Tag Archive for danger

Global Warming Gets A Little Flaky

flake“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”

– Maimonides

I am skeptical of man made global warming. Having said that, I like to think that I am open to any reasonable interpretation that the data bears out. For many years we have been plied with data and computer models of an impending climate crisis. I have observed these reports and have tried to keep an open mind despite the socio-political bent of the scientists who are eager to produce them.Recently, however, the mask has slipped and much of the behind closed doors “research” of some of the leading global warming climatologists has been revealed.

Emails from climatologists at the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom have surfaced due to the work of some computer hackers. The fact that the hackers were wrong in illegally obtaining the documents doesn’t change the content that has surfaced. Included in the documents are attempts by these climatologists to suppress data that is “problematic” to their models. In other words, they attempted to cover-up findings that contradicted their global-warming worldview.

Covering the story syndicated columnist and author Jonah Goldberg writes:

First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of real scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.

Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantor’s want the grantees to confirm the global warming consensus. The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn’t necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.

So what does this do for the whole global warming discussion? Well, with the Copenhagen climate summit on the horizon we should be highly cautious about any agreements for carbon emission reductions. Such agreements, in my opinion, are nothing more than attempts to confiscate wealth from developed nations to distribute to the third world. If we want to aid the third world, which the US does, we should do so under the umbrella of charity not of “science”. Let there been no ambiguity that until global warmings’ leading scientists begin to act like scientists and not charlatans they are not deserving of our ears or our wallets.

By the way, did you hear about the record snowfalls across the U.S. this year? Poetic justice? It does seem to make global warming out to be a little flaky.

What Is A Good Trade For Liberty?

coins“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Is your insurance premium worth the sacrifice of your liberty? By the words and actions of some in this country one might be inclined to think so. The very thought that American citizens would trade their essential liberties for a government run health care system is mind-blowing. We would do well to remember the Bible lesson of Jacob and Esau. In this Old Testament lesson, Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of stew. He allowed his hunger cloud his judgment and in so doing he despised the great inheritance that was by birth his. As Americans, we have been given a great inheritance too. We have one of the freest, most prosperous countries in the history of mankind and instead of sustaining that freedom many of our leaders in Washington desire to dish out the stew hoping to catch us at a weak moment.

So what will we do? Will we have this poisoned pottage or will we have the fortitude to resist this subtle undermining of our liberties? I honestly don’t know. I have been encouraged with the outpouring of opposition to this health care plan but the fight is not over. If we are to protect our inheritance, we need to remove from power those who would use fear and trickery to undermine the foundation of liberties. We must sustain this groundswell of opposition that we see at the town halls and see it carry us to the polls in 2010. Only when we have leaders who respect our freedoms and our heritage can we breathe a little and even then as flawed human being they too must be held accountable. Liberty is too precious to be lost by idleness and complacency.

What would you be willing to trade for it?

Snatching Them From A Fire

fire“And have mercy on those who doubt: save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.”

– Jude 22-23

No voter in their right mind wants a government run health care system. They may want health care that is affordable, or that covers pre-existing conditions, but they don’t want socialized medicine. About the only class of people who could desire such a system are politicians who could exempt themselves from it. So, when our representatives in Washington share story after story of people begging them to fight for the “public option” who are these people?

Well, I figure that the opinion on government run health care breaks down into four categories based on information and activity level. These four categories are represented in the grid below:

Uninformed

and

Inactive

Informed

and

Inactive

Uninformed

and

Active

Informed

and

Active



The group highlighted in green are the ones being used by those who are perpetrating this great government expansion experiment. They are the ones making up they 30 to 40 % who say in the polls that they want the President’s reforms to pass. They are also the best targets of persuasion by those who know the inherent evils of such legislation.

So how do we reach out to these people? Well, just like a fireman pulling someone out of a fire. We forcefully, but gently explain to them that they are not experiencing euphoria but smoke inhalation and patiently but persistently lead them back to clear air. This is no easy task but if you know the truth it is one that you must fulfill.

This great undertaking also means that those of us armed with the truth should act as rescuers and not brawlers. Shouting at the arsonists may make you feel better, but to the poor soul trapped in the fire it only causes them to back away when you offer them a hand. The goal here is not to change the mind of the politicians but of the vulnerable electorate who could help the rest of us send those same politicians home in 2010.

So when you get that, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” feeling, take a deep breath of smoke free air and think about those poor souls who have been blinded by the socialists smoke. Then put on your nomex and go see if you can snatch someone out of the flames. It will do you both good.

The “Charity” of the State

welfare
“Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.”
– John D. Rockefeller

Can the state be charitable? We know that the state can be generous; especially with other peoples money. Charity and the transfer of resources, however, are two entirely different things. I think there seems to be much confusion here.

Before the welfare state of Roosevelt and the “Great Society” of Johnson, there was genuine charity. People helped other people in a community context. There was no faceless state holding a purse with strings attached. When acts of charity were performed the party that needed to be thanked did not have a government title. There were no politics involved and it didn’t matter which political party to which the needy person belonged. This was charity and this was the spirit that made this nation great. Somewhere along the line we ditched this in favor of bureaucracy. We lost our sense of community and gave up the power to be charitable. In doing so, we opened the door for statists to assume a role that they do miserably and that results not in charity but in class warfare and vote buying. Such is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

So how can we reverse this trend? Pardon my pessimism but unless radical measures are taken this trend will never be reversed. On the one hand, we need communities to start acting like communities and not people who are isolated from one another by soccer practice, tv screens, and facebook. Families must take care of one another and then reach out to those in their neighborhoods who are in need. Defy the state by seeing how many people you can keep from depending on it. On the other hand, we need elected officials who will hold the line on the growth of government and seek to shrink it where possible.

In my opinion, there is no charity where the state is involved. The most charitable thing that those who make up the state can do is to see that charity is never left to the state. That is real charity.