As I study more and more on the Founding Fathers and the founding of our country, it becomes increasingly obvious that we are woefully and almost neglectfully mistaught/undertaught about this great country.
It's blatantly clear, by merely reading our Founding Father's words, that they firmly believed that this experiment called democracy would only work if we were a moral and virtuous people based on religious values. They believed that our unalienable rights came from God, not from men.
They believed, and I now see how true this is, that we would begin to wain once we began electing immoral leaders.
But what I currently find fascinating, is their vision of far right versus far left. It's no where near our current vision of conservative versus liberals. Their far right was Anarchy (No Law) and their far left was Tyranny (Ruler's Law). And in the middle, was how we were founded...on People's Law.
Interestingly enough, our first national constitution, The Articles of Confederation was too far right. It was clear, in 1787, that things were beginning to come apart quickly for this country. Each state was vastly different from the next, and the too thinly composed national government was borderline no government at all....aka near Anarchy.
So the Constitutional Convention of 1787, convened, and new laws were debated. When the convention was over, our new historical document was created.
But what the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 knew, is that they couldn't go too far left...they couldn't approach Tyranny's Ruler's Law.
So the brilliant part of our new Constitution, and what most people currently misunderstand about the rights given to govern us in this great nation, is the Bill or Rights, our first 10 Amendments, were promises given to the States, by our newly forming national government foundation.
The States were the first consideration of our new government, not the individual peoples....because our nation is a respecter of laws, not a respecter of people. The newly proposed federal government, which had to be ratified by each of the States, were making a promise to the States that they wouldn't restrict speech, or tell a State what it's recognized religion must be. It was promising the States that once tried of a crime, that the national government wouldn't terrorize the citizens of the States by trying them again and again.
This was the brilliance of our founding. Our founders realized that the minimal role a government played in our lives, the better. They understood that the national government should play the most minimal role in citizens lives, and that only small doses of increasing influence and power should be given to the States, then slightly more to municipals, and slightly more to townships, leaving the vast majority of power and freedom at the Family and then Individual's hands.
It seems rather clear, that this country is now far left, based on our founding perspective. The power ladder described above is nearly flipped upside down...with less power and influence in our own hands, and the national government running our lives. No, we're not living in completely Tyrannical times, obviously. But ask yourself if our Founding Fathers, who created a document with promises to the States that it wouldn't infringe on it's rights to govern it's peoples, would even remotely recognize the government structure we have today.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Who Are You, Congressman Ellsworth?!?
I wonder if you remember who you are, Congressman Ellsworth. Former Vanderburgh County Sherrif. One who upholds laws. One who looks out for people. One who protects people. Not certain people...all people.
Yet, with a vote of Yea, you have either gone against all that you once stood for, or shown what you really stand for.
With one action, you supported the decision that it was ok for the government to single out a group of people for retribution.
With one action, you stood by idly, thereby condoning the fact that it is ok to threaten not just the lives of a single group of people, but their husbands, their wives, their children....and not just with the threat of monetary harm, but physical harm.
For if you try to argue that it couldn't be foreseen that physical harm would come to the families of AIG members who received bonuses, whom Congressman Frank and Attorney General Andrew Quomo demanded be made known, then you are not mentally fit to hold the office you current hold.
Anyone who has the ability to look one mere step into the future can easily and reasonably predict that harm would befall those AIG bonus recipients once their names are made public.
And anyone...ANYONE...who participates in the active or benign actions of allowing that to happen is a complete and utter shame....and completely unworthy of representing the people of this great nation.
Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth, for your yes vote last week, allowing for 90% taxes on past money earned! Shame on you for not being a leader that one expects from a former Vanderburgh County Sherrif and begging, nay admonishing your colleagues for propagating enough anger to want to cause harm to these innocent citizens! Shame on you for not upholding your previous swarn duty to protect the people....regardless of creed of affluency! Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth!!!
Then again, perhaps you have no shame.
Yet, with a vote of Yea, you have either gone against all that you once stood for, or shown what you really stand for.
With one action, you supported the decision that it was ok for the government to single out a group of people for retribution.
With one action, you stood by idly, thereby condoning the fact that it is ok to threaten not just the lives of a single group of people, but their husbands, their wives, their children....and not just with the threat of monetary harm, but physical harm.
For if you try to argue that it couldn't be foreseen that physical harm would come to the families of AIG members who received bonuses, whom Congressman Frank and Attorney General Andrew Quomo demanded be made known, then you are not mentally fit to hold the office you current hold.
