What a "Consensus" of Scientists Can Do

In the 1970's, a consensus of oceanographers and environmental scientists agreed that placing old tires in the ocean would be a good idea. It would provide artificial reefs for marine life and free up space in crowded landfills.

Now the tires are creating an ecological disaster. Sea critters are not building on the tires in significant amounts. The tires are either degrading, with pieces of rubber scattered throughout the oceanscape, or coming loose completely, littering the beaches and ocean floor for thousands of square miles.

The "experts" who advocated the idea now react with a shrug. Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing a project in Florida, said: "I look back now and see it was a bad idea." Meanwhile, government money is being spent to try to repair the ecological disaster.

This vividly illustrates what happens when a so-called "consensus" of experts determines a solution based on a faulty premise. The remedy is worse than the original problem, and the experts walk away, leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess.

***

This should make all the global warming conspiracy fanatics pause and consider what the consequences of their "solutions" might be. As I often tell my children, "Consensus does not mean correctness."

The Experts are Catching On

Former Clinton advisor and current political commentator Dick Morris recently wrote a column entitled "Here Comes Newt." It eerily echoes my column "The Class of '08" from August 28, 2006, in which I predicted Newt Gingrich would be the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Why ain't my phone ringing off the wall with offers to be the one making $$$ advising politicians? (Attention Republicans: I am for sale.)

Other People Say Smart Stuff IV

Dr. Thomas Sowell is the smartest man in America. Among other accomplishments, he holds a Ph.D in economics and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

He has written a series of articles entitled "Global Hot Air." In these articles he has so far pointed out that

• The list of so-called "consensus of scientists" includes everything from "nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further."
• Many distinguished climatologists who have real credentials oppose the concept of "manmade global warming."
• "There has been a full court press to convince the public that 'everybody knows' that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living."
• The media present sensational and inaccurate headlines and stories to promote the idea of "manmade global warming."
• The big hurricane season in 2005 was touted in the media as caused by, and proof of, global warming. Predictions were that 2006 would be even worse. The fact that there was practically no hurricane season in 2006 went unmentioned.

Read Sowell's columns. He's smart and articulate.

Global Warming and Uri Geller

Uri Geller is a psychic who became famous in the 1970's due to television appearances where he seemed able to read other people's thoughts, start stopped watches and -- most famously -- bend spoons using the power of his mind. He has always insisted that his powers are real, not simply tricks.


Various skeptics have debunked Geller's tricks, and he has consistently failed when placed under strictly controlled conditions. He has even been caught cheating on video. Despite all this, Geller continues to insist on his legitimacy.


Uri Geller may indeed have genuine psychic powers. However, the fact that he has cheated, and that he failed under strictly controlled conditions, make you doubt that conclusion.


Similarly, global warming* may turn out to be the catastrophe that alarmists insist it is. So far, though, much of the research that supposedly supports that conclusion has been either a) faulty; b) misrepresented; or c) manipulated. Like believing in Uri Geller's powers, believing the truthfulness and accuracy of the reports of global warming is hard when you know they cheated.


The Reasons
The first question that comes to mind about something this important is Why? Why would supposedly ethical scientists and politicians try to deceive the populace?


Money. Since 1993 more than $80 billion has been spent on global warming research. Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting part of the $6.5 billion in research grants that foundations, corporations, and US government programs have budgeted for global warming in 2007. Politicians cement relationships with activists who support reelection campaigns and can rename $14 billion in "alternative energy" pork into ethical "planetary protection." It gives new meaning to the label of being "green."


Status. Besides the social acceptance by their green colleagues, scientists who tout global warming doom ("Climate change to flood New York City") increase their likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories. Politicians get better press and can assume a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who is not as green.


The Research
Flawed science. Henk Tennekes was the director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. A skeptic of the global warming research, he argued that there were inherent limits on climate models scientists were basing their conclusions on, that the world was far too complex to be replicated. The best legitimate predictability models can now only reach up to 36 hours. The predictions for the "next 100 years" are based on cumulative day-by-day projections -- which are impossible.


Flawed statistics. The so-called "hockey stick" graph, established by Michael Mann, supposedly shows that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. A congressional energy and commerce committee asked Dr. Edward Wegman to head a team to assess the validity of the research that resulted in this graph. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association.


Dr. Wegman's conclusion? "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.


TO BE CONTINUED


* "global warming" in these discussions is defined as "man-made catastrophic climate change."

