Category Archives: Environmentalism

Global Warming Facts…

And by facts I mean scientific studies that show, maybe the hype about global warming and climate change is a bit over done.  The end is not near, mankind is not killing the planet, the world will keep turning and climate will keep changing as it always has with or without humans.

P. Chylek, et al. 2004″Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet,” Climate Change 63, 201-21. “Since 1940… data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend…. The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.”

Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, … and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response,” Nature 415: 517-20.
From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

Comiso, J. C., 2000, “Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements,”Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96.
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years.

Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

Thompson, D. W. J., and Solomon, S., 2002, “Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change,” Science 296: 895-99.
Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased.

Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. L., … and Stievenard, M., 1999, “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica,”Nature 399: 429-36.
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer that it is today.

Anderson, J. B., and Andrews, J. T., 1999, “Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica,” Geology 27: 179-82.
Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial.

Liu, J., Curry, J. A., and Martinson, D. G., 2004, “Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability,” Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003 GLO18732.
Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.

Vyas, N. K., Dash, M. K., Bhandari, S. M., Khare, N., Mitra, A., and Pandey, P. C., 2003, “On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24: 2277-87.
Trend toward more sea ice may be accelerating.

Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the souther Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40.
The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 774: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Same as above. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, p. 330. “Natural climate variability on long time-scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection.”

C. Landsea, et al., 2000, “How much skill was there in forecasting the very strong 1997-1998 El Nino?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81: 2107-19. “… one could have even less confidence in anthropogenic global warming studies because of the lack of skill in predicting El Nino… the successes of ENSO forecasting have been overstated (sometimes drastically) and misapplied it in other arenas.”

Fred Pearce, “Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert,” New Scientist 175, 21 September 20021 pp. 4-5. “Africa’s deserts are in retreat… Analysis of satellite images… reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region… Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching… 6,000 kilometers… Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid 1980’s, though has gone largely unnoticed.”

Paul Reiter, et al, “Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy,” Lancet, 4, no. 1 (June 2004).”Many of these much-publicized predictions are ill informed and misleading.”

Roger J. Braithwaite, “Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring,” Progress in Physical Geography 26 no. 1 (2002): 76-95. “There is no obvious common global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.”

The fallowing quotations is from the IPCC.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Examination of meteorological data fails to support the perception [of increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events] in the context of long term climate change.”
“Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, throughout the twentieth century…”
“No long term trend events” for tropical and extratropical storms, and no systematic changes in the “frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail.”

Nature 22 (October 2003):395-741, stated that, with Russia signed on, temperature affected by Kyoto would be -.02 degrees Celsius by 2050.
IPCC models estimate more but none exceed .15 degrees Celsius.

Thank you Dr. M. Crichton for compiling this list.


Filed under Environmentalism

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part IV


So Obama did say you didn’t build your business, government did.  This is just about as evil and stupid as it getsand any claim that Romney is just as bad is just stupid.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.


Because Obama makes statements like this:

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Dear God in Heaven!  EVERY INDUSTRY!

Because you want this debacle to be the standard of all industry…don’t you?

So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM

Bloated union salaries.  CEOs that are answerable not to boards and shareholders but to czars and wanna-be dictators.  Practices that violate the bedrock principles of capitalism and screw shareholders out of their investment.    No really the stock is in near free fall.   Run your company to near bankruptcy by building overpriced green death traps that explode and that no one wants to buy.   Lose your government investment somewhere in the realm of 25 Billion Dollars.   A company that while going under is investing 600 Million in a British soccer team…???  And that is just a highlight of the problems with GM.   This company has become so dysfunctional from top to bottom that the millisecond government help stops it will crumble like a house of cards in a hurricane.

God help us.  If we ran every company in the nation like this cluster!@#$ the Dark Ages would look advanced by the time Obama was done.

So why does Obama want to run every industry like GM…hmmm…let’s see.  That would mean that the government would own a large portion of the every company and the president would have the ability to fire every CEO and would have the power to appoint his people to run every industry.