Anyone who has the ability to look one mere step into the future can easily and reasonably predict that harm would befall those AIG bonus recipients once their names are made public.
And anyone...ANYONE...who participates in the active or benign actions of allowing that to happen is a complete and utter shame....and completely unworthy of representing the people of this great nation.
Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth, for your yes vote last week, allowing for 90% taxes on past money earned! Shame on you for not being a leader that one expects from a former Vanderburgh County Sherrif and begging, nay admonishing your colleagues for propagating enough anger to want to cause harm to these innocent citizens! Shame on you for not upholding your previous swarn duty to protect the people....regardless of creed of affluency! Shame on you, Congressman Ellsworth!!!
Then again, perhaps you have no shame.
Timothy Geithner...
I'm rather torn about this man. I think there's lots of things he could be doing better. And it certainly says something about him, the administration, and the job he faces, that he can't get a single secretary hired to work for him in over 2 months...five people have bowed out after initially being interested in working with Treasury Secretary Geithner.
But let's be clear: Timothy Geithner should NOT be fired or resign, based on two months of work. Calls for or speculation to the contrary are misguided, at best.
Remember, this was "the best man for the job". Who else is there????
Ok, some may say their 5th grader can give better speeches than the man, with less of a deer-in-the-headlights look than the "best man" in the nation to be Treasury Secretary. Some may say that he's a tax cheat. Some may say he's a gambler and that we can't afford to gamble with taxpayer money.
Well those are the exact same reasons that I felt he shouldn't be Treasure Secretary in the first place. But since not enough other people cared to call their Senators back then and demand that he not be confirmed, we are stuck with him. And let's be serious, it's not like he's going to go out and pursue policies that are opposite President Obama. This is the exact kind of change we called for, right? Right???
No? Are you sure you didn't mandate a complete 180 degree shift in our country's future when you voted for Barack Obama??? Didn't you get the memo? Cause that's how he and the rest of the liberals in Washington took it in November.
I digress.
Whether or not I agree with Timothy Geithner or his mere presence in the office of the Treasury, he must be allowed to have a reasonable amount of time, in this large of an undertaking, to perform. Can that exact amount of time be all it takes to send this country onto a course it will never recover from? Possibly. But that's the risk we took with President Obama.
If we're concerned, the first line of questions we need to be asking is why the administration can't get the man some help! Why are all those people bowing out before even being offered a job??? Are they all tax cheats? Do none of them want to be part of a strategy that could bankrupt the country?? What? What is the problem up there folks? Does the need to be on Jay Leno supersede the need to get the most important, and unelected, department in the country fully staffed during this "country's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Not my words...President Obama's words.
So if your thinking Timothy Geithner should get the ax...just stop. Instead, first stand up and demand the man get some help for crying out loud. Then demand for more transparency from the most powerful and unelected department in government. And then...then if there are things that frighten you...then you can call for change...but first call for change in policy...before a change in leadership.
But let's be clear: Timothy Geithner should NOT be fired or resign, based on two months of work. Calls for or speculation to the contrary are misguided, at best.
Remember, this was "the best man for the job". Who else is there????
Ok, some may say their 5th grader can give better speeches than the man, with less of a deer-in-the-headlights look than the "best man" in the nation to be Treasury Secretary. Some may say that he's a tax cheat. Some may say he's a gambler and that we can't afford to gamble with taxpayer money.
Well those are the exact same reasons that I felt he shouldn't be Treasure Secretary in the first place. But since not enough other people cared to call their Senators back then and demand that he not be confirmed, we are stuck with him. And let's be serious, it's not like he's going to go out and pursue policies that are opposite President Obama. This is the exact kind of change we called for, right? Right???
No? Are you sure you didn't mandate a complete 180 degree shift in our country's future when you voted for Barack Obama??? Didn't you get the memo? Cause that's how he and the rest of the liberals in Washington took it in November.
I digress.
Whether or not I agree with Timothy Geithner or his mere presence in the office of the Treasury, he must be allowed to have a reasonable amount of time, in this large of an undertaking, to perform. Can that exact amount of time be all it takes to send this country onto a course it will never recover from? Possibly. But that's the risk we took with President Obama.
