On Monday, 2/25 our state legislature passed the largest tax increase in Minnesota history. That's right, a $6.6 billion transit bill that will include an increase in the gas tax, vehicle registration tax, and a metro area sales tax. This all comes despite the fact the governor Pawlenty vetoed this bill previously. And what's worse, the vast majority of people in Minnesota did not support this bill. The numbers are absolutely stunning from this survey. Well over half the people polled were not in favor of raising taxes. There was also a majority of people who thought cutting spending was a priority over raising taxes. So what does this all mean to you and me. Consensus says that in the end, all Minnesotans will pay more - an average of $300 to $400 annually per household.
Our local Senator for Rochester, Dave Senjem, did vote against this bill. However, our two House representatives, Tina Liebling and Kim Norton, both voted in favor of this tax increase. Folks, if you read the poll numbers from the link above then its obvious that Liebling and Norton both declined to listen to there constituents. Is that who we want "representing" us? I know I don't, and I can promise you that I'll be campaigning against them during the next election cycle.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Apparently Stop Signs need to be in Spanish
Last week here in Minnesota we had the tragic news out of Cottonwood that 4 students were killed when a mini-van ran a stop sign and hit the school bus they were riding in. The only information that was immediately available was that the driver of the mini-van didn't have a valid driver license. Instantly I knew what that meant, illegal immigrant.
I heard on the radio last Friday that it was confirmed the driver was an illegal from Guatamala. I've been scouring the internet for the better part of two days now and only today was I able to find any news outlets actually reporting the case.
The mainstream media coverage of this entire incident is deplorable. In this AP News story, they wait until the very last line of the article to even make mention that the driver is "believed to be illegal". I then decided to go see what CNN had on their website. There was one article published, but it did not mention the name of the driver once. Not only that, there was not even a single reference to the fact that she didn't have a driver's license. I could have lived with that even if they didn't mention she was an illegal.
I heard on the radio last Friday that it was confirmed the driver was an illegal from Guatamala. I've been scouring the internet for the better part of two days now and only today was I able to find any news outlets actually reporting the case.
The mainstream media coverage of this entire incident is deplorable. In this AP News story, they wait until the very last line of the article to even make mention that the driver is "believed to be illegal". I then decided to go see what CNN had on their website. There was one article published, but it did not mention the name of the driver once. Not only that, there was not even a single reference to the fact that she didn't have a driver's license. I could have lived with that even if they didn't mention she was an illegal.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
It Aint Easy Being Green
Lets take some time to discuss this "green" movement that is sweeping the country. You can't go anywhere these days without hearing about hybrid cars, fluorescent light bulbs, and high efficiency appliances. So how effective are these "green" initiatives at actually cleaning up the environment and reducing carbon emissions? Well, the initial results don't look good.
Thanks Joel for tipping me off to this article from the Wall Street Journal. The future is not looking good for all the granola eating bio-fuel huggers out there. According to two recent articles in Science magazine (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, How Green Are Biofuels), going green is actually more harmful from a carbon emission perspective.
And I already blogged about the problem with compact fluorescent bulbs.
Here's the thing, I have no inherent problem with fluorescent light bulbs and high efficiency cars and appliances. In and of themselves those are a good thing and I, like most people, want to do my part in keeping our environment healthy and strong. The problem I have is when these things get mandated at the government level. As you can see from the articles above they often times cause more harm than good in the end. It becomes quite obvious that the people and lobbyists behind the green movement are not truly concerned about the environment, when despite scientific fact to the contrary, they continue to push initiatives "that work".
I thought this Super Bowl commercial was a great example of the disconnect between science and what these people believe.
Someone might want to inform GE that trees need carbon emissions to live!!! That's like a human hugging something that's taking oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Thanks Joel for tipping me off to this article from the Wall Street Journal. The future is not looking good for all the granola eating bio-fuel huggers out there. According to two recent articles in Science magazine (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, How Green Are Biofuels), going green is actually more harmful from a carbon emission perspective.
And I already blogged about the problem with compact fluorescent bulbs.
Here's the thing, I have no inherent problem with fluorescent light bulbs and high efficiency cars and appliances. In and of themselves those are a good thing and I, like most people, want to do my part in keeping our environment healthy and strong. The problem I have is when these things get mandated at the government level. As you can see from the articles above they often times cause more harm than good in the end. It becomes quite obvious that the people and lobbyists behind the green movement are not truly concerned about the environment, when despite scientific fact to the contrary, they continue to push initiatives "that work".
