The supreme court rule against the D.C. gun ban this week. That's the good news. The bad news is that it was only by a 5 to 4 vote. Thanks to that swing vote of Kennedy's we have won this battle. I find it somewhat terrifying that four of the Supreme court justices have not read the Constitution of the United States. You know, the one they are supposed to interpret. This will undoubtedly change however with the new presidency. If Obama is elected and the congress stays heavily liberal then they together will appoint more radical judges. Great!!! More Ginsburgs. This is rather irritating to a NRA member like myself.
Some comments about this come from various places. Despite how much he infuriates me at least I agree with McCain here Today's ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans (courtesy of NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91934910&ft=1&f=1001) Obama also gave a sort of praise Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe. (also NPR)
I think this is interesting as he stated that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." No Obama, it is what isn't constitutional in D.C. isn't constitutional anywhere in the U.S. period.
What was the dissenting opinions? Well Stevens tried to make the point that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. (wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._D.C.) Would you have me assume that if I had read to sentences that read "In order to protect Jill's right to eats Ice cream, Jake's right to have brass knuckles must not be infringed." to mean that Jill should get the brass knuckles or that Jake can only possess them if Jill's right to eat ice cream is in danger? The preamble just gives a reason why the law exists (aside from protecting from a tyrannical gov't). Many laws have that kind of crap right at the top. Read the beginning of the constitution or the declaration. Read the beginning of the (thankfully) failed law called the climate security act of 2007.
Of course Breyer brought up how many people die because of guns. I am glad to say fear mongering hasn't gone out of style. Gun bans don't work. This has been proven numerous times. Do you think it is a coincidence that D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S.? Never mind, this point has been driven hard enough already and the only ones who believe this drivel anymore are the zealots.
Thankfully there are somethings we can do. If we can bring back the GOP as the conservative party and take back the congress from the radical left wing MoveOn mesmerized dems then we can impeach every on of those justices. That's right, Impeach. They can be impeached too. (read Article II last section if you don't believe me.) If we don't band together soon then we may not live in a free world for long.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Argueing your point
Ever argue with a liberal? If your lucky, you will get a list of talking points. In essence they spit out rehearsed lines given to them by their teachers, friends, relatives, liberal pundits and even candidates for office. Go ahead, stop reading and try it. If your like me you will find it somewhat frustrating to talk to someone as programmed as many of them are. A bigger problem I see is when conservatives imitate liberals by spouting talking points. Even though everyone does this, even I do this, it disturbs me that some of these budding conservatives don't even know why they believe what they believe.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Gas doesn't grow on trees.
At least not in the literal sense. Yes, gas prices suck. I am now paying over $80 dollars a week on this required commodity, and I drive a 4 door sedan. Why the heck are these prices so outrageous!? Well, that depends on who you ask.
How could this be is a matter of perspective. It can't be actually. It is just that many of these people responsible are trying to cover their butts. Such is the nature of politics.
The first myth, it is all the oil companies fault. This sounds plausible if you ignore economics. Simply put, commodities are bought and sold at certain prices and the prices affect demand for those commodities. If I was selling bananas for a dime I would never doubt that you would buy as many as you could carry. If i sold those same bananas for three dollars, though, it would be a rip-off and I would be lucky to sell one. Likewise the oil companies that refine their oil and distribute it sell their gas at a certain price margin. This price margin happens to currently be about 8 1/2 cents per gallon. Sounds small? Well, consider that 300 million people buy billions of gallons of gas and now that sounds like a lot. In fact, Exxon Mobil made over 404 billion dollars net in 2007. (From Exxon Mobil's Form 10-K. SEC. Retrieved on 2008-04-21). That is massive. This theory sounds even better now, except that even if they made zero-profit margin the gas price would drop only eight cents. For this to have any real effect on fuel prices at the pump the oil companies like Exxon Mobil would have to take two dollars loss on every gallon of gas. This "evil" company would fold over night.
Some claim that oil companies are intentionally forcing the price upward. Ignoring the fact that their profit margin would have no increase and hence there is no incentive to do this, the "evil" corporations wouldn't want to anyway. Back to the bananas analogy, lets say my profit margin for every banana was x minus a nickle. So at ten cents my profit margin would be a nickle. It seems like a brilliant idea to simply increase your profit margin to make more money but eventually people start buying less. Less sales mean less profit. Oil companies can't allow their price to go too high, as you can see or else many people will simply take the bus or subway.