If we're concerned, the first line of questions we need to be asking is why the administration can't get the man some help! Why are all those people bowing out before even being offered a job??? Are they all tax cheats? Do none of them want to be part of a strategy that could bankrupt the country?? What? What is the problem up there folks? Does the need to be on Jay Leno supersede the need to get the most important, and unelected, department in the country fully staffed during this "country's greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Not my words...President Obama's words.
So if your thinking Timothy Geithner should get the ax...just stop. Instead, first stand up and demand the man get some help for crying out loud. Then demand for more transparency from the most powerful and unelected department in government. And then...then if there are things that frighten you...then you can call for change...but first call for change in policy...before a change in leadership.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Serious Conversation About AIG (and others)...
All I've heard recently is how outraged everyone is about AIG paying bonuses or Northern Trust having big parties featuring Sheryl Crow and such. Let's understand something here; I'm no fan of AIG, but are we really asking a business to stop acting like a business here? Is anyone asking Government to stop acting like government during this crisis??
The argument here is that it is taxpayer money that is being used, so the companies should be restricted on how they use the money. Wait a second. You mean you want a company that "acted irresponsibly" to the point of bankruptcy to suddenly begin to act responsibly?? Would that be like asking a government that looked the other way leading up to the biggest financial crisis in a generation to suddenly make sure that everything is on the up-and-up? Meanwhile appointee after appointee has tax issues, the finance and banking committees have no idea what happened with the first half of the first bailout, otherwise known as TARP, and the President is saying exactly what he excoriated John McCain for saying 6 months ago, when the economy was much better than it is now. Outrageous!
So let's be clear about AIG, and how it got to where it is today, or at least where it was, before the taxpayers gave them $180 Billion and 80% ownership in the failing company. It was making risky investments. Highly risky investments. But so was the entire lineup of Wall Street. If your competitors are making money and profits hand over fist in the derivative market, and you don't get into that market, your company is going to suffer in the eyes of investors and Wall Street. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a business...which the main purpose of is to make profits.
It's almost like the reverse of a gas pricing war. I'm sure you've experienced that in your town at one point or another. One gas station wants to own the market. To do that, they must put other gas stations out of business...which is to say, lower their prices so much that all the customers come to them instead of competitors. Well, the competitors, at least one of them, doesn't want to go out of business, so they lower their prices to match...and the war is on. They keep lowering their prices against each other, trying to get more customers and put the other company out of business, so that when they are the only gas station in the area, they can recoup the losses by raising their prices back, and then some.
So if AIG's competitors are making insane profits by investing in some exotic derivative market, they'd be in trouble if they didn't do the same thing because no one would want to invest in a company who isn't making money.
The problem is, just as with a gas pricing war, eventually you reach the point of no return. All the companies need to come to their senses at the same time, or face bankruptcy. That, or someone has to be willing to lose customers(investors) and profits in the short term hoping that the other company that acted irresponsibly will have to go out of business due to incompetence and they can eventually get the customers and profits back.
Unfortunately, that takes a long term vision, and by design, many companies don't think in the long term, particularly when they don't fully see the riskiness of the short term profits or when they are getting pounded by competition.
So if you give companies that are acting irresponsibly and haven't felt the pain of consequences of lack of vision free money, do you really think they are going to change their ways? If you give an alcoholic, who hasn't said they will stop drinking or hit rock bottom, a thousand dollars, are they suddenly not going to go buy alcohol??
The correct answer is, NO. So you don't give companies free money....you don't give an alcoholic a thousand dollars...you let them fail...for their own good. That's just common sense!
Will it hurt? Of course. Will it possibly hurt innocent people? Quite possibly. But at least you aren't flushing money down the toilet. At least you have something to work with if and when the lessons of failure are learned.
So please...spare me the feigned outrage over AIG paying bonuses to executives. That's what companies do. And if you aren't competent enough to restrict those kind of actions as a contingency to giving out free money...well, then your the United States Government...an incompetent body who has no understanding of how business is run and has very little common sense.
Did you know that the US Taxpayer isn't even 1st in line to recoup money if one of these bailout companies still fails?????? Congress didn't even put the taxpayer at the front of the line when giving companies bailout money! That's outrageous!!