Hey what do you call that where the government owns and runs every business?

It starts with an S….um…shit for brains…serious deluded…senseless…stupid…all good answers…but no, I think the word I’m looking for is SOCIALISM.

His words, not mine.

Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

He wants to do the same thing he did with the auto industry, a complete government take over and revoking of basic principles, with every industry.

Go on, I really want to hear from liberals how that isn’t a textbook definition of socialism.  Government ownership and control of every industry.

Granted you could go with he’s a blithering idiot and doesn’t know what the hell he’s saying, which I fully am willing to buy…but that is just as much an argument against him being allowed to go back for four more years.

But while I do believe Obama makes Forrest Gump look like Sherlock Holmes, I believe he meant and understood (well as well as Obama’s limited mind can understand anything).  He wants to control everything.  I don’t know if it’s because he believes he can make it better (to hell with the lack of evidence) or because he wants to destroy the whole system.  It doesn’t matter.  He does want to be in control of everything, of every aspect of government and industry.  And just ignoring the horrific despotic and unconstitutional overtones of that idea…let’s not forget that he has wrecked GM and it will go down within the next few years, only it will be worth less when we sell off the parts to other car companies, it will have hurt every taxpayer who has to eat the loss, and this whole debacle will have delayed real growth and real recovery.  (And all of this ignores that eventually the courts will find that the Obama administration broke numerous laws in screwing over the bond holders which will cost the government a massive bundle of cash to boot).

This is true of GM and of industry Obama has or wants to get his hands on.  This is true not only of Obama but of government in general.  And Obama wants more government.

To hell with just “You didn’t build that” he wants complete socialism.

And half the country doesn’t see a problem with this?

A final point.  Even though Obama is clearly a socialist (and an idiot, and an asshole, and a wannabe tyrant…and worse), many conservatives are still clamoring and screaming about the fact that Romney isn’t going to war against Obama, about him being too cowardly or being too nice and calling Obama out as the socialist he is. Yeah because Reagan won the election calling Carter a communist anti-Semite whose utter lack of intelligence makes you question how much inbreeding is going on down in Georgia…oh wait, no, Reagan ran a quiet campaign on the issues.  Romney is running an intelligent campaign to win by a landslide, not a campaign to make the base feel good about itself; he’s running to make sure conservative ideals become policy, not to just spout conservative platitudes.  He’s sitting quietly right now raking in cash, while Obama burns through his entire reserve just to keep the polls static.  Romney will spend his money in the last months when it will actually have an effect on Election Day, while Obama will be broke by October.   Besides with Obama saying crazy shit like this, why would you need to campaign, Obama’s mouth is already the best campaigner for Romney there is.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Happy Irrational Fear Day…err I mean Earth Day

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, Tyranny

Laws for the GOP to pass…rework the entire bureaucracy…and by rework I mean fire just about everyone

We’re winding down weekly law blogs.  Next week will be the last one that will be published every week…not that I won’t have any more law blogs but they just won’t be on a weekly basis.

So what am I going to suggest this week?  Well I have suggested a few departments be disbanded.  Now if you noticed the theme, I would argue that most of the departments should just be disbanded, with their few useful functions either handed to the remaining departments, given to the states, or simply privatized.  Now we’ve covered Transportation , Education , HUD , the Post Office , the TSA and the USDA.

But that still doesn’t cover a lot.  Why doesn’t it cover a lot?  Well take a look at the current U.S. Executive Branch.

This would be the definition of madness.  And technically one man controls all of that.  I don’t care it if it’s Obama, Bush or George Washington risen from the grave.  No one can possibly lead all of that or should be trusted with all of that.

So I suggest we just get rid of most of it.  The federal government should be there to protect our Constitutional rights, police crimes that cross borders, defend the national borders, resolves conflicts between states and a few other things that are too big for individual states to do.  Most of what’s on that list does not fall into the area of things states can’t be trusted to do.

