Global Warming?

Yes, the earth is apparently getting warmer. No one is going to question that fact; it's been getting warmer since the last ice age (duh.) The real debate is over what is causing it. Is it industry? Or something bigger than us? NASA rana story recently about the increased amount of solar activity over the last several decades. If you aren't familiar with solar cycles, our sun goes through cycles of activity and inactivity every 11 to 14 years. The years of activity are called the solar maximum and those of inactivity are called the solar minimum. Last week the sun began signalling that it was ready to head into a period of inactivity. This chart from NASA shows the intensity of solar activity over the last several hundred years:



You'll notice from this graph of solar activity that there has been markedly greater solar activity since 1750 than before. There is a theory of global warming circulating that points the finger at the sun for changes in Earth temperatures rather than at factories. The "green" people don't like that theory because there isn't anything they can do about the sun. Here is a graph of global temperatures since 1840 or so from a web site on global warming:



You'll notice that spikes and troughs in global temperature roughly follow those of solar activity. Rises in global temperature are usually preceeded by increased solar activity by 10 or so years. Periods of time after lower solar activity show lower temperatures on earth. So, one would have to suppose (all things being equal) that the sun does play some role in the temperature changes on Earth. We'll have to wait for a period of extended minimal activity to really guage the impact. Global weather records haven't been kept diligently until the 1800s, so our impression of global temperature rise is fuzzy at best beyond the last two centuries. Sun spots are a little easier to track since you just look at the sun and count them (which you should never do without the right equipment.) In any case we've definitely had more solar activity recently. As we head into, at least, 4 years of low solar activity we might see global temperatures dip a little... of course the greenhouse gas people will simply attribute the decrease to better emissions management...

Ultimately there are two kinds of "burying your head in the sand." You can pretend that everything is just fine and ignore a pending problem, or you can be so sure of a solution to a problem that you choose to ignore empiricle problems with a solution to a problem. The environmentalist, global warming jihad has to at least acknowledge there is something to the solar theory of global warming. Pretending that it's junk science, or being in denial isn't helpful to anyone. The implication may be that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions isn't going to do squat for the rising temperatures.

Check out National Geographic's article on the sun from July 2004:Stormy Star

I'm back

It was wet and cold in Western Maryland this weekend. The majority of Autumn Glory festivities were pretty much rained out... At one point during the day we spent looking out the window, we did actually see snow. But, a weekend with the family is a weekend with the family so it was a worthwhile trip none the less. The skies cleared up temporarily on Monday as Ashley and I departed so we got to enjoy the Fall colors at least. I snapped a few digital photos as we drove... if they turn out, I'll post some later. The best part about the weekend was the near total absense of political discussions... a welcome relief. Garret County is probably one of the most Republican areas in the country. As such there is little need to discuss politics. I saw one yard sign that I chuckled over... "It takes guts to be for John Kerry in Garret County." Ashley and I wondered if we could get one for Bush in Lexington... In anycase, this weekend tended to be more family than country... and that was incredibly nice.

I'm on the lookout for some (non-religious) right wing fanaticism on the web. I seem to find loads of blindly left-wing stuff but I can't seem to stumble upon any right wing ranting. Perhaps it is that the surfing I do leads to more liberal venues? As if everyone with my interests ought to just accept that George Bush is the devil and John Kerry is our only hope of salvation... "anyone but Bush"? What kind of way of thinking is that? Isn't that how Adolf Hitler got elected? (Hitler is on deck to come up again BTW, I've been continuing my research on the Romany and their history... nomads remember?)

So, in the course of trying out a clever news browser for the very handy Mac Application, Watson, I've finally solved the riddle of who-is-Indymedia? They are the group who had their servers confiscated for some alleged crime that never surfaced. The real crux of that story is that law-enforcement is not allowed to confiscate whole servers with a warrant for one offending website. Which was the case in the Indymedia fiasco... it is not resolved yet. Now about Indymedia: "The Independent Media Center is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity." Which of course I laughed out loud at... Radical, yet acurate? Passionate, yet truthful? I admire their sophomoric ideals and I can see what they really mean, but to couch it in this fashion is hilarious. Lets look at it carefully:

Creation... should anyone be creating news? How is it accurate if it has been created? Radical, yes. But, if the news is truly radical, it is because it is acurate anyway and radical is what it is. Deliberately creating something radical cannot coexist with the intent to report acurately and truthfully. Passion, as anyone can attest colors truth. Crimes of passion, heat of passion, it is generally accepted that logic and clarity are compromised in such fervor. Truth is at best a pipe-dream under such circumstances. The whole by-line makes me cringe. I hate these souped up attempts at intellectualism to try to lend credibilty to something which is emotionally charged and totally one-sided. Moreover, this sounds like one of Rush Limbaugh's lines... yick!

