America's Cancer

The other day, while filling out an online job application, I came across a check box that I'd never seen before. This box appeared at the very end of the application after all the obligatory identification and, more importantly, skills, work history, and educational information had been given. The line next to the box said something on the order of,

"If you feel you qualify as a diversity status candidate, check this box".

With my culturally dissenting opinion concerning the state of racism in America in mind, I clicked the box filling it in. I know what the human resource specialists meant when they included the word, "diversity", but I felt justified in my decision. Those HR folks will probably be a little miffed if or when they discover I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male.

The same application also set aside a special place for me to declare my ethnicity. While the box took great pains to spell out that the applicant's information would in no way be factored into a hiring decision I knew it to be a rouse.

Due to the fear of political correct noncompliance, corporations must now prove the makeup of their workforce shows no favor one race over another. Yet this fear has blossomed into lunacy with the advent of the quota. It is the consequence of this fear that white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant males such as myself are an unwanted...make that less sought-after...hire.

For the purpose of self-preservation, I chose: "declined to identify". It is hard enough in this economy to find a good job that will translate into a great career, I don't need to be disqualified from consideration simply because I'm in the racial and/or gender majority.

Unfortunately, that is how the race card is played in America today. Federally funded colleges and universities, for example, aren't allowed to accept new students on the basis of academics alone but must make certain waivers for students of a particular race or ethnic group.

The University of Michigan gave 20 points out of a possible 150 to applicants if they were African-American. The U.S. Supreme Court struck this down, but still upheld that race should play a factor in the admissions process. ~ Whitney Blake, theFire.org

While I understand what the U of M and the Supreme Court are trying to accomplish, making concessions for something that is not within the bounds of human control does nothing but feed the cancer that has gripped America for decades: entitlement.

How is the race of an applicant going to make him/her a better or worse employee? How is race going to make one a better or worse student?

We as a nation need to make a collective statement that we no longer put up with racism. That our efforts to bring about equality in America are resolute. Our determination unwavering. We will not judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character as one celebrated civil rights leader once said. Let us throw off the spirit of hatred. Make it known that bigotry has no place among the hearts and minds of the children of liberty.

Yet how do we do this? We can start by learning three things.

1. There is no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism no matter in what direction it is hurled.
2. If born here or a naturalized citizen, you are an American first. I'm an American of European descent, not a European-American.
3. When we lift one race over another, we affirm their perceived affliction. This practice negates all of the hard work done to bring about true equality.
   

In 12 days, I'll be attending a career fair in Columbus. When I walk up to a corporate display and begin talking to the human resources specialist, I hope he/she will see me as a highly skilled, multi-talented, and university-educated prospective employee; not as someone who can't help them fill their "diversity quota".

Is the Environment finally winning?

Depends on who you ask.

Perhaps the better question is, "Are the Environmentalists finally winning?"

Every time you turn on the television there is another company, brand, or famous person proclaiming the benefits of "going green". While this is not a new occurrence, the shear number of said happenings is staggering these days. What is even more staggering is the reason for what you're seeing on TV. But more on that later.

When I say "winning" what do I mean? The environmentalist movement has been battling for your heart and mind since the 60s. Up until recently the battle has been, for the most part, uphill. Sure there have been some aerosol victories here and there. Yes, recycling is a big hit. Now, tuna is dolphin safe. But on the whole environmentalism has not been a major consideration in popular opinion. They have banged their drum, we have stopped to notice, and then returned to our lives unaffected.

I hearken you back to the years of "Save the Planet". A fair attempt by hippies to persuade the masses to take protective action on behalf of mother earth. This initiative fell short of a ground swell response. The main reason: too much scolding not enough sense-making. The populous was tired of being brow-beaten for all of the world's ills and was completely turned off to the message. With no one to listen to them, the beatniks beat it.

Then came the global cooling scare of the 1970s. Yep, for a few short years the natural community stepped to the plate wielding this little beauty. But this too, like so many other plights, failed to resonate with the vast majority of the American public. This time, the problem and its solution seemed too daunting for any one person to do anything about. A sentiment that is correct on so many levels. The activists got the point and shut up.

Lest we forget the hole in the o-zone layer of the late 1980s and early 90s. I swear when I was in sixth grade I was convinced that all of the girls in my youth group were guilty of my impending death thanks to the pounds of Aqua-net they put in their hair. I was sure I would be killed by skin cancer before my 12th birthday. That and Antarctica would be gone by the time I learned to drive. Of course neither happened. Few listened and the messengers got quiet.

The early 2000s brought a new message of mass hysteria. This time it was global warming. Probably the most formidable dreck of propaganda to date thanks in no small way to the ever stimulating wordsmith himself Al Gore and his wildly popular mockumentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". Top that off with the IPCC's findings that man was responsible for the degradation of the climate (imagine that) and you've got a massive campaign that could really make people freak...I mean think.