In fact Congress should make it its job to make this look more like this:

You’ll notice that only the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice and Homeland are left.  And quite frankly if I had my way Justice would be all the legal ins and out and Homeland would have the FBI and all other federal police forces (ATF, DEA, ICE, etc) all rolled into that large FBI–it frightens me that numerous organizations are out there with the same purpose to catch criminals which results in numerous overlaps, wasteful spending and of course turf wars.  Also can we please change the name of Homeland Security?  It’s the dumbest name ever.  It’s sounds like Fatherland or Motherland (remind me which two countries referred to their nations that way).  How about Department of Internal Security.  That way you have a federal police force (Internal Security) and a federal prosecutor (Justice) without the two being the same department (you know how every city, county and state does it).

But as to the Departments I will be getting rid of, I will be brief (If you would like a full justification of why just about everything in that Department needs to be destroyed, I will be more than happy to write a whole blog for each request).

Scrap the Department of Transportation: Last week I had a blog saying infrastructure needs to be handed over to the state, that’s most of the Department there…the only thing that’s left and of value is the FFA and that can be regulated by Internal Security but mainly it just needs to be privatized

The Department of Energy serves no useful federal function other the fact that they hold all the nuclear stuff.  Defense and Internal Security can handle those.

The Department of Commerce is entirely unconstitutional right now, but the commerce clause needs to be clarified so even a liberal can understand it only applies to commerce that crosses state borders.  Its only useful parts are the Census Bureau and Patent Office (which can just be operated as independent federal offices), and NOAA which can be privatized.

Health and Human Services is not the concern of the federal government (FDA can be privatized, CDC over to the Department of Internal Defense)

Department of Interior…utterly useless…especially Indian Affairs.  The states can clearly handle all of this.

Department of sucking up to unions…I mean the Dept of Labor…does nothing relevant, kill it.

The Department of Veterans Affairs can be rolled back into Defense.  I think people in the Pentagon will care a hell of a lot more for veterans than bureaucrats in an office.

And then of course there are a lot of independent agencies I’m getting rid of.  I’m not going into all of them but here are a few highlights.

  • Kill the Peace Corp…if we didn’t send them all to Iraq and Afghanistan to help rebuild those places why the hell do we have them?  They serve no legitimate function.
  • Kill NASA and let the private sector take over.  We’ll be on Mars before the next generation if we let the private sector take over…we’ll never get anywhere if we let government continue to handle this.
  • Kill the African Development Foundation…really, does it look like we know what we’re doing with this?
  • Kill the Foundation on the arts and humanities…again this is a private concern.
  • Privatize Amtrak
  • Kill the National Science Foundation…again this should be a private concern.  Not to mention that this thing has become a liberal propaganda wing.
  • Kill OSHA…Two or three times just to be safe, and burn the buildings…I think all the employees should be put in jail (solitary for life) just to be safe, and probably have the bodies burned after they die to make sure they don’t come back.  No government office is as harmful to business, worker happiness and safety as this office which had to have been imagined in the 10th level of hell.
  • Office of Government Ethics…Huh?  Try not laugh when reading that.
  • Selective Service System…yeah we have a volunteer system now…and if it wasn’t too hard to set up in WWII it won’t be too difficult to set up again if we need it.
  • Small Business Administration…you know how best to help Small Businesses?  Stop having an administration that constantly gets in their way. Kill this thing too.
  • Social Security…I think I’ve been clear that we need to phase that out completely.
  • Why is the TVA still around?
  • US Commission on Civil Rights…if there is a real civil rights violation then that’s the domain of the Justice Department so you don’t need this redundant excuse.
  • Office of Drug Control Policy…uh-huh, and that’s worked so well…

Yes there are legitimate functions of the federal government.  But right now it is overstepping those functions, usually at the price of those functions.  The states and the private sector can handle a lot of these things more efficiently, cheaper, with less corruption, less paperwork and at a greater benefit to the public.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism, Welfare

Why does Obama hate poor people?