The argument here is that it is taxpayer money that is being used, so the companies should be restricted on how they use the money. Wait a second. You mean you want a company that "acted irresponsibly" to the point of bankruptcy to suddenly begin to act responsibly?? Would that be like asking a government that looked the other way leading up to the biggest financial crisis in a generation to suddenly make sure that everything is on the up-and-up? Meanwhile appointee after appointee has tax issues, the finance and banking committees have no idea what happened with the first half of the first bailout, otherwise known as TARP, and the President is saying exactly what he excoriated John McCain for saying 6 months ago, when the economy was much better than it is now. Outrageous!
So let's be clear about AIG, and how it got to where it is today, or at least where it was, before the taxpayers gave them $180 Billion and 80% ownership in the failing company. It was making risky investments. Highly risky investments. But so was the entire lineup of Wall Street. If your competitors are making money and profits hand over fist in the derivative market, and you don't get into that market, your company is going to suffer in the eyes of investors and Wall Street. That doesn't make it right, it makes it a business...which the main purpose of is to make profits.
It's almost like the reverse of a gas pricing war. I'm sure you've experienced that in your town at one point or another. One gas station wants to own the market. To do that, they must put other gas stations out of business...which is to say, lower their prices so much that all the customers come to them instead of competitors. Well, the competitors, at least one of them, doesn't want to go out of business, so they lower their prices to match...and the war is on. They keep lowering their prices against each other, trying to get more customers and put the other company out of business, so that when they are the only gas station in the area, they can recoup the losses by raising their prices back, and then some.
So if AIG's competitors are making insane profits by investing in some exotic derivative market, they'd be in trouble if they didn't do the same thing because no one would want to invest in a company who isn't making money.
The problem is, just as with a gas pricing war, eventually you reach the point of no return. All the companies need to come to their senses at the same time, or face bankruptcy. That, or someone has to be willing to lose customers(investors) and profits in the short term hoping that the other company that acted irresponsibly will have to go out of business due to incompetence and they can eventually get the customers and profits back.
Unfortunately, that takes a long term vision, and by design, many companies don't think in the long term, particularly when they don't fully see the riskiness of the short term profits or when they are getting pounded by competition.
So if you give companies that are acting irresponsibly and haven't felt the pain of consequences of lack of vision free money, do you really think they are going to change their ways? If you give an alcoholic, who hasn't said they will stop drinking or hit rock bottom, a thousand dollars, are they suddenly not going to go buy alcohol??
The correct answer is, NO. So you don't give companies free money....you don't give an alcoholic a thousand dollars...you let them fail...for their own good. That's just common sense!
Will it hurt? Of course. Will it possibly hurt innocent people? Quite possibly. But at least you aren't flushing money down the toilet. At least you have something to work with if and when the lessons of failure are learned.
So please...spare me the feigned outrage over AIG paying bonuses to executives. That's what companies do. And if you aren't competent enough to restrict those kind of actions as a contingency to giving out free money...well, then your the United States Government...an incompetent body who has no understanding of how business is run and has very little common sense.
Did you know that the US Taxpayer isn't even 1st in line to recoup money if one of these bailout companies still fails?????? Congress didn't even put the taxpayer at the front of the line when giving companies bailout money! That's outrageous!!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Lies of an Atheist's Agruement : A Hypothesis
This hypothesis is something I'm still working on...I've admittedly got more reading to do on this, but I've got to start somewhere, so why not start by writing down my beginning hypothesis.
This isn't about whether or not you believe in God...your personal belief or lack thereof isn't my business, or it certainly isn't my place to critize that stance. This is about many Atheist's arguement of why religion is bad or wrong. It really comes down to one thing, personal responsibility, but we'll get to that in a moment.
What we first need to realize is that the United States of America is the first nation in the history of the world to live under freedom. All other nations before ours were ruled...they may have been benevolent rule for a time, but ruled nonetheless. It's true that the Romans dabbled in the idea of a republic at times and also had a branch of their government that was quite democratic as well, but the existance and influence of an emperor made their freedoms much less than our own. There were also the American Indians and other tribes throughout history, but they were never really a nations but really a collection of various tribes.
Next we need to realize how we arrived at our nation being free. What kept the foundation of our country from being yet another monarchy? The answer to that, of course, is God. Our founders made it blatently clear that our freedoms are given to us by our Creator. No man or group of men gives us these rights of freedom....if men were capable of such power, wouldn't they have discovered freedom before the creation of this country?
Our Founding Father, George Washington, said in his fairwell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Did you get that? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail without religion.
So why is that? Why would morailty erode without religion? Why would morality fade without time tested principles, etched into our souls, unyielding or wavering to the whims of a changing massive collective to decide??