No, the real culprit is Congress. For thirty years there has been a ban on oil drilling of any kind and the building of oil refineries. Brilliant idea! Kill the supply, that will show those evil corporations. Naturally, as supply stayed roughly stable in the US and other countries, the demand rose as it was expected to. Supply and demand, something a fifth grader knows, naturally causes the price to go up as demand exceeds supply. This isn't just the Dem's fault, this isn't the republicans, nope, this is as bi-partisan as you can get. Don't you love how bi-partisanship only seems to exist in screw-ups?
We have enormous amounts of oil underneath the ground in the US. We could build dozens of refineries and drill up and down the coast of Florida, California and the Gulf of Mexico. This, yes, would take awhile, but I would rather have cheap gas in the future then no cheap gas at all.
A recent bit of misinformation being passed around is that increasing supply would not decrease price. One belief is that all the fuel would be shipped overseas to the world market. Where? Where would any company want to ship it that it could sell for a profit. It simply is cheaper to sell here, cheaper means less risk and hence a better overall decision. I wouldn't doubt that 50% of oil produced here would be used here.
The other one I have heard even more recently is a shift in blame from oil companies and onto oil futures traders. The misinformation here is that the price is made up primarily from these futures and that the price won't be affected much in any direction, as this is the 'real' problem. For those who don't know what oil futures are, a future is the guaranteed price on a commodity purchased at today's price. To be less esoteric, it would suffice to say that traders of the futures are buying commodities that do not exist yet at today's price in hopes that the price in the future is higher than today's price. It’s gambling on either a supply crisis or a demand boom. A recent example is corn. Due to the massive floods in several farm states the price of corn is expected to go up massively, as much as 400%. This means that anyone who bought futures in corn is having a heyday with their massive return.
This is roughly balanced, as prices are usually stable with increases following inflation but with the widely known supply shortage in oil, many futures traders are buying oil as there is little or no risk involved. It is almost a guarantee that they will make back their investment and more. As you can see this causes an artificial bubble in oil that increases oil prices. This theory is wrong, however, in one single way, the futures traders are not eternally stupid. Because of this they know that if the supply problem is solved then the price of oil, and therefore gas, will drop. If they know this is going to happen the futures traders will pull out, bursting the bubble. Many people will lose their shirts but let’s face it, the average American really does not care.
Congress is still refusing to open ANWR or allow offshore drilling. If you listen to Obama it becomes clear why. They don't want us to drive. They don't think oil companies are evil, they think we are evil. Us and our lack of concern for the environment. They can't make us believe in their Global Warming Delusion, so they have decided to make us comply with them. Make us drive hybrids and ride bicycles. The problem is that not everyone can afford a hybrid, not everyone can use a bicycle in common life. Some people need a truck to carry cement or tools or to carry groceries. I cannot afford a hybrid, and I cannot use a bicycle to get to work. I live over 40 miles away from where I work. Going even forty (I think I can only do twenty) it would take me an hour to get to work. I already wake up at three am. My father goes 70 miles up a mountain to get to work and then drives around all day. There is no way we could live without vehicles. Our nearest grocery store is ten miles away; and our family is not alone in this either. Once again, the 'enlightened' urbans think they know better than rural folk.
Cars cannot be eliminated, nor are any viable alternative fuels available. So drill dammit. Every week I am losing $80 until congress fixes this. I simply cannot wait for some pie in the sky idea. I need help with this now, so fix it.
How could this be is a matter of perspective. It can't be actually. It is just that many of these people responsible are trying to cover their butts. Such is the nature of politics.
The first myth, it is all the oil companies fault. This sounds plausible if you ignore economics. Simply put, commodities are bought and sold at certain prices and the prices affect demand for those commodities. If I was selling bananas for a dime I would never doubt that you would buy as many as you could carry. If i sold those same bananas for three dollars, though, it would be a rip-off and I would be lucky to sell one. Likewise the oil companies that refine their oil and distribute it sell their gas at a certain price margin. This price margin happens to currently be about 8 1/2 cents per gallon. Sounds small? Well, consider that 300 million people buy billions of gallons of gas and now that sounds like a lot. In fact, Exxon Mobil made over 404 billion dollars net in 2007. (From Exxon Mobil's Form 10-K. SEC. Retrieved on 2008-04-21). That is massive. This theory sounds even better now, except that even if they made zero-profit margin the gas price would drop only eight cents. For this to have any real effect on fuel prices at the pump the oil companies like Exxon Mobil would have to take two dollars loss on every gallon of gas. This "evil" company would fold over night.