Liberals Will Choke to Death on This

I heard Rush talking about this on his radio show, and thought it was one of his jokes. To my pleasant surprise, it's a real story. This shows how easily something like the Nobel Prize can be manipulated. So Al Gore's nomination is nothing special. Pay special attention to Levin's comments about Rush. Liberals and those who don't listen to Rush regularly will be outraged at such statements. To long-time fans, though, they're just plain truth.

"Nationally syndicated conservative radio talk host Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize by Landmark Legal Foundation-the leading conservative public interest law firm in the country.

According to Landmark President Mark R. Levin, the firm decided to nominate Limbaugh, who also serves as a member of Landmark's Board of Advisors, for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world."

In his letter to the Nobel Committee, Levin writes, "Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today. Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law - and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."

Why Hillary Won't Win

Unless something catastrophic happens to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she will be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee. Currently the media are singing Barack Obama's song, and John Edwards (and possibly Al Gore) wait in the wings. But it's Hillary's game to lose.

Although she is certain to be the Democrat candidate, there are many reasons I believe she will be unable to win the Presidency.

Reason #1: "She's a girl." Yes, I realize that Hillary Clinton is not a child. Nonetheless, chauvinistic or not, many people will vote against Hillary because of her gender. Some of her supporters will vote for her for that reason alone, of course, but many more voters will decide to vote for Hillary's opponent based solely on her being a woman.

Reason #2: Her personality. Ms. Clinton will spend the next 21 months trying to soften her image. Since 1992, however, she has been depicted as a cold, calculating, hard-nosed, unlikable beeyotch. The rhetoric she will have to use to win the Democrat primaries will only accentuate this image, despite her attempts to change it.

Reason #3: Her husband. Bill Clinton polarizes Americans. Many people dislike him, and even among his admirers there are some who don't believe a family should return to the White House. "Time for some new blood" and "not again" will be the sentiments of many voters during the campaign.

Reason #4: The primaries. What Hillary Clinton did not need was a strong opponent in the Democrat primaries. Although she is certain to win the nomination, Barack Obama is currently the media darling, giving the other challengers the courage to challenge Hillary. This will entail a lot of mudslinging and the political version of a UFC fight. She's going to lose some teeth. The infighting will accentuate her negatives for the voters. Her only chance to come out clean and in good shape is if Obama's campaign disintegrates before the primaries, and the other Democrats roll over.

Reason #5: Her politics. Despite the 2006 elections (which was a reprimand vote against the Republicans' wandering from Conservative principles,) most Americans are conservative, and voters will put conservative politicians into office. Despite what she says during the presidential campaign (which will sound much more centrist and conservative than what she says during the primary campaign,) Hillary's record shows her to be very Liberal.

All of the above factors are rendered moot if Republicans field a weak candidate (ala Bob Dole, '96.) That's why it's vital that Republicans work hard to find someone who is intelligent, appealing, and Conservative.

Other People Say Smart Stuff III

I recently read the most enjoyable column on the modern Liberal Left: "All the Old Dudes," written by Jack Langer. His first line tells the tale: "A man could make a fortune selling Geritol to these people." Read the rest of it, though, because it's fresh, fun, and informative.

Why They Won't Tolerate Discussion

To get "loads of media coverage...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

-- Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and leading proponent of the "manmade global warming" theory, in Discover magazine, October 1989.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too 2

A great analysis of the effects of a minimum wage hike was written in 1996 by the "Joint Economic Committee."

Particularly enlightening was the debunking of the myth of the "minimum wage worker trying to support a family."

Turns out that only 2.8 percent of workers earning less than minimum wage are single parents. Only 1.2 percent of all minimum wage workers were adult heads of households with incomes less than $10,000. Fifty-seven percent of minimum wage workers are single individuals, many of them living with their parents.

Check it out.

Liberals and OPM, Part 2

Recently the Congress passed legislation regarding a higher minimum wage. I’ve addressed some of the arguments about this before ("A Zero-Sum Wage" July 28, 2006; "First Post of 2007" January 5, 2007.) This legislative session, however, had a few quirks.

Tunagate
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 8th district, which includes San Francisco. She has pushed hard for the 40% increase in the minimum wage. This federal minimum wage is supposed to affect all U.S. states, territories and possessions.

Segue to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the non-voting Democrat representative from Samoa. He requested an exemption for Samoa. It seems that 80% of the employment in Samoa is with two tuna processing plants, one of which belongs to StarKist tuna. The increase in the minimum wage, he said, would be devastating to his country’s economy.

