January 2007



I just looked at the hourly forecast for my city on weather.com. It said it was going to continue snowing for the next 36 hours. If I took one day as my time-scale I’d have to say it looks like we are headed towards the next ice age. Pretty obviously, a day is too short a scale. A year works better. You can say that next year will be much like this year and you won’t be very wrong. But we know from records going back a century or two that there has been a gradual warming. The scientific consensus claims that warming is human-induced. To “prove” their point they cite the recent gradual warming. Their thinking is captured by Mann’s infamous “hockey-stick” graph that showed no warming for a thousand years and a sharp increase over the last century. That graph has been debunked but the scientific consensus group-think talks as if the graph is still accurate.They assume that the current slight warming trend is just going to continue, possibly at an accelerated rate. Their elaborate computer models, that bear as much relationship to reality as a paper dart to a Boeing 747, are tweaked to deliver the results they want. In reality, assuming the warming trend will continue indefinitely is as useful as assuming that just because it is snowing today it will carry on snowing.

If we go back to Mann’s Hockey Stick and replace it with a chart closer to reality we find that temperatures have warmed and cooled in cycles lasting a few hundred years. We’ll learn that it was warmer than it is today 900 years ago during the “medieval warm period” and colder during the “little ice age”. If we look at the historical records of life during those periods we find that the warmer period was far preferable to the cooler period. On the scale of a thousand years, the current warming phase does not seem to be out of the ordinary. Average global temperatures fluctuated by about 1° C over the millenium.

[img]”%%dir[1]%%image158.gif” border=”0″ alt=”image” name=”image” width=”432″ height=”229″ /[/img]

Lets step back by another order of magnitude. What does the weather look like over the last 18,000 years? The next chart shows temperatures rising by about 4° C over the first ten thousand years and then fluctuating on the time scales seen over the last 1000 years. It peaked about 6,000 years ago, about 1° C higher than today.

[img]”%%dir[1]%%image160.gif” border=”0″ alt=”image” name=”image” width=”432″ height=”220″ /[/img]

That steady rise is a worry, though. What lies before that rise. Stepping back again, we get to the final chart that covers the last 800,000 years. Now we can see a pattern. This paper, Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective, explains:

over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.

[img]”%%dir[1]%%image162.gif” border=”0″ alt=”image” name=”image” width=”432″ height=”219″ /[/img]

The answer to the question, “what time scale should be used when discussing global warming?” is around a million years. And, when we get to that answer we’ll get to a far more important question. What will we do about the next ice age when it really will snow for the next 36 millenium and bury my snow-belt city under a mile-thick sheet of ice?

Advertisements


I was real happy to read Romney’s comments on the situation that Israel and the West faces. Via Powerline I read that Romney said:

“No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really about borders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel’s right to exist – within any borders.

“This distinction came into vivid focus this summer. The war in Lebanon had little to do with the Palestinians. And it had nothing to do with a two-state solution. It demonstrated that Israel is now facing a jihadist front that from Tehran through Damascus to Southern Lebanon and Gaza.

“As Tony Blair astutely put it, Hizbullah was not fighting ‘for the coming into being of a Palestinian state…but for the going out of being of an Israeli state.’

“Yet we have still not fully absorbed the magnitude of the change. As far as our enemies are concerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel is simply a way station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire West.”

Romney knows what this war is about and can articulate it. Bush may know what this war is about but can’t articulate it. Why do he and Rice carry on about a peace-process? The only peace the enemy would accept is the peace the Hitler imposed on Jews within his purview. If you know that, say it.

Instead Bush and Rice give the killers of Americans and Jews countless millions of hard-earned dollars. Never forget that every such dollar given to a Jew-killing Palestinian was earned by an American.

Romney understands the threat. He makes my cut.

My only possible Democrat contender is Joe Lieberman. He could do it, but only if he switched parties. It would be fun if he ran as a GOP VP candidate, though!


Jane made a name for herself aiding and abetting the North Vietnamese war effort. The pictures of her posing with North Vietnamese anti-aircraft guns and related activities earned her the sobriquet “Hanoi Jane”. Here’s Snopes on Hanoi Jane:

The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as “war criminals.” She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged “press conference,” POWs who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn’t notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the “Hanoi Hilton”) itself. She merely went home and told the world that “[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done.” She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should “not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars.” Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was “laughable,” claiming: “These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed.” The POWs who said they had been tortured were “exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest,” she asserted. She told audiences that “Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They’re military careerists and professional killers” who are “trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law.”

We should all remember, though the Left would rather we forgot, that America’s retreat from S.E. Asia directly led to:

  • The death or “re-education” of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.
  • A massive outflow of Vietnamese fleeing Communist oppression (the boat-people), many of whom perished at sea.
  • The rise of Pol Pot and the mass murder of at least 1.5 milion Cambodians.

The indirect impact sees us in our current predicament. Our enemies saw that the US really was a “paper tiger”. What did they do?

  • The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and we know how that worked out.
  • The Iranian revolutionaries ousted the Shah and occupied our sovereign embassy, the first of many unanswered acts of war by Iran against the US.

The first event led to the radical Sunni war on the US. With covert US assistance, a coalition of Afghanis and foreign Jihadists defeated a super-power and became convinced they could defeat the sole remaining super-power. They began a series of unanswered terrorist attacks against US interests, culminating in 9/11.