Because men(and women) are flawed. Men are weak. Men are corrupt....because men seek power. And that is the huge hole in an Atheist's arguement. Not the arguement for being an Atheist...but the arguement that religion is bad...or the cause for all bad things in our world.
I don't know if it's a recruiting tool, or a talking point, or just an arguement used to make people less grounded in their convictions feel guilty...but it's a lie to say that religion is the cause for wars and mass casualties...or it may be just naivety or even the inability to apply reason to arguements beyond the absolute proof of the existance of God. Maybe they are being used by liberal professors and don't even realize it. In any case, it's just plain wrong to blame religion for the world's woes.
Unfortunately too many are beginning to buy into it, if you happen to believe recent polls, and the truth needs to be aired.
The truth is, that just like the adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people; religion doesn't wage wars...religion doesn't kill people...people wage wars...people kill people. Religion just is. There may be different opinions within religion...Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, Muslims believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but neither religion tells it's followers to kill others in the name of their god.
We aren't talking about extremists here, we're talking about the basic teachings of religion...which boils down to: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You'll not find a religion that doesn't beleive that tennent.
When that universal law isn't followed, it's not religion's fault, it's the fault of the individual. Just as universally and undeniably true: when wars are waged, it's not religions fault, it's the fault of the leader of the nation and/of movement. Those leaders may try to use religion as their basis for war...but again...religion does not teach such things.
Religion is coming under fire. There's a law that was nearly proposed in Connecticut this week that would strip the Catholic Church of control over it's operations and forced it to reorganize. It's nowhere in the mainstream media, otherwise I would have linked the story here.
The rights to practice religion must be preserved. Hold fast...and don't let those who would blame religion for the world's woes go unchallenged. They are filled with nothing but lies and feeble arguements. Don't Believe, if that's what you want. That's fine...but don't trash religion in the process.
Again, our founding fathers believed that religion was supremely important for our country to survive in it's free state. They even wanted it to be taught in school, at least on a basic level. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, when trying to determine what should be taught about religion, saying:
"Here is my creed.
I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."
This isn't about whether or not you believe in God...your personal belief or lack thereof isn't my business, or it certainly isn't my place to critize that stance. This is about many Atheist's arguement of why religion is bad or wrong. It really comes down to one thing, personal responsibility, but we'll get to that in a moment.
What we first need to realize is that the United States of America is the first nation in the history of the world to live under freedom. All other nations before ours were ruled...they may have been benevolent rule for a time, but ruled nonetheless. It's true that the Romans dabbled in the idea of a republic at times and also had a branch of their government that was quite democratic as well, but the existance and influence of an emperor made their freedoms much less than our own. There were also the American Indians and other tribes throughout history, but they were never really a nations but really a collection of various tribes.
Next we need to realize how we arrived at our nation being free. What kept the foundation of our country from being yet another monarchy? The answer to that, of course, is God. Our founders made it blatently clear that our freedoms are given to us by our Creator. No man or group of men gives us these rights of freedom....if men were capable of such power, wouldn't they have discovered freedom before the creation of this country?
Our Founding Father, George Washington, said in his fairwell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Did you get that? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail without religion.
So why is that? Why would morailty erode without religion? Why would morality fade without time tested principles, etched into our souls, unyielding or wavering to the whims of a changing massive collective to decide??
Because men(and women) are flawed. Men are weak. Men are corrupt....because men seek power. And that is the huge hole in an Atheist's arguement. Not the arguement for being an Atheist...but the arguement that religion is bad...or the cause for all bad things in our world.
I don't know if it's a recruiting tool, or a talking point, or just an arguement used to make people less grounded in their convictions feel guilty...but it's a lie to say that religion is the cause for wars and mass casualties...or it may be just naivety or even the inability to apply reason to arguements beyond the absolute proof of the existance of God. Maybe they are being used by liberal professors and don't even realize it. In any case, it's just plain wrong to blame religion for the world's woes.
Unfortunately too many are beginning to buy into it, if you happen to believe recent polls, and the truth needs to be aired.
The truth is, that just like the adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people; religion doesn't wage wars...religion doesn't kill people...people wage wars...people kill people. Religion just is. There may be different opinions within religion...Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, Muslims believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but neither religion tells it's followers to kill others in the name of their god.
We aren't talking about extremists here, we're talking about the basic teachings of religion...which boils down to: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You'll not find a religion that doesn't beleive that tennent.