Some claim that oil companies are intentionally forcing the price upward. Ignoring the fact that their profit margin would have no increase and hence there is no incentive to do this, the "evil" corporations wouldn't want to anyway. Back to the bananas analogy, lets say my profit margin for every banana was x minus a nickle. So at ten cents my profit margin would be a nickle. It seems like a brilliant idea to simply increase your profit margin to make more money but eventually people start buying less. Less sales mean less profit. Oil companies can't allow their price to go too high, as you can see or else many people will simply take the bus or subway.
No, the real culprit is Congress. For thirty years there has been a ban on oil drilling of any kind and the building of oil refineries. Brilliant idea! Kill the supply, that will show those evil corporations. Naturally, as supply stayed roughly stable in the US and other countries, the demand rose as it was expected to. Supply and demand, something a fifth grader knows, naturally causes the price to go up as demand exceeds supply. This isn't just the Dem's fault, this isn't the republicans, nope, this is as bi-partisan as you can get. Don't you love how bi-partisanship only seems to exist in screw-ups?
We have enormous amounts of oil underneath the ground in the US. We could build dozens of refineries and drill up and down the coast of Florida, California and the Gulf of Mexico. This, yes, would take awhile, but I would rather have cheap gas in the future then no cheap gas at all.
A recent bit of misinformation being passed around is that increasing supply would not decrease price. One belief is that all the fuel would be shipped overseas to the world market. Where? Where would any company want to ship it that it could sell for a profit. It simply is cheaper to sell here, cheaper means less risk and hence a better overall decision. I wouldn't doubt that 50% of oil produced here would be used here.
The other one I have heard even more recently is a shift in blame from oil companies and onto oil futures traders. The misinformation here is that the price is made up primarily from these futures and that the price won't be affected much in any direction, as this is the 'real' problem. For those who don't know what oil futures are, a future is the guaranteed price on a commodity purchased at today's price. To be less esoteric, it would suffice to say that traders of the futures are buying commodities that do not exist yet at today's price in hopes that the price in the future is higher than today's price. It’s gambling on either a supply crisis or a demand boom. A recent example is corn. Due to the massive floods in several farm states the price of corn is expected to go up massively, as much as 400%. This means that anyone who bought futures in corn is having a heyday with their massive return.
This is roughly balanced, as prices are usually stable with increases following inflation but with the widely known supply shortage in oil, many futures traders are buying oil as there is little or no risk involved. It is almost a guarantee that they will make back their investment and more. As you can see this causes an artificial bubble in oil that increases oil prices. This theory is wrong, however, in one single way, the futures traders are not eternally stupid. Because of this they know that if the supply problem is solved then the price of oil, and therefore gas, will drop. If they know this is going to happen the futures traders will pull out, bursting the bubble. Many people will lose their shirts but let’s face it, the average American really does not care.
Congress is still refusing to open ANWR or allow offshore drilling. If you listen to Obama it becomes clear why. They don't want us to drive. They don't think oil companies are evil, they think we are evil. Us and our lack of concern for the environment. They can't make us believe in their Global Warming Delusion, so they have decided to make us comply with them. Make us drive hybrids and ride bicycles. The problem is that not everyone can afford a hybrid, not everyone can use a bicycle in common life. Some people need a truck to carry cement or tools or to carry groceries. I cannot afford a hybrid, and I cannot use a bicycle to get to work. I live over 40 miles away from where I work. Going even forty (I think I can only do twenty) it would take me an hour to get to work. I already wake up at three am. My father goes 70 miles up a mountain to get to work and then drives around all day. There is no way we could live without vehicles. Our nearest grocery store is ten miles away; and our family is not alone in this either. Once again, the 'enlightened' urbans think they know better than rural folk.
Cars cannot be eliminated, nor are any viable alternative fuels available. So drill dammit. Every week I am losing $80 until congress fixes this. I simply cannot wait for some pie in the sky idea. I need help with this now, so fix it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Global Warming Insanity pt. 3
I have been sticking my nose to the grind and went searching for evidence that these people (especially Al Gore). I found nothing, and since I am not going to state anything as truth without evidence I am going to state right now that all of this post will be unsubstantiated.
