within his power, and with that of the judiciary, to overturn Roe vs. Wade and outlaw the death penalty. The Constitution states that it must protect the rights to Life and it is the President's duty to see that it is carried out.
  • Will cut taxes, cut spending, move our economy to the gold standard, and increase incentives for family and small business.
  • Will keep his nose (and that of congress) out of the bedroom of America. While the Bible is very clear on its stance on Homosexuality (and on this stance I 100% agree), I don't think it good practice for Congress to legislate what can and can't happen there. The Constitution does not venture into the issues surrounding the bonds of marriage for a reason...deciding who can and can't get married HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT.
  • Will fix, then privatize, the health care system.
  • Allow parents to have the choice of where to send their kids to school. There is only one thing that government does well. This isn't it. My president will push for the removal of federal mandates from the public education system (by allowing free vouchers) so that only the best and most effective schools will thrive.

That's about all I have time for right now. Can you think of a candidate who fits this mold?

Monday, December 3, 2007

O-H No!

Saturday, November 10th was a bitter sweet day for me.

At about 11PM, The Fighting Illini were dancing at midfield in the Horseshoe - and dancing on the grave of our fallen hopes of an undefeated Big Ten season. Try as they might, OSU's offensive efforts could not make much headway against linebacker J Leman and the rest of his "pack of hyenas".

It's never easy to watch your beloved, hometown team lose (never mind losing at home), when you are as emotionally invested in the Buckeyes as I am. Even if the loss is expected, the sting is the same. Watching the University of Illinois players jump for joy at our expense was deflating.

My sports-induced depression lasted for about 30 hours.

I bounced back, however, when Ohio State dropped to 7th in the BCS standings. Relieved? Yep, you read that right. Shocked? Well, Let me explain.

Unlike throngs of card-carrying members of Buckeye Nation, I'm not bewitched. I have not fallen under the spell of Beanie Wells, Todd Boeckman, and Brian Robiskie. While I watched every game this year rooting for my brothers in Scarlet and Gray, I viewed them with a certain amount of suspicion. They were outplaying their pre-season expectations but their opponents were sorrowfully over matched. Love them as I do, the latest version of "Woody's Warriors" would be embarrassed yet again if they went to New Orleans to play on January 7th. [For more on the Buckeyes' stance across the national landscape I direct you to my previous post]

So on November 11th when OSU fell from #1 to #7, I breathed my first unrestricted breath since mid-October. Gone was the pressure of living up to higher than reasonable expectations for this still untested OSU squad. That target on their backs; gone! Now the focus could shift from the Crystal Football to the Big House and L-l-l-l-l-oyd Carr's Michigan Wolverines.

And "L" they did. Chris Wells had 222 rushing yards - the most of any Ohio State back in the history of The Game - and led his team out of Ann Arbor with a soggy and sloppy 14-3 win. Winning the Big Ten conference title and climbing slightly in the BCS to 5th, it was highly unlikely that OSU was going anywhere except Pasadena and the Rose Bowl to face USC...just like old times. We were safe from national championship shame!

My solace didn't last.

From November 17th to December 1, the four other teams who stood between Columbus and the Big Easy lost - most notably #1 Missouri lost to Oklahoma and #2 West Virginia did the unthinkable and laid an egg AT HOME to 4-7 Pittsburgh on the same night.

I nearly fainted.

Thanks to the inability of four other teams to get the job done, Ohio State jumped from #5 to #1 and backed into the National Championship game by doing nothing more than watching TV. Now, they find themselves doing battle against SEC champions LSU to play for the AllState National Championship...and I'm conflicted.

On one hand, my team has won 11 of its 12 games this season. It played for and won its conference championship. They played and defeated four BCS ranked teams, including going to Happy Valley at night to play Penn State. They have Jim Tressel as their coach. Six other teams failed to bolster their case for New Orleans by losing when it counted most. And they have 41-14 as motivation to get the job done this time around (During the summer leading up to this year, Jim Tressel changed the code to the weight room to "41-14" so his players wouldn't forget why they were putting in the long hours in the off season).

...and yet...

The Big Ten is, at best, the fourth best conference in college football this year. OSU played three in-state cupcakes during their non-conference schedule. They were given the #1 ranking when the BCS first came out on legacy alone which put them in a position to remain competitive. The only true test they faced beat them at home by a touchdown. They are not the best or second-best team in the country...more like 8th or 9th.

I don't know.

When the Buckeyes take the field on January 7th and I root my heart out all the way down to the final play, will I still be able to look myself in the mirror the next morning, win or lose, and know that I was acting in reality?

Why couldn't we have dropped further after November 10?

Blogger template 'CoolingFall' by 2008