Obama’s EPA is banning cheap asthma inhalers.  They’re banning them for relatively small of amount of those ozone hurting chemicals, literally a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CFC’s that may have caused the hole in the ozone layer.


So to stop a truly negligible portion of ozone hurting chemicals the Obama administration is going to triple the cost of asthma inhalers.  Why is this a truly stupid move?  Because probably, with the exception of weight related diseases, there is no disease more related to income level.  Poor people are vastly more likely to have asthma than the middle class.  I don’t know the reason, no one else agree on them, but this is still a fact.


This price increase is going to hurt the poor.  A lot.  Asthma inhalers are not optional, they are as critical to quality of life as anything you can imagine.  Have you ever had pneumonia, that feeling of being unable to take a full breath?  The fear, the hurt, the panic?  Imagine your whole life like that?  Now ask yourself, if it costs three times as much.   If you’re poor that means having to make choice of ‘”do I use the inhaler now?   Or do I suffer?”  Thanks Barrack, for making poor people suffer through that.  Usually I’m not one to speak about the plight of the poor because usually I believe their plight is all too often caused by their bad choices, but this is  a disease that has nothing to do with bad choices made during life.  Nor is this the kind of disease where it’s a question of spending a huge sum of money that will extend a person’s life but not increase their quality of life.  This is as close as you get to a quality of life issue.  And Obama just make their quality of life go down.


Why would Obama screw poor people like this?


Answer: Class warfare.


Most people will probably not know that reason their inhaler has tripled in cost is because of an EPA and Obama call.  They’ll think it’s the drug companies are intentionally screwing them over.  (Yes I fully admit that the economies of scale will probably bring it down from triple the cost, but probably not back down to the old prices).  Which will secure the base in A. hating those evil evil drug companies and B. supporting Obama and his stand against those evil people who raised their health care prices for no reason (to hell if it’s actually Obama and his administration who is the bastard who did that).


A brilliant political move to secure his basse.  An evil move.


Filed under Economics, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Obama, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Obama, he’s just not liberal enough

Let’s see.

Just not enough of a leftist

Obama has:
Given us a socialist health care system.
Proposed massive new taxes (1.5 Trillion in fact).
Raised Spending across the board.
Took over or made the government heavily involved with many industries.
Increased regulation of almost every field.
Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (I actually agree with this one, but it’s not generally considered a socially conservative position).
Has instituted massive class warfare.
Never met an environmentalist proposal he didn’t like .
Backstabbed Israel at every turn.
Appeased tyranny at every turn.
Turned a blind eye to illegal immigration.
Supported the teacher’s union.
Supported all unions and given them free license to do whatever they want.
Used executive orders to skip Congress and run the country like a petty dictator.
And appointed more Czars to run more things than I can think of.

And yet….and yet…he’s apparently not liberal enough for the liberals in this country who are planning to run a more liberal challenger against Obama in the primaries.

I have two questions for these people?

One, how exactly do you see Barrack Obama as a moderate? There is nothing this man has done which wasn’t already to the left of LBJ and FDR.

Two. Who are you going to get that’s more liberal than Obama? Mao? Che? I’m not sure if even Marx himself is left enough for these people.


Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, liberal arrogance, Libya, Net Neutrality, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism

Theories… and one of the many reasons Rick Perry shouldn’t be elected

I hit environmentalists yesterday, it’s only fair to get a few punches into the other side today.

So the idiot known as Rick Perry (In case you’re wondering I do believe in the 11th Commandment, I just don’t think it applies to RINOS) has brought the stupid argument of “evolution is only a theory” up again (or at least I’ve heard it over and over again over the last few weeks). Thank you moron for once again showing how nobody understands science. At least Bachmann consistently says her religious beliefs are not her top priorities right now and then hammers away on the economy, foreign policy, and strict constructivist interpretation of the Constitution. But no, not Perry. Let’s talk creationism. Even, let’s say you agree with Perry, you have to admit, making such a statement clearly lacks a certain sense of common sense and priorities. It horrifies me that this man is currently in the lead. (Yes I do like that he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, although it is unfair to Ponzi schemes as those you joined voluntarily, Social Security just steals my money).