I thought this Super Bowl commercial was a great example of the disconnect between science and what these people believe.
Someone might want to inform GE that trees need carbon emissions to live!!! That's like a human hugging something that's taking oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Ice Age Cometh
So who thinks that the press with now switch sides and go into mass hysteria mode that the next Ice Age is starting? Yeah, me either, but here are a couple of articles that could lead to the global cooling nuts coming out of the woodwork.
More likely though, they will still blame man-made global warming for the global cooling
More likely though, they will still blame man-made global warming for the global cooling
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Its Not Cold, Its Just a Severe Lack of Heat
I'm in a bit of a cranky mood today. Some may say its the cold I have. But I think its the fact it was 1 degree AGAIN when I woke up today. I'm serious, I don't think I can handle another winter here, its killing me.
Anyway, I was perusing the internet over the past few days and found that we Minnesotans aren't the only one's experiencing "global warming" induced global freezing. Here are a few places I've found that have set some new records this year...
If you know of other places that I've missed send me the link and I'll gladly post it. In an effort to be fair, I'm going to search again in August and see how many places are setting record highs. Also, we'll see if there are as many heat related deaths as there have been freezing related deaths this year.
Anyway, I was perusing the internet over the past few days and found that we Minnesotans aren't the only one's experiencing "global warming" induced global freezing. Here are a few places I've found that have set some new records this year...
If you know of other places that I've missed send me the link and I'll gladly post it. In an effort to be fair, I'm going to search again in August and see how many places are setting record highs. Also, we'll see if there are as many heat related deaths as there have been freezing related deaths this year.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Evidence? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence
I stumbled across this article the other day dealing with the Sun's role in the heating of our planet. What I found intriguing about it is the fact that this article, written by a more liberal publication, really puts the man-made global warming crowd in a bad light. The article doesn't do so intentionally of course, but if you stop and think for a moment about what's being said you walk away with that impression. Let's break it down.
Did you catch that? It went by pretty quick, so lets take it slow. "While evidence suggests" that the sun is the cause of the earth's heating, and has even been proven to have done so in the past, the "majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame" for global warming. Folks, how can you call yourself a scientist if you refuse to accept the evidence. Frank Tipler in his book The Physics of Christianity says, "When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise."
Moving on in the piece we are introduced to a Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov who has attributed the recent thawing in Mars' ice caps to the changes in the sun's intensity. However, the author points out that this theory has been challenged by other scientists, who attribute the heating on Mars to changes in its orbit and tilt. A phenomena known as Milankovitch cycles here on Earth.
Has anyone ever heard that changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt are the cause of our recent heating trend? Me either. What I find so interesting is these Milankovitch cycles can and are be ing used to explain why Mars is getting warmer, but it is completely preposterous to think that this could be why the Earth is warming. These cycles are a second natural phenomena that man has no control over. As such, it apparently isn't worth mentioning. Continuing on in the article...
But it only gets better. The next esteemed scientist we meet in the article is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University. He leaves us this gem.
The article wraps things up by trying to scare us into believing that the sun has little to no effect our global temperatures. We are told how scientists have modeled the Maunder Minimum (which I've talked about in previous posts) and it was not responsible for the Little Ice Age in the middle and late 1600's. Note the words used here (emphasis added by me):
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
Did you catch that? It went by pretty quick, so lets take it slow. "While evidence suggests" that the sun is the cause of the earth's heating, and has even been proven to have done so in the past, the "majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame" for global warming. Folks, how can you call yourself a scientist if you refuse to accept the evidence. Frank Tipler in his book The Physics of Christianity says, "When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise."
Moving on in the piece we are introduced to a Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov who has attributed the recent thawing in Mars' ice caps to the changes in the sun's intensity. However, the author points out that this theory has been challenged by other scientists, who attribute the heating on Mars to changes in its orbit and tilt. A phenomena known as Milankovitch cycles here on Earth.
“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”
Has anyone ever heard that changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt are the cause of our recent heating trend? Me either. What I find so interesting is these Milankovitch cycles can and are be ing used to explain why Mars is getting warmer, but it is completely preposterous to think that this could be why the Earth is warming. These cycles are a second natural phenomena that man has no control over. As such, it apparently isn't worth mentioning. Continuing on in the article...
