Thursday, August 30, 2007

No consensus on Global Warming

DailyTech reported Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Only the people wanting to use it as an excuse to make us do or not do something pretend there is a consensus
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
And that one was probably written by Al Gore
Michael van der Galien blogged I have to say that I would like to read more researches like this (it is a bit premature to draw conclusions on just one research), but if this confirmed by other scientists / researchers, we should stop talking about the global warming consensus immediately, or we should at least nuance that statement a bit. It seems to me that certain factions have hijacked the global warming debate, and have run away with it and have used it for their own political benefit.

AJStrata blogged Now we know - the support for the idea the warming of the Earth is man made has been dropping off as more and more is known about the phenomena. Wake up Al and pay attention. Your position is LOSING ground.

McQ blogged I think that's a fair assessment and certainly one that reflects my thinking on the subject . But it goes directly against what has become both a political movement and a quasi-religion for some. And I assume they'll continue to work ceaselessly and tirelessly to effect expensive and economy killing changes in the name of their movement. We all need to calm down, cool down (no pun intended) and quit playing politics with something as important as this issue.

Noel Sheppard blogged If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy. What a disgrace.


Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Give up your SUV

ABC reported Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles. The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.
I'd be willing to sacrifice John Edwards, but I don't really think we do things like that any more.
Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.
First I want to see Edwards and Gore giving them up. Then the rest of the congress critters and the hollywood types that provide money to their campaigns. Then we will talk about regular Americans giving up their SUVs.
Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.
Are they allies? And is it cheaper, and are the transportation costs less sending it to areas we are fighting in?
He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.


Monday, August 27, 2007

Palestinians back caliphate over politics

Telegraph By day, they are the middle class, putting in days as mild-mannered teachers, factory supervisors and office clerks. But by night, the growing number of supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic fundamentalists who reject modern democracy in favour of a pan-Islamic religious caliphate, are gathering in the West Bank to recruit the thousands who have grown disillusioned with the vicious stand-off between the secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas. "Any person living in Palestine now realises political parties, especially the Islamic ones, have not achieved anything for the individual,"
And so you favor a Caliphate, which is a rule by religion, which is what Hamas favors, and which you say has failed the most.
said Sheikh Abu Abdullah, a thin-framed man with a wiry beard.... "Any talk about a return to the caliphate, any talk about a return to religious values is something that is attractive to people,"
What Islam needs is Separation of Mosque and State. That way you could worship as you choose, and have whatever religious values you want, and have a well ordered state that did not interfere.
said Majid Abu Malah, 55, an Arabic-language teacher who attends regularly. He, like many others, says he has given up on both Hamas and Fatah, and will not vote in the next election. "I believe in what [Hizb ut-Tahrir] gives."
Which is a promise of World Domination, but without the violence in the street that you hve with two other parties that want to control things.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, founded in Jerusalem in 1953 but largely dormant until recent years, is banned in dozens of countries, though it is legal and has a strong presence in Britain. Its platform calls for the eventual overthrowing of Arab-world governments to be replaced by a caliphate, which would also encompass Israel.
I wonder what Israel thinks about that, and if Hizb ut-Tahrir will be satisfied with control of just all Arab lands. Not.
The organisation argues that it does not advocate violence; however, it has been accused of inciting racism and hatred, and is known for activities such as demonstrations against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed last year.
Which certainly did not involve violence.


Sunday, August 26, 2007

A political primer on primaries

Andrew Malcolm blogged on Los Angeles Times Primary elections were instituted by the Founding Fathers in legislative earmarks to boost hotel, restaurant and television station revenues in New Hampshire and Iowa at a time of year when no one in their right mind would go to either place. Iowa turned a daytime primary election into a nighttime caucus because the farm chores are supposed to be done by dark and Monday Night Football is over by January.... Iowa has become such an important part of the presidential selection process because with all of its empty space and 95% white population it is so totally unrepresentative of the American nation. New Hampshire is an essential part of the primary process because the Manchester Union-Leader says it is and no politician wants to be the one to tell that newspaper that the 19th century ended some time ago.... In recent years a lot of other states, most of them equally unimportant and unrepresentative, decided to horn in on all the TV coverage and hotel revenues. Nevada, which leads the nation in sandy desolation, has a caucus now on Jan. 19, the same day as South Carolina Republicans vote, while their state's Democrats wait for Jan. 29 just to be different.... And a whole bunch of states, including California, have moved their primaries to Feb. 5, thinking earlier will make them more important. (In fact, don't tell New Hampshire, but Californians can actually start voting Jan. 3 when absentee ballots go out.)

And it provides the press something to do in 2007 concerning themselves with a process to choose someone that will not take office until 2009.