I have disproved Anthropogenic Global Warming (at least as much as I can) in my last post. The question that comes up is that if this evidence is easily available then why does anyone believe it? Why does anyone claim it to be true? There are three main schools of thought that I know of.
The first is the one I favor the most. The media are using AGW to get more money. The idea behind this one is that TV stations and newspapers get money from advertising. Advertisers pay money based on viewership/readership, so more viewers/readers is equal to more money. Now although people say they want truthful news, in reality people will simply ignore boring news casts. Be honest. If you had to choose between a show about the latest Britney Spears screw up and a traffic report you will change the channel to Spears. Well what trumps even celebrity shenanigans? The end of the world. If I owned a TV station and I could get away with it then I would tell everyone that an asteroid was about to impact the earth. So regardless of any evidence available, it would be more profitable to be alarmist. Heck, why even bother with fact checking. Anyone who knows enough about science knows that every little detail of every theory on earth if constantly being argued over. If you were ever caught you could simply state that the "information is not yet in".
The second one is simple. People are stupid. Don't attack me yet, this one is a common belief. Basically people either don't know about the information I have posted or they simply don't care at all. Under this idea it is possible to say that no one, except maybe the experts in the field, knows about AGW's flaws. I think this one is right to an extent. I doubt that everyone knows nothing. This would require unprecedented amounts of ignorance. It would probably be more then any other time in history. Even when people believed in a flat earth the Greeks had figured out that was incorrect.
The third theory is more fun then I think it true. This is mainly because it is the only example of a conservative conspiracy theory I know off hand. The theory is that the government or entities within the government, are using AGW to control your life. I would normally laugh at this be unfortunately if you accept the premise that they already know AGW is incorrect and take a look at the climate security act of 2007 then it becomes apparent that there is some water in that cup. How much is to be determined. The reasoning behind why they want control varies a little mostly with what ideology the government wants to push. The most conservative reasoning ( by conservative I mean the reasoning that would be used most often by conservatives) is that the government is trying to push socialism. Others believe it is a fascism they are pushing (I like to point out that socialism is a type a fascism and hence they are restating the previous theory). Regardless of the reasoning I still classify this as a conspiracy theory as it would require a massive amount of coordination in the media (the media is supposedly involved in this) and congress. Occam's razor prevents me from believing this.
These are the why's behind AGW. One I didn't mention is the one about politicians doing this for money. Usually the logic is that they hold stock and while that is not bad as far as evidence goes, it isn't "conclusive". Can we know why? Probably not. Only way I can figure is if you prove in a very public place that they are full of it and then ask/demand to know why. I don't see this happening so it is easily ignored.
The bottom line is that AGW is far away from being accepted yet policy is based on its supposed validity. A bright side is that the Climate Security Act of 2007 has failed in the Senate so we can rest easy for a while but unless a massive conservative victory comes in November the act will pass on the next session.
I have disproved Anthropogenic Global Warming (at least as much as I can) in my last post. The question that comes up is that if this evidence is easily available then why does anyone believe it? Why does anyone claim it to be true? There are three main schools of thought that I know of.
The first is the one I favor the most. The media are using AGW to get more money. The idea behind this one is that TV stations and newspapers get money from advertising. Advertisers pay money based on viewership/readership, so more viewers/readers is equal to more money. Now although people say they want truthful news, in reality people will simply ignore boring news casts. Be honest. If you had to choose between a show about the latest Britney Spears screw up and a traffic report you will change the channel to Spears. Well what trumps even celebrity shenanigans? The end of the world. If I owned a TV station and I could get away with it then I would tell everyone that an asteroid was about to impact the earth. So regardless of any evidence available, it would be more profitable to be alarmist. Heck, why even bother with fact checking. Anyone who knows enough about science knows that every little detail of every theory on earth if constantly being argued over. If you were ever caught you could simply state that the "information is not yet in".
The second one is simple. People are stupid. Don't attack me yet, this one is a common belief. Basically people either don't know about the information I have posted or they simply don't care at all. Under this idea it is possible to say that no one, except maybe the experts in the field, knows about AGW's flaws. I think this one is right to an extent. I doubt that everyone knows nothing. This would require unprecedented amounts of ignorance. It would probably be more then any other time in history. Even when people believed in a flat earth the Greeks had figured out that was incorrect.