Now maybe I'm stepping over my bounds here, but Mr Long, you are the one that appears "nuts" here. He says that solar fluctuations don't make sense. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the sun physically heat things up? As a lay scientist let me offer up an experiment that I've witnessed on many occasions. Go get two thermometers. Place them 5 feet apart, but make sure that one is in the shade and one is in direct sunlight. Let them sit there for sixty minutes and come back. Does anyone have an idea what readings you will find on the two thermometers? Of course, the thermometer in the sun will have a higher reading than the thermometer in the shade. Or an even better example would be to put a thermometer next to a lightbulb. If the lightbulb was attatched to a dimmer switch you could turn the light through a wide range of intensities. The amount of heat dissipated by the bulb at 10% intensity will be much less than the heat dissipated when the bulb is at 100% intensity. A thermometer near the bulb would verify this. I, therefore, must conclude that the sun's intensity as well has something to do with our global temperatures. So in actuality Mr Long, it makes perfect physical sense that solar fluctuations could cause the Earth's current global warming trend.As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
But it only gets better. The next esteemed scientist we meet in the article is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University. He leaves us this gem.
Perhaps this is just a fluke he says. That's the best you can come up with? For crying out loud, you are a university professor! I'm not sure what John Moores University is paying this guy, but whatever it is its too much. This is a prime example of the simplest solution is most likely the best solution, otherwise known as Ockham's razor. The simple solution is that the increased solar activity is to blame. Rather than taking the easy route, scientists prefer the difficult one...“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
The article wraps things up by trying to scare us into believing that the sun has little to no effect our global temperatures. We are told how scientists have modeled the Maunder Minimum (which I've talked about in previous posts) and it was not responsible for the Little Ice Age in the middle and late 1600's. Note the words used here (emphasis added by me):
“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
There is not one hard morsel of fact in any of those last 3 paragraphs. The one verifiable fact that could actually be proven he got wrong. Let me explain. I like to fancy myself as a math guru. I'm no Einstein or Will Hunting, but I can hold my own. Let's assume these "estimates" and predicted numbers are accurate. If so then the Maunder Minimum could decrease the Earth's temperature by about 2 degrees (could be more). Rind then claims that would not be enough to counteract a 2 to 12 degree increase from greenhouse gases. Well, actually it would counteract it perfectly if it was at the low end of the "prediction." I agree it would not counteract anything near the high end, but a blanket statement like that is absolutely false.
I've got some research into the IPCC as well. I'll blog about that organization at another time.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Great Wall of Guatemala
I haven't posted anything yet on illegal immigration, so let the games begin. I found this article from Michelle Malkin. Its almost too far fetched to be believed, but it appears President Bush is trying to pass an initiative to finally get a fence built in Mexico. The only problem is that the fence is between Mexico and the rest of Central America (Guatemala and Belize).
Can you believe this stuff? We can't get a fence built along the US-Mexico border, yet we are planning to give Mexico $1.4 billion in order to secure their southern border? Its no wonder we haven't heard anything about this because I can promise you there would be bipartisan support to kill this initiative immediately.
Can you believe this stuff? We can't get a fence built along the US-Mexico border, yet we are planning to give Mexico $1.4 billion in order to secure their southern border? Its no wonder we haven't heard anything about this because I can promise you there would be bipartisan support to kill this initiative immediately.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
It's Big, Its Bright.... Its the Sun!!!
I promised yesterday to discuss in more detail the natural causes that can drastically change the temperature here on earth. In my previous article I talked a little bit about volcanoes, but today I want to talk about that big ball of incandescent gas known as our sun.
Let me start by making a simple observation. The surface temperature on Venus can reach 900 degrees F. Surface temperatures on the Earth typically top out around 130 degrees F. And Pluto, poor Pluto comes in around -378 F. Like its not bad enough that it recently lost its "planet" status, but its also freaking cold there. So what can we make of this data? Well, for sure you don't want to live on Venus or Pluto. More importantly though, it appears that there is a correlation between the planets distance from the Sun and its surface temperature. The closer you get to the Sun, the hotter it gets; the farther away you go, the colder it gets.
It turns out that there are quite a few scientists these days that are looking into the Sun's role in heating and cooling our planet. Rather than trying to rehash everything that they are saying, I'll let you read it in their own words....