But this scheme too would fall victim to the truth. If the temperature isn't rising everywhere, then it can't be global warming. It's not so it isn't. Also, you can't swing a cat these days without hitting a scientist who has removed his/her name from the report thanks to it's wildly irresponsible accusations and highly speculative "scientific statistics and figures". As had all the others, this rallying cry too went silent.

However "global warming" morphed to "climate change " which is no better seeing as it is an oxymoron. Redundant if you will (and I will). The climate has always been in a constant state of change and it will be that way until Earth no longer exists (most scientists believe this will happen when the sun expands and swallows Mercury, Venus and Earth in several billion years).

Try as they might, the tree huggers are losing. That is until now.

There is one message from the environmentalist movement that is markedly different than all the others. This one refrains from placing blame on mankind. The marketing machine has not gone the way of a crying Native American standing on a roadside that is littered with garbage. No, my friends, this grass roots campaign has swept through the country and has not lost its steam. It is changing the way we live, the way we think, and the way we raise our children. What is this message?

It is two words: "Energy Efficient".

These two words are reverberating in American ears unlike any other Sierra Club attempt. Even the mildly popular "Go Green" can't top the massive response to changing the way we use, produce, and store energy. Car manufacturers are shutting down SUV and truck assembly plants and cranking out 2 and four-door sedans and smaller, more fuel efficient hybrids. Solar energy has more R&D money flowing into it than ever before.

Even oil companies such as BP and Marathon are researching new technologies for alternative energy sources as well as how to use different types of crude that we can't yet get to.

People are shutting off lights when leaving rooms and putting their work computers on standby when going to lunch. More and more folks are buying more fuel efficient cars or are plugging into mass transit systems. Motorcycle sales have skyrocketed in recent months and not since Plymouth Rock has corn played such an important role in the future of this country. Neighborhoods are featuring more and more bike riders every week.

Without "Energy Efficient" we would have never heard of E-85 or bio diesel let alone hybrid. Why even the car that runs on water is showing some promise in laboratory testing.

With this newly found sense of pride in reducing, reusing and recycling you would think that the green crowd would be thrusting their fists in the air in triumph.

While a few are, the rest know the dirty little secret to all of this success and it has nothing to do with wanting to save the polar bears or heal the earth.

What's the only reason for all of the environmental awareness?

Finally, after forty years of being told how bad we are and how costly it is going to be to fix the planet, it is actually saving you green to go green.

And that's the truth...no matter who you ask!

Perpetuating a Myth

I was all set.

It was 4 o'clock on Monday afternoon and I was chomping at the bit to begin my rest-of-the-week vacation. Freedom was one-hour away when I got the call that threw my plans into suspension.

I had to fill-in the next morning for a sick co-worker. While I was very disappointed to have to push back my time away from work, I completely understood and was sympathetic to the situation. That was yesterday.

Even if your vacation doesn't take you anywhere, the day feels different when you know you don't have to go to work. Today was no exception. After having slept in until 10am, I jumped on my computer with a renewed vigor.

I checked my work e-mail and found this press release sent to me by my chief meteorologist. This is what it said:

An analysis of 2007 global temperature data undertaken by scientists at
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, reveals that 2007 is tied with 1998 as the second hottest year on record. The unusual warmth of 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its El Niňo-La Niňa cycle.

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low Arctic sea ice in September 2007.

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 ranking as the hottest. Barring a large volcanic eruption, NASA scientists predict that a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next two to three years.

Folks, there is something you need to know about NASA and the GISS. It started back in August when a blogger who just happens to be a thinker began investigation the techniques and mathematics behind the results posted by NASA. It didn't take long before he saw red flags in their methodology.

NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S., thus challenging some key global warming arguments, but the correction is being ignored, a conservative climate expert charged Wednesday.

Yet at the same time, announcements that support global warming are considered "front-page news," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

For his part, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called the correction is "statistically insignificant."

Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.

"Time after time, Hansen and other global warming alarmists present their data as 'the facts,' and [say that] 'you can't argue with data,' " he said. "Well, it turns out their data is just wrong. And when it's wrong, they want to say it's not important."

So, here is the new Top 10 Warmest Years on Record:

1. 1934
2. 1998
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1931
6. 1999
7. 1953
8. 1990
9. 1938
10. 1939

It seems that NASA and GISS is perfectly fine with carrying on a proven error in calculation. Why are they trying to act like the corrections never happened? It is obvious that there is an agenda here.

Anyone even somewhat paying attention to the national news understands that if you cry "global warming is threatening our world", corporations, non-profit organizations, and private citizens will line up to throw money at you for research.

NASA and GISS...for shame! Here is the truth...2007 may indeed go down as one of the warmest on record. Why so warm? Science doesn't know for sure. Zealots claim to know it all.

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.