The third theory is more fun then I think it true. This is mainly because it is the only example of a conservative conspiracy theory I know off hand. The theory is that the government or entities within the government, are using AGW to control your life. I would normally laugh at this be unfortunately if you accept the premise that they already know AGW is incorrect and take a look at the climate security act of 2007 then it becomes apparent that there is some water in that cup. How much is to be determined. The reasoning behind why they want control varies a little mostly with what ideology the government wants to push. The most conservative reasoning ( by conservative I mean the reasoning that would be used most often by conservatives) is that the government is trying to push socialism. Others believe it is a fascism they are pushing (I like to point out that socialism is a type a fascism and hence they are restating the previous theory). Regardless of the reasoning I still classify this as a conspiracy theory as it would require a massive amount of coordination in the media (the media is supposedly involved in this) and congress. Occam's razor prevents me from believing this.
These are the why's behind AGW. One I didn't mention is the one about politicians doing this for money. Usually the logic is that they hold stock and while that is not bad as far as evidence goes, it isn't "conclusive". Can we know why? Probably not. Only way I can figure is if you prove in a very public place that they are full of it and then ask/demand to know why. I don't see this happening so it is easily ignored.
The bottom line is that AGW is far away from being accepted yet policy is based on its supposed validity. A bright side is that the Climate Security Act of 2007 has failed in the Senate so we can rest easy for a while but unless a massive conservative victory comes in November the act will pass on the next session.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Global Warming Insanity pt. II
Ahh here again. I tried to do some research so as to prove another point but couldn't find what I needed so I am just going to stick with my original proof.
If you look at the data from the Petit et. al. analysis of the ice cores and make a graph in Excel you will notice that there appears to be a correlation. For the next part I am going to ask a simple question. If you were expecting CO2 to cause temperature increases on a global scale then what would the graph look like? Think on this a little and then look at the next parahgraph.
If you said CO2 goes up first then you would be correct. simple causeality would seem to state that if something causes another thing then that thing must occur first. This follows in the event of a car accident. It is unlikely that a bumper would get dented before the accident. This however is not seen in the Vostok cores as analysed by Petit et. al.. For instance just in the last glacial transition there was a lag of almost 1500 years. the one before that had another lag of several thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. Since backward causeality, effect before the cause, makes no sense this should be the smoking gun that disproves AGW.
This isn't quite the end though as the argument against this is that CO2 is a "feedback". Basically temperature causes an initial increase in CO2 and then CO2 in turn amplifies the temperature. This seems to fix the problem but in reality only causes a new one. Feedbacks come in two different flavors, positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback would be a bunch of rabbits in a pen and for every x number of months that go by the rabbit population increases by 50%. If you started with lets say 20 rabbits and waited lets say three months then when those months are over you will have 30 rabbits. If you repeat this prossess then you will get 45 rabbits then 67 then about 100 and so on. If this were graphed then it would look like an exponential graph. (sorry about speaking in mathese, I will try to limit it) A negative feedback would be like the rabbits exceeding their food supply and starving themselves to death. That would look logarithmic in nature.
Back to CO2, if the feedback is positive, which it would most likely be, then temperature would increase CO2 which would raise temperature which would raise CO2 etc... until a catastrophic climate catastrophy took place or a negative feedback kicked in to stop the runaway prossess. Conversely if the feedback was negative, either to start with or as a natural cutoff, then to increase our temperature by x amount you would need y amount the first time then 2y the second time then 4y the next time and so on. Essentially the amount of CO2 we as a species would have to produce to have the kind of effect described would require such a large amount of CO2 that I would wager that the air would toxify before we exceeded the 2 degrees centigrade required to bring about total destruction.
And one more thing, the two degrees that are supposed to kill all life on earth, made up. It would have to be as no self-respecting scientist would declare that two is the magic number that would cause mass extinctions. How could I know? Simple, just 126k years ago the temperature was 3.06 degrees higher than it is today. Just 126k years, not 126 mya not 126 bya (universe wasn't around then anyway) but 126k years ago. Our ancesters were even around then. So much of the evidence is made up that to look at it makes me cry.