In the same litter, in fact included in this nifty applet's list of independent media sources, is Common Dreams: Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community where I found this vacuous article:Flight 93 Widow Protests Bush Visit

Now the tone here is clear... we are supposed to read: Victim of 9/11 horror (who we must give total credence to because she has suffered more than anyone reading this article) rightly blames George Bush for the events on 9/11. However there are some bits of information in the article that ought to raise some eyebrows. "'I could understand what someone feels when they lose someone there,' said Homer, who was not a fan of Bush's before he was elected." First of all, WHAT!? this is really not the same thing at all. She doesn't understand. The soldiers in Iraq are there to perform a job which entails risking thier lives. The co-pilot of flight 93 was an innocent victim. The subtext is for us to try to resolve this difference by accepting that those soldiers fighting in Iraq are victims. Victims of who? well George Bush of course. But they aren't victims. They are soldiers engaged in combat. They do not have to bear the burden of victimhood. They have proudly met the enemy and either they survive or they die. Either way, they are not victims. Victimhood is a powerful left-wing mind control issue. It gets slung around very freely. It's good to convince people that some group is a victim, it is even better to convince people that they are victims themselves. A victim is defenseless. Beset by forces beyond their control... forces they can never hope to overcome. It leads to depression and apathy and surrender. Which is good for the far left, because if you can't take care of yourself, then you will let the left take care of you. I reall want to call it social-feudalism. The hopeless vassals uniting to protect their lord and master, who protects them and opresses them simultaineously.

If you read Mrs. Homer's quotes in this article she is clearly just reciting the Democratic catechism... They've amped her up with some vision of salvation from her victimhood, taped a political bomb to her chest and sent her into the midst of the Presidents supporters just so this article could be written. It's brilliant because they cannot deny her access to the site or else the headlines would read: Widow of 9/11 Pilot Denied Access To Site Of Husband's Murder. She's grief stricken, she's a Democrat, she's black, she's a mom, she's resonably attractive and responsible looking... in a word she's the perfect gun. Many people don't know that these people are carefully chosen for news stories. Little Rosa Parks, for all her success in the civil rights arena, was carefully chosen. She wasn't some little old lady on a bus... she was a dedicated activist. There had been at least two prior incidents of young balck girls refusing to give up their seats on buses. But the civil rights masterminds knew that young balck girls could be dismissed as "looking for trouble". Rosa Parks was not so easy to dismiss. She DID get on that bus looking for trouble.

No disrespect to Mrs. Parks... Her actions were truly courageous... but, we have to put aside the myth and understand that the media is a willing pawn in these games. Mrs. Homer was almost definitely chosen for this... because of her demographics. ...because the picture on the linked site exudes honest hard-working black mother who has been victimized. Because this story, however fabricated, will sell papers, generate hits and sway minds dim enough to fall for it. I'm sorry for Mrs. Homer's loss, but she is seriously lacking in rational thought. Because of the 9/11 commission's report and President Bush's actions AFTER the event, she's decided he was to blame for the event itself? She's mad because President Bush (the military commander in chief) wore a flightsuit while flying a plane. It's a costume on him? Even though a flight suit is not indicative of a rank, even though President Bush is a former Air Guard pilot himself, even though he is the leader of the troops (ie the highest ranked person in the military.) She thinks it's inapropriate? It's certainly full of bravado, but insulting? No.

Lastly, poor Mrs. Homer is clearly still in mourning for her husband. She refers to his rank in present tense indicating that she is really not finished grieving or ready to accept his death. As such she's in no position to be out politicking. I learned the hard way myself, that one should avoid a political discussion while one is under the influence of powerful emotions relating to the topic. It is very easy to manipulate someone in that position and convince them of ideas that they wold normally greet with doubt. She is angry and she wants to blame someone. She is looking for an enemy and the Democrats have handed her George Bush and a lot of DNC talking points.