When that universal law isn't followed, it's not religion's fault, it's the fault of the individual. Just as universally and undeniably true: when wars are waged, it's not religions fault, it's the fault of the leader of the nation and/of movement. Those leaders may try to use religion as their basis for war...but again...religion does not teach such things.
Religion is coming under fire. There's a law that was nearly proposed in Connecticut this week that would strip the Catholic Church of control over it's operations and forced it to reorganize. It's nowhere in the mainstream media, otherwise I would have linked the story here.
The rights to practice religion must be preserved. Hold fast...and don't let those who would blame religion for the world's woes go unchallenged. They are filled with nothing but lies and feeble arguements. Don't Believe, if that's what you want. That's fine...but don't trash religion in the process.
Again, our founding fathers believed that religion was supremely important for our country to survive in it's free state. They even wanted it to be taught in school, at least on a basic level. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, when trying to determine what should be taught about religion, saying:
"Here is my creed.
I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Global Warming Hits A Speed Bump??
Yes folks, the vast right-wing conspiracy group, The Discovery Channel, has an article that is yet another sign that man-made Global Warming is a farce.
"...according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades."
The article goes on to say that the earth's climate quote, "continues to confound scientists." Furthermore, it goes on to say that this us hasn't been seen since the 1950s. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."
Of course, not to alieniate global warming alarmists, the article finishes with a nice doomday scenario, stating that after the current cooling trendm which could possibly last another 30 years, we will then certainly "have explosive warming." The articled hypothesized that, "thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
Nice. They have no explaination for the current cooling...that it could last for 3 decades...then boom, it's the second coming of Atlantis.
And then there's the Japanese Energy Commission, who issued a report last month where one of the authors compared the current climate modeling procedeures to Ancient Astrology. Three of this commission's scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
One of the commissioner's argued that, "We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis." He continued with this train fo thought, stating that "before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth. The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."
Cap and Trade?? Based on a hypothesis that is yet to be proven, driven by politicians who refuse to listen to open dissent?!
Cap and Trade will effect each and every one of us...unless you are off the grid and run your home's electricity off solar and wind. Energy companies WILL raise our prices. That, or the government will take them over and our taxes WILL be raised...in which case, on of off the grid, you'll be affected.
Me, a regluar joe, was able to do a little research on the internet, find out about the life cycle of CO2, look up a chart comparing CO2 and temperature fluctuations, and based upon common sense was able to deduce that it's, at minimum, very plausable that CO2 is a lagging indicator, rather than any kind of leading indicator of temerature changes. If I can do that and write about it in an hour or two, the debate can't be settled.
Again, folks, we should be cognizant of how we treat our planet. But we have to be weary of politicians who use scare tactics to seize power to control aspects of our lives.
"...according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades."
The article goes on to say that the earth's climate quote, "continues to confound scientists." Furthermore, it goes on to say that this us hasn't been seen since the 1950s. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."
Of course, not to alieniate global warming alarmists, the article finishes with a nice doomday scenario, stating that after the current cooling trendm which could possibly last another 30 years, we will then certainly "have explosive warming." The articled hypothesized that, "thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
Nice. They have no explaination for the current cooling...that it could last for 3 decades...then boom, it's the second coming of Atlantis.
And then there's the Japanese Energy Commission, who issued a report last month where one of the authors compared the current climate modeling procedeures to Ancient Astrology. Three of this commission's scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
One of the commissioner's argued that, "We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis." He continued with this train fo thought, stating that "before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth. The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."
Cap and Trade?? Based on a hypothesis that is yet to be proven, driven by politicians who refuse to listen to open dissent?!
Cap and Trade will effect each and every one of us...unless you are off the grid and run your home's electricity off solar and wind. Energy companies WILL raise our prices. That, or the government will take them over and our taxes WILL be raised...in which case, on of off the grid, you'll be affected.
Me, a regluar joe, was able to do a little research on the internet, find out about the life cycle of CO2, look up a chart comparing CO2 and temperature fluctuations, and based upon common sense was able to deduce that it's, at minimum, very plausable that CO2 is a lagging indicator, rather than any kind of leading indicator of temerature changes. If I can do that and write about it in an hour or two, the debate can't be settled.
Again, folks, we should be cognizant of how we treat our planet. But we have to be weary of politicians who use scare tactics to seize power to control aspects of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