The second event led to the rise of Iran’s rulers as the primary sponsor of Islamic terrorism and an imminent nuclear threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the world’s oil supply.

Good work, Ms. Fonda and your loathsome ilk.


The capture of top Iranian operatives in Iraq is a major coup. The haul included:

Iranian colonel Fars Hassami, No. 3 in the Revolutionary Guards al Quds Brigade’s hierarchy, two below the Brigades commander, General Qassem Sulemaini. Officers of the al Quds Brigade also serve with Hizballah combat units in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Question for Senator McCain: How far should the US go in extracting information from Fars Hassami, a man directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US military personnel? Actually, putting him on trial for war crimes would put Iran on the spot.

We’re also getting reports that Al Sadr’s mob is running scared. If Al Sadr wants to survive, he’ll need to rat out the worst of his death squad leaders.

The Sunnis are finally realizing that the only force standing between them and Shi’ite revenge for their persecution under Saddam, is the US. That means that they will be ratting out Al Qaeda and the few remaining Baathist hold-outs.

While the Democrats’ victory in the mid-terms may have given our enemies hope, Bush’s surge announcement tells them that they are going to have to hold out for two more years. That is a long time when you are facing a force as resourceful and adaptable as the US military.

Then there is the lone Jew problem. Lieberman ran on a pro-war platform and trounced his anti-war opponent. If the Democrats go too far in sabotaging the war, he will switch sides. He probably won’t need to. The Democrats will do public displays of opposition to Bush but won’t do anything to stop him prosecuting the war as he was authorized to do by congress.

My sense is that Iraq will calm down a lot over the next year. By 2008 it will be seen as a victory in the larger war against ancient Islam.


This Reuters report is beyond belief. I’ll quote a lot:

Experts at the conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute said it was likely that global warming would create huge flows of refugees as people tried to escape areas swamped by rising sea levels or rendered uninhabitable by desertification.

Tickell said terrorists were likely to seek to exploit the tensions created.

“Those who are short of food, those who are short of water, those who can’t move to countries where it looks as if everything is marvelous are going to be people who are going to adopt desperate measures to try and make their point.”

BIN LADEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE

John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain’s Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

“You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries,” al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 “letter to the American people.”

Birds of a feather, again. Osama picks up on a leftist theme and spews it back at us.


Here’s what Jim Webb said in the Democrat’s response to the State of the Union Address:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Just how did Dwight Eisenhower bring the Korean War to an end? Col. Tom Snodgrass, writing at American Thinker, explains:

This disparity of total vs. limited war objectives first became apparent as the Korean War dragged on and President Truman’s administration could find no way to conclude the conflict. When President Eisenhower assumed the presidency from Truman in 1953, he quickly recognized the logical solution to the strategic conundrum was shifting U.S. war-fighting from limited to total war means, and he thereby ended the Korean War by communicating to the communists his intention of escalating with nuclear weapons if the communists persisted in their total war objectives. Civilian limited war advocates should have seen the glaring fallacy of their theory at this point, but they didn’t. For his part, Eisenhower did not believe that limited war could remain limited.

As a warrior who knew war first-hand, President Eisenhower opted for a historically-based defense doctrine of “Massive Retaliation,” which promised an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the event of aggression. Throughout the better part of the 1950’s, Eisenhower’s national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a “limited war” would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the “New Look,” was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world.

(My bold) If we are to take Webb at his word, and we assume he actually knows how Eisenhower ended the war, then it appears we should use the nuclear option to end the war in Iraq. A previous Democrat president used the nuclear option to end World War 2. Nice to know the Democrats have a simple solution to the war. A lot of Americans, frustrated at the PC way this war has been fought, would agree.


Take Duke university. What sane person would pay Duke’s tuition fees to have their children indoctrinated by left-wing loonies, such as the gang of 88? Reputation is all Duke has and it is losing that fast. The administration is beholden to the likes of the gang and the people paying the bills are now beginning to understand just what they are paying for. Would you send your kid to an institution that tries to brainwash its students with leftist propaganda of the most extreme kind? How bad was Duke? This case of a Lacrosse player suing because he was failed by one of the gang is very dangerous to Duke’s reputation. The first rule of business is to treat your clients with respect. Duke is a business first and a university second. Breaking the first rule of business is not wise. It will make the customers question the value of the product.

Greg Richards at American Thinker writes:

But occasionally we get such a controlled experiment, and we have one here. And what do we find? That the worldview, the “model” of society that is held and promulgated at least by this radical element of the Duke faculty is a failure. Their fantasies of white power and privilege and their expectation of physical abuse of others reveal their own view of the world, not the reality of the situation. Their model, their scholarship is a failure. What does that say about the value of the courses that they teach? Every time the radical left view of human nature or of society can be judged objectively, it fails. As it did here. Let’s not forget it. And let’s not let the Duke faculty forget it.

And let’s not let the parents forget it.

Duke is not the exception but the rule.

Personally, I’ve found college reputations worthless in evaluating computer science graduates. The best test I found was to set job candidates a simple programming test. Could they produce a program that could calculate a person’s age in years, months and days, given their date of birth? It turned out that few candidates could do that. A 4.0 GPA was no guarantee of success, as one tearful candidate found out. I know that the top people in the field are doing great work inside academia. I just don’t see any signs of that work in the average computer science graduate.

Next Page »