The minimum wage legislation as initially proposed and promoted by Nancy Pelosi included this exemption. No other states, territories or possessions were exempt. Only Samoa.

As it turns out, StarKist tuna is owned by the Del Monte company. And the Del Monte’s company headquarters are in....San Francisco.

There was enough of an uproar by Republicans over this barefaced double standard that Pelosi was forced to back down, and Samoa is now covered by the minimum wage law. Pelosi, however, has been exposed as the fraud she is. She ignored her own arguments about "human suffering" in her zeal to protect the profits of the corporation in her district.

Also, by attempting this piece of underhanded chicanery, she acknowledged that raising the minimum wage is harmful to the economy. If it was bad for Samoa, won’t it be bad for America?

Democrats are eager to take credit for projects and programs that other people pay for. But when there’s a risk that they will have to pick up the tab, they quickly look for a way to change the rules. To Democrats, there’s no such thing as "take home pay" - it all belongs to them. They love OPM.

***
An addendum to highlight how the Democrats work: Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina asked a question of Democrat Barney Frank, who was in the House chair (to temporarily lead the House.) The topic was stem-cell research. McHenry began to ask about the possibility of exempting Samoa from the stem cell bill, but before he could complete his question, Frank interrupted him, and would not allow him to speak. The exchange went on for nearly five minutes, but Frank refused to allow McHenry to speak. (In all fairness, the question was one of parliamentary procedure, but Frank's refusal to let him speak was despotic.)

That's how the party in control of Congress should act. Republicans, pay attention.

Liberals and OPM, Part 1

Recently in another blog, the self-professed Liberal writer has made a large deal out of bonuses and salaries paid to businessmen (and Howard Stern.) He highlighted the sinfulness of their income by juxtaposing it with a photo of a homeless person and a cloying paragraph about how our "country is broken," and that "there are almost a million people homeless because we don't care."

The writer of this message is a lawyer who loves to highlight his toys and his trips to attend college and pro football games out of town. This Liberal lawyer lives a lifestyle that most of us would love to be able to afford. Yet he complains about others making too much money.

By all accounts, this Liberal lawyer is a nice enough guy personally. What I find offensive, though, is that he loves to point out any instance of perceived hypocrisy by church or religious leaders, while at the same time not seeing anything wrong in his own stance. This is typical of the Liberal "somebody should do something" crowd -- always eager to take control of OPM (Other People's Money.)

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.

The Best Nutrition Website on the Internet

With the onset of the new year and its attendant resolutions, many people are going on diets. Low-calorie, low-fat, low-carb -- almost all dieters (and many folks who aren't on a diet) are reading those ubiquitous nutrition labels on packaged foods.

Nutritiondata.com does a much, much more thorough job. The site analyzes a bazillion different foods, including fast foods, for not only nutrition, but also how a food fits into a particular kind of diet.

An unusual feature is the "fullness factor" that measures satiety against nutrition. (Along with cool full color graphs.)

For people who are interested in what they're eating, this site can't be beat.

Bon appétit.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too

"To suggest that combatants who fight without a flag or a uniform; who wipe their feet on the Geneva Convention; who disguise themselves as women; who hide in mosques and marketplaces; who slice off the heads of their prisoners; and who use children as shields; are entitled to the same safeguards as soldiers is sheer lunacy."
-- Burt Prelutsky

First Post of 2007

...So I'm working on a scene-by-scene revision of the novel, and I suddenly realize that I haven't posted on my own blog for several weeks, although I've contributed to another blog quite energetically (check the "comments" sections of anything remotely political.)

Conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on the idea that governments, institutions and leaders are competent enough to successfully engineer a conspiracy. I'm starting to believe that any kind of competence by those parties is doubtful, if not impossible.

Case in point: Saddam Hussein's execution. Justice is finally meted out and, with the exception of the usual anti-capital punishment crowd, mostly popular. Then the cell phone video turns up, showing the sectarian chants and gauche taunting of Saddam before he was executed. Suddenly, what should have been a satisfactory ending to the story becomes propaganda for our enemies. Once again.

Wouldn't an occasion that solemn and important call for searches before anyone was allowed inside? Or the ubiquitous announcement "Please turn off any pagers, cell phones, recorders..."? Apparently not.