So let’s deal with what the word theory means in science. It means we have an idea that seems to explain everything about what we’re looking at, but we can’t quite come up with an experiment to test the falsifiability of that idea. That’s it. It means we can’t engineer an experiment to prove it right or wrong. Now in a million years after we’ve written volumes of history and documented changes in almost all the species in the world we’ll be able to demonstrate that evolution does in fact exist…but until then it’s a theory. But let’s look at some other theories to show you what a theory is and why you should trust in some theories (the ones with, you know, proof) and ignore others (possibly the ones that require you to deny basic facts of existence).

Gravity. The dripping pipe
Gravity is a theory…or more accurately exactly what gravity is is a theory. Right now the theory states that mass curves space-time around it creating depressions in reality that other mass falls into. This replaced Newton’s idea that mass attracts mass. This replaced Aristotle’s idea that heavy stuff falls down and lighter stuff constantly tries to rise and only through the acts of the gods does it not just completely separate like oil and water in a glass (I love Aristotle, and will defend his philosophy any day, and while some of his science now sounds silly all I will say to that idea is that did anyone in 500 B.C. have a better idea? No. Don’t knock him when he was centuries ahead of anyone else…and it took two millennia to come up with something better). However back to what the theory is now—the curve in space-time. This seems to work for now. Although Newton seemed to work pretty well when he came up with it, and Aristotle’s was effective enough that no one needed to rewrite it for 2,000 years. But we can prove that light bends around really big objects, the curving space thing makes sense for now. For now which is why it’s only a theory. It is all kind of dependent on things actually having mass, which those bright guys at CERN seem to be having trouble proving. (Yes that’s right they can’t find the particle which is supposed to give things mass, which means either our understanding of quantum particles is bunk, or they need to do more experiments. Let’s hope they come up with something because most of my actions every day are based on the idea that things have mass…I’d hate to be proven wrong.)

I put this one in here because no denies that gravity exists. It’s a theory because we don’t understand WHY or HOW it works, even if we know it works. Thus you have to understand that lots of things in science can be called theories even if their existence is a fact. As theories go gravity is like a loose pipe (the kind that you get a drop out of every couple of days)—it’s perfectly functional, you don’t notice the problems unless you really know what to look for and you probably will never have to replace it.

Evolution however is a theory that leaks like a sieve.
And to deny this is foolish. There are a lot of holes in evolution. We all know this. There lots of gaps in the evolutionary record for just about every single species. What do you expect? We’re relying on a process of turning bone into stone for our records. It’s not an exact process with a high rate of success.

Further there are obvious problems with modern evolutionary theory. Even though I believe in it, punctuated equilibrium just has the slight taste of duct tape and bailing wire on the theory. And there are those gaping holes called how did life start? And how exactly did a highly evolved chimp suddenly become sentient?

However for all these holes that have yet to be plugged with proof, evolution is the only theory that satisfactorily describes evidence in genetics, geology, the fossil record, carbon dating, biology, and have half dozen other fields. We have gas in the fossil record, yes, but strangely we have species Y in the fossil record, and it looks like a halfway point between species X and species Z and low and behold the carbon dating says that it existed right in between the times that those other two species existed. And we have thousands of examples of this! You don’t have to be a Nobel laureate to put one and one together and get two.

Oh, and at the bacterial level where a generation lasts about 30 minutes, we actually can document and prove that species will evolve into new species. It would just be madness to think that if it works in single cell asexual reproduction to think that the more chaotic, more changeable, sexual reproduction of larger species would lead to similar changes.

Do we understand how every mechanism in evolution works? Hell no. Does it fill in all the gaps in the fossil record? Nope. Can you tell me the exact decent of chimp to man and all the sub species it was in between and at what time it existed? Nope, and I don’t have to. I’m sure the timeline will be rewritten a thousand times over the next thousand years, and species we thought evolved from one species will be found to have actually evolved from another species. But to say that evolution isn’t a fact is preposterous. The only other explanation for the evidence at present is that God is just a prick and wanted to screw with us. If that’s the case I really hate God and refuse to follow, obey, or even listen to such an asshole. But since I have a pretty reasonable justification for God not being a sociopath…well that just leaves evolution.