Let me start by making a simple observation. The surface temperature on Venus can reach 900 degrees F. Surface temperatures on the Earth typically top out around 130 degrees F. And Pluto, poor Pluto comes in around -378 F. Like its not bad enough that it recently lost its "planet" status, but its also freaking cold there. So what can we make of this data? Well, for sure you don't want to live on Venus or Pluto. More importantly though, it appears that there is a correlation between the planets distance from the Sun and its surface temperature. The closer you get to the Sun, the hotter it gets; the farther away you go, the colder it gets.
It turns out that there are quite a few scientists these days that are looking into the Sun's role in heating and cooling our planet. Rather than trying to rehash everything that they are saying, I'll let you read it in their own words....
- Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
- http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/16/120003.shtml
Monday, February 11, 2008
More Cold Weather
So here in Minnesota over the weekend we had high temperatures that had a little dash in front of the number. That's right, high temperatures of -1 degree on Saturday. Now call me crazy, but living in weather like this is bordering on insanity. Which begs the question, why are we concerned about "global warming"? More people are dying this winter from the frigid temperatures than are dying in the summer due to the heat.
Let's just assume for one second that all of these green initiatives actually could change the climate by some noticeable amount. Is this what we want? Freezing temperatures, traffic pileups on the highway, and people dying of exposure? I've got to think that if we really could stop the earth from warming up the unintended consequences would be much worse than the alternative.
I'm a big fan of all the channels that happen to fall between 55 and 59 (TLC, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Travel Channel, and National Geographic). I'm always flipping through those to find something to watch. I've noticed over the last year that about 1 in every 3 shows now is about global warming and how we are all going to die if we don't stop driving our SUV's and stop burning our incandescent bulbs. However, this past weekend I did stumble across a show that caught my interest. I have no idea what the show was called, but it makes no difference. The show discussed the Tambora volcanic explosion of 1815 which was 150 times more powerful than Mt. St. Helens. (Some other articles: #1, #2, #3). The interesting thing about this was the effect that this eruption had on global climate. Scientists have speculated that Tambora was responsible for reducing global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees Celsius. It cooled the globe so much that they even gave it a name, "Year Without a Summer."
So we can see that there is historical evidence of a natural event which had the ability to drastically change the earth's climate. And its not just Tambora, more recently we saw it with Pinatubo as well. Why then is it completely unfathomable among "scientists" today to admit that even a portion of the earth's 1 degree rise in temperature since 1900 may not have anything to do with us? If Tambora could change the average temperature on the earth three times as much as it has changed over the past 100 years, wouldn't it make sense to think that maybe there is something natural behind current climate change? Well, I'm going to discuss in my next post what exactly some of these natural phenomena may be that are causing our globe to warm.
Let's just assume for one second that all of these green initiatives actually could change the climate by some noticeable amount. Is this what we want? Freezing temperatures, traffic pileups on the highway, and people dying of exposure? I've got to think that if we really could stop the earth from warming up the unintended consequences would be much worse than the alternative.
I'm a big fan of all the channels that happen to fall between 55 and 59 (TLC, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Travel Channel, and National Geographic). I'm always flipping through those to find something to watch. I've noticed over the last year that about 1 in every 3 shows now is about global warming and how we are all going to die if we don't stop driving our SUV's and stop burning our incandescent bulbs. However, this past weekend I did stumble across a show that caught my interest. I have no idea what the show was called, but it makes no difference. The show discussed the Tambora volcanic explosion of 1815 which was 150 times more powerful than Mt. St. Helens. (Some other articles: #1, #2, #3). The interesting thing about this was the effect that this eruption had on global climate. Scientists have speculated that Tambora was responsible for reducing global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees Celsius. It cooled the globe so much that they even gave it a name, "Year Without a Summer."
So we can see that there is historical evidence of a natural event which had the ability to drastically change the earth's climate. And its not just Tambora, more recently we saw it with Pinatubo as well. Why then is it completely unfathomable among "scientists" today to admit that even a portion of the earth's 1 degree rise in temperature since 1900 may not have anything to do with us? If Tambora could change the average temperature on the earth three times as much as it has changed over the past 100 years, wouldn't it make sense to think that maybe there is something natural behind current climate change? Well, I'm going to discuss in my next post what exactly some of these natural phenomena may be that are causing our globe to warm.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)