Why do I care? Because, I love science. Especially cosmology, gotta love the universe. When I see these global warming fanatics I become irritated by their use of science. Rather then subjecting their ideas and hypotheseis to the facts they instead subject the facts to their hypotheseis. This is completely contrary to the scientific prossess and is a disgrace.
This was a long post, I will finish this someother time with a why segment. Right now I am tired of doing research and am taking a break.
Sources: Vostok core data ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273 (the bit about 2 degrees killing everyone.)
If you look at the data from the Petit et. al. analysis of the ice cores and make a graph in Excel you will notice that there appears to be a correlation. For the next part I am going to ask a simple question. If you were expecting CO2 to cause temperature increases on a global scale then what would the graph look like? Think on this a little and then look at the next parahgraph.
If you said CO2 goes up first then you would be correct. simple causeality would seem to state that if something causes another thing then that thing must occur first. This follows in the event of a car accident. It is unlikely that a bumper would get dented before the accident. This however is not seen in the Vostok cores as analysed by Petit et. al.. For instance just in the last glacial transition there was a lag of almost 1500 years. the one before that had another lag of several thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. Since backward causeality, effect before the cause, makes no sense this should be the smoking gun that disproves AGW.
This isn't quite the end though as the argument against this is that CO2 is a "feedback". Basically temperature causes an initial increase in CO2 and then CO2 in turn amplifies the temperature. This seems to fix the problem but in reality only causes a new one. Feedbacks come in two different flavors, positive and negative. An example of a positive feedback would be a bunch of rabbits in a pen and for every x number of months that go by the rabbit population increases by 50%. If you started with lets say 20 rabbits and waited lets say three months then when those months are over you will have 30 rabbits. If you repeat this prossess then you will get 45 rabbits then 67 then about 100 and so on. If this were graphed then it would look like an exponential graph. (sorry about speaking in mathese, I will try to limit it) A negative feedback would be like the rabbits exceeding their food supply and starving themselves to death. That would look logarithmic in nature.
Back to CO2, if the feedback is positive, which it would most likely be, then temperature would increase CO2 which would raise temperature which would raise CO2 etc... until a catastrophic climate catastrophy took place or a negative feedback kicked in to stop the runaway prossess. Conversely if the feedback was negative, either to start with or as a natural cutoff, then to increase our temperature by x amount you would need y amount the first time then 2y the second time then 4y the next time and so on. Essentially the amount of CO2 we as a species would have to produce to have the kind of effect described would require such a large amount of CO2 that I would wager that the air would toxify before we exceeded the 2 degrees centigrade required to bring about total destruction.
And one more thing, the two degrees that are supposed to kill all life on earth, made up. It would have to be as no self-respecting scientist would declare that two is the magic number that would cause mass extinctions. How could I know? Simple, just 126k years ago the temperature was 3.06 degrees higher than it is today. Just 126k years, not 126 mya not 126 bya (universe wasn't around then anyway) but 126k years ago. Our ancesters were even around then. So much of the evidence is made up that to look at it makes me cry.
Why do I care? Because, I love science. Especially cosmology, gotta love the universe. When I see these global warming fanatics I become irritated by their use of science. Rather then subjecting their ideas and hypotheseis to the facts they instead subject the facts to their hypotheseis. This is completely contrary to the scientific prossess and is a disgrace.
This was a long post, I will finish this someother time with a why segment. Right now I am tired of doing research and am taking a break.
Sources: Vostok core data ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=273 (the bit about 2 degrees killing everyone.)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Global Warming Insanity Pt. I
Another day passes by and another bill is drafted. This new bill lovingly called the Leiberman-Warner bill or the climate security act of 2007 is once again trying to impose the carbon cap and trade idea on the american people. This bill is likely to take a year of so before it is finally passed; you know, when libs (sorry "progressives") control both houses and the presidents office. Of course I am just insane. None of this will harm us and we need to save the environment or else we will all die.
Everyone knows the prediction of twenty meters of ocean increase that will flood everyone else out of their homes and the mass droughts that will cause world wide deserts. Toxic air was another I have heard and mass extinctions of all species including our own. Also, how could I forget how our planet will become like Venus, a planet that I would vote for being the planet that most closely resembles hell. Of course most people who even buy into Anthropogenic Global Warming still don't buy all of this but I have met a few.