***
As of this writing, the Democrats appear poised to force through a higher minimum wage, which I have addressed before. ("A Zero-Sum Wage," July 28, 2006.) The proposed minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, an increase of $2.10. This means that those companies that employee workers at minimum wage (or above; workers who were already paid $7.25 will insist on the same increase as those who were only earning the minimum) will experience a government-mandated forty percent increase in labor costs.

Let's say a businessman runs a small, family-owned restaurant, where he employees ten people at minimum wage. If all those employees work 40 hours a week, his increased weekly labor cost is $840.


Congratulations, you've just taxed the small business owner an extra $43,680 per year.

There will be a lot of meetings that culminate in "I'm sorry, but I have to let you go. I can't afford you." The workers who are fortunate enough to keep their jobs will pay more for meals at the restaurant, due to higher prices to offset the increased labor cost. Additionally, they'll pay more for all other goods and services that depend on minimum-wage workers. Not to mention the $334 more they'll pay each year in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

But the politicians can feel good about themselves, and read all the complimentary stories in the newspapers. Isn't that really what's important?

***
The world's crazy. I can only hope to carve out my own little pocket of sanity...then fortify it.

Imam Update

(See my December 5 post under "Latro Ergo Sum #2: 'The Six Imams'" for the story on these guys.)

According to a report by UPI, five of the six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight now want money from the airline for the "ordeal."

The imams are represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR claims the men were handcuffed for several hours, but one of the imams told the Times he was only handcuffed for "10 or 15 minutes" and that the imams were not led off the plane in handcuffs.

So much for CAIR's credibility.

Keep an eye on this one.

Two Views of Global Warming: The Pogrom and the Skeptic's Guide

The Pogrom
"pogrom - n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group"

A letter, dated October 27, 2006, was sent to ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson. The letter came from John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe, both U.S. senators.

If an individual had written and sent such a letter, he would be indicted for extortion and blackmail.

The letter condemns ExxonMobil’s support of scientific researchers and organizations that dispute global warming. The senators actually introduce a word into the argument - climate change "deniers" and "denial strategy." These terms are applied to anyone who disputes any of the following: a) Global warming is happening; b) Global warming will result in catastrophe; c) Global warming is due to mankind’s activities; d) Global warming is a fact, not a theory.

(The use of the term denier is important. It tries to evoke a comparison to the term "Holocaust denier," one of those people who refuse to acknowledge that the extermination of six million Jews ever happened. Obviously there's no comparison between debatable science and photos of corpses. However, setting the terminology is an important part of a propaganda war. Look for the word "denier" to become more prevalent.)

In this letter, the senators insist that ExxonMobil 1) Immediately stop funding anyone who disputes or questions global warming findings and admit that "global warming" is a fact; 2) "Come clean" to the public about its support for these people; 3) Repudiate all the information that has been discovered by these people; 4) Start giving money to the pro-global warming groups.

The senators even go so far as to compare ExxonMobil to the tobacco industry. This is a not-so-subtle reminder to Tillerson of what the government can do to a company or an industry if it so chooses.

Translated from bureaucrat-ese, the letter boils down to this: "Say what we want you to say, and give us your money, or we will destroy you." This letter and maneuver is so outrageous that even some of the Washington inside-the-Beltway crowd is tsk-ing over the sheer gall these senators displayed.

The most frightening aspect of this is that the pro-global warming people don’t even want the debate, and will use the politicians that they have in their pocket to quash our First Amendment rights. They want to completely eradicate those who oppose them.

The Skeptic's Guide

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works just released a 64-page booklet entitled "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming." The book is available online for download.

In this booklet, almost all of the major claims of the pro-global warming people are proven to be in dispute or as completely wrong. Some of the claims disputed are the "hockey stick" theory; the statement that "90’s was the hottest decade on record;" that the polar ice caps are melting, and much more. The booklet gives links to all supporting documentation.

The main thrust of the booklet is how the media have chosen the pro-global warming side of the argument, and provide a completely one-sided picture in their coverage. (What a surprise.)

The hero of this little booklet is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The full text of a speech he gave to the Senate is presented.

Senator Inhofe said it best: "The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice president Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve."

Allow me this brief moment of glory

At 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, November 29, I validated my manuscript for the official count of 50,000 words.

Now I can get back to my (semi-)normal life.

Why I Haven't Posted in a While

I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month (NaNo WriMo). The objective is to write 50,000 words of new fiction during the month of November.

I decided to dump all of Blood Debt and start over. So far I've written a little over 30,000 words. We'll see how it goes. When December 1 comes, I'll start posting more often.

The American Military Strikes Back