Huffington Post Gets It Right Sort Of

Huffington Post's story on this subject:

"Glenn Beck has uncovered a plot! (Yes, another one.) Turns out Van Jones, President Obama’s green jobs czar, is going to coordinate a vast radical/communist/black nationalist takeover of our sweet, virginal land of liberty. Most diabolical of all, he’s going to do it by organizing efforts to train and employ low-income people in private sector jobs. Don’t you understand? They’re going to take over from the inside! You know: them. Admit it, it’s brilliant. Here Beck exposes the cabal of Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, and Big Commie, orchestrated by the many-tentacled Apollo Alliance"

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/

Right on Huffy.

Huffington Post also reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce wants a court trial of Global Warming. That also seems appropriate to me. If the press had given us the promised debate, a trial would not be needed.

Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity could not be proven. Instead he stated three propositions, which if empirically proven, would disprove relativity. He also wrote a book that he said was understandable to anyone with a high school education (at the time), in which he derives and explains his theory. I think that we should demand similar exposition of man made global warming theory before we waste our precious time, manpower, and resources on Cap-and-Trade or any similar scheme.

The books written about global warming for the general public, are 99% devoted to the supposedly dire results of global warming. I suppose a little is also devoted to the claim that CO2 control is the only solutions. I read a book written about atmospheric science that came out in the late 1960. (by John Houghton, Cambridge University.) It was over my head, but I could get the general idea of each chapter without following the mathematical development completely. It was about all of the physical (i.e. scientific) factors that need to be addressed and calculated in the determination of weather and climate. His conclusion regarding human caused global warming via a greenhouse mechanism was that the evidence was inconclusive. We need more books like that with a slightly less mathematical approach. Professor Houghton's recent book on the subject is somewhat dumbed down. It is mainly about conclusions and their ramifications. He talks about the "precautionary principle." He does bring up economics as a consideration. I cannot comment on that without reading a little more. I bought the book recently and I will read it. The earlier book I had checked out of the library a while back and had for only one month. I would recommend the first book and similar ones, although they are scarce compared to the "we are doomed" variety. Professor's Houghton's conclusion in the second book also seems to be that he is not sure if human generated green house gases are a significant determinate of climate. Unfortunately, he devotes most of the book to dire consequences assuming it is true. He does not seem to get into mitigation of those consequences via preparations, etc. HE DOES NOT, nor does anyone else, play devil advocate by giving any kind of evenhanded presentation of alternative theories or mitigation proposals nor does it respond to objections. Remember: the debate is over unless you're a complete dope.

Questions we have not adequately explored:

1) Is there global warming?

2) Is it caused by man?

3) What is the best way to prevent global warming and/or mitigate its affects if it is going on?

A Convenient Theory

One of the many comments to this blog directed our attention to an essay:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/07/10/top_stories/doc4a576b0ec9caa441243158.txt

This is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. Not only does the author demonstrate the irresponsibility of environmentalists who make unfounded predictions of doom, he exposes quite handily the snobbery and elitism of said environmentalists.

It has become clear to me that environmentalists, (at least the growing extremist fringe), hate capitalism. Why it is that they and liberals in general hold this view, given the irrefutable facts of history, is one of the great mysteries of our time. They want to turn back the clock and undue the advances of the modern world. They disguise there plans in a feigned concern for dangers to nature. They get monetary and moral support from some genuine environmentalists. However, to these radical environmentalist, who are actually not environmentalists at all, global warming is the latest and most convenient theory so far to help them with the destruction of capitalism, which is what they actually wanted all along. Thirty years ago, when they foretold the coming man-made ice age, their solution was the same: more and more limitations on industry. Doesn't this raise some suspicions? I guess if you're a mundane journalist with his marching orders who drank the conformist Cool-Aid, you're beyond help. God help us all.

When the Cool-Aid Changed

There is no single truth in human affairs. We often hear the phrase, "drink the Cool-Aid." This seems to derive from the poisoned Cool-Aid and the mass suicides in the religious cult of James Town, Guinna. It also is reminiscent of the story of When the Water Changed:

Before the time of Noah, some people left society to live alone in the mountains. While they were there, back in the places they left, the water changed in such a way that all who drank it became insane. Little by little some of the people in the mountains yearned for their past life and returned to society. When they drank the changed water, they also became insane. The last man left in the mountains who had not drank the water saw what was happening. At first, he felt lucky in avoiding the insanity that came from drinking the water. Finally, he too became lonely and returned and drank the water.

This is my best recollection of the story, I don't have it exactly right. It is an old story meant to teach about some aspect of human existence.

The Drive-Bys Always Move On

Rush Limbaugh calls the large television and print news outlets the Drive-By Media. By this, he is describing one of their methods of influencing opinion and even of creating our world view regardless of the facts. Reporters in these major outlets address a story or issue by tossing out a factoid (something resembling a fact, the truth of which is irrelevant), then moving on to the next story. They do not back up what they say. They don't want the "facts to get into the way." If they are questioned, they change the subject by throwing out another factoid. By diverting our attention, they avoid having to prove what they say or address contrary facts. To reinforce the opinions they want to implant in the public, they repeat the same or similar factoids later then move on again. Everyone is susceptible to this not so subtle mind control, so it is best to avoid the drive-bys altogether. If you are under their spell long enough, you will eventually "drink the Cool-Aid."