How can I doubt something that is a "closed" discussion in science? Well, first of all there is no such thing as closed in science. If closed discussions were ever honored then we would still beleive the solar system revolved around us. I thought conservatives were supposed to fear science? Maybe they all mean that science is pretty sure it is right, i.e. AGW is a theory. Sure, except that a petition is being circled around right now that has no less than nine-thousand signitures from scientists includeing something like fifty PH.Ds. I havent seen this myself so I cannot comment on this petition, but I didn't expect that to be proof, just a sort of "Ain't it interesting?" kind of comment.
There are lots of proof I am told, so where is this proof?
source: http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/plight-nof.htm
That is a picture of the vostok cores. This mostly is used to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. Anyone who did not fall asleep in statistics could tell you that correlation does not prove causation but that is what this is used for. One major problem with this is that when I looked at this grap I came to the conclution that something is wrong with this graph. Look at the CO2 at the end of the graph that rises massively. That is supposed to represent our effect on the environment, but here is the problem. In the raw data of the Vostok cores I found on the internet does not show any such spike. The spike in the graph above reaches up to about 380 ppmv the actual data from Petit et. al. only goes to 280 ppmv.(source ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) Where does this spike come from? I have no clue. Petit's own mesurements in 2001 only go to 2342 YBP. The rest is either made up or grabbed from someone else. (The website I grabbed this from only sources Petit et. al. for the graph so I cannot tell who they could have grabbed this from. They also source the much allauded IPCC report so maybe they just forgot to mention this.)
Assuming these are actual mesurements then what we have is a composite graph. Major problem with composite graphs is that the mesurements can come from two very different sources. Sure, the data could have come from the same or similar places or we could have a situation where one mesurement came from the antarctic and the other a busy metropolis. Why not just show you a good graph in the first place? Because this graph, along with another graph, is used in Al Gore's movie. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for anyone to speak of AGW. If I say anything then someone will pull up a bogus graph.
I am running long so I will finish my proof of AGW's flaws another time. Then tell you what it all means.
Everyone knows the prediction of twenty meters of ocean increase that will flood everyone else out of their homes and the mass droughts that will cause world wide deserts. Toxic air was another I have heard and mass extinctions of all species including our own. Also, how could I forget how our planet will become like Venus, a planet that I would vote for being the planet that most closely resembles hell. Of course most people who even buy into Anthropogenic Global Warming still don't buy all of this but I have met a few.
How can I doubt something that is a "closed" discussion in science? Well, first of all there is no such thing as closed in science. If closed discussions were ever honored then we would still beleive the solar system revolved around us. I thought conservatives were supposed to fear science? Maybe they all mean that science is pretty sure it is right, i.e. AGW is a theory. Sure, except that a petition is being circled around right now that has no less than nine-thousand signitures from scientists includeing something like fifty PH.Ds. I havent seen this myself so I cannot comment on this petition, but I didn't expect that to be proof, just a sort of "Ain't it interesting?" kind of comment.
There are lots of proof I am told, so where is this proof?
source: http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/plight-nof.htm
That is a picture of the vostok cores. This mostly is used to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. Anyone who did not fall asleep in statistics could tell you that correlation does not prove causation but that is what this is used for. One major problem with this is that when I looked at this grap I came to the conclution that something is wrong with this graph. Look at the CO2 at the end of the graph that rises massively. That is supposed to represent our effect on the environment, but here is the problem. In the raw data of the Vostok cores I found on the internet does not show any such spike. The spike in the graph above reaches up to about 380 ppmv the actual data from Petit et. al. only goes to 280 ppmv.(source ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) Where does this spike come from? I have no clue. Petit's own mesurements in 2001 only go to 2342 YBP. The rest is either made up or grabbed from someone else. (The website I grabbed this from only sources Petit et. al. for the graph so I cannot tell who they could have grabbed this from. They also source the much allauded IPCC report so maybe they just forgot to mention this.)
Assuming these are actual mesurements then what we have is a composite graph. Major problem with composite graphs is that the mesurements can come from two very different sources. Sure, the data could have come from the same or similar places or we could have a situation where one mesurement came from the antarctic and the other a busy metropolis. Why not just show you a good graph in the first place? Because this graph, along with another graph, is used in Al Gore's movie. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for anyone to speak of AGW. If I say anything then someone will pull up a bogus graph.
I am running long so I will finish my proof of AGW's flaws another time. Then tell you what it all means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)