Now I will however say that at present the theory does have some gaping holes. As I said it doesn’t explain how random chemicals suddenly became self-replicating DNA. It doesn’t explain how sentience came about. It doesn’t explain the platypus (there is no way in hell that thing wasn’t intentionally designed as a joke).

Evolution with Intelligent Design, back to the leaky pipe.
Let me begin by saying that the term “Intelligent Design” has been applied to two different theories. One I will call Rational Intelligent Design and one I will call the Idiot’s Intelligent Design. (Can you guess which side I’m on?)

Idiot’s Intelligent Design is probably what you think of when you hear Intelligent Design. It’s preposterous pseudo-Creationist argument that God personally caused every single change in every single species over history. Not gently nudged here or there. Every change was because God said so. And it was all designed with creating a world for humans in mind. What the people who argue in favor of this don’t realize is that this makes God just a shitty planner. What was that whole side track with the dinosaurs for if God had his hand in everything? What the hell was the purpose of creating spiders! And cockroaches! No sane deity would ever create those for the fun of it.

Now rational Intelligent Design simply states that you need God at about 4 places. 1. Jump starting the big bang. 2. Turning those random amino acids into self replicating DNA. 3. Designing the platypus as the universe’s greatest joke. 4. Sentience comes to a highly evolved chimp. It boils down to the idea that God said “Let there be evolution!” and then you had the big bang…and then he added souls to the first sufficiently evolved creature. It’s basically what Deists were arguing a couple hundred years ago. There is a God, but he set up a bunch of rules for the universe to run itself. Probably because he’s more concerned with our souls than the specifics of how the classroom our souls exist in came about. This rational version of intelligent design simply plugs up some of the biggest holes in the theory of evolution…you know the few parts where science has yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. Don’t like it? Come up with a better answer. (And not Richard Dawkins’ crappy “aliens” could have created life on Earth…which begs the question, “What created the aliens?”…I get the feeling for an idiot like Dawkins it’s turtles all the way down.)

The Big Bang…a little leakier than evolution.

There is nothing that adequately explains red shift and background radiation like the Big Bang theory. However there are a lot of unanswered questions even when you use the theory. Again, until something better comes along, this is actually a good theory…but it is intellectual dishonesty to say that it’s a strong theory given on what shaky premises it’s based on. That doesn’t make it wrong; it just makes it a weak theory. It’s got a lot of problems. For instance Einstein first believed it required something called the cosmological constant (trust me you would get bored if I fully explained it), then he thought that was a stupid idea…but now it’s coming back into style. It’s actually a really big piece of explaining the mystery that is the universe and science can’t figure out if it exists or doesn’t. There are some holes in this theory. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just means it’s got a ways to go.

And here is the turning point…here is where theories start going from this is based in science and seems to fit 99% of the data to wer’re just making this stuff up as we go.
Then you have the myth of Global Warming.
Actually global warming is a fact as it happens every year around May here in the Northern Hemisphere. I’m talking about the theory that man’s advancement and burning of fossil fuels has caused the earth to get really warmer, I mean really colder, I mean that weather has gotten really weird…even though it actually looks like what weather has always looked like. But ignore those facts. Ignore that in the past, long before Industrialization, it got hotter and colder than our records in the last hundred years all without the help of man-made green house gases, thus scientifically we didn’t need to add anything.  Ignore the sun. Ignore that some glaciers are still getting bigger. Ignore that the current trends that do exists started long before the industrial boom of this century, ignore that the sea levels are not rising, ignore everything that contradicts blind faith in this religion—err, I mean this scientific theory. As holes in scientific theories go, Man Made Climate Change is like taking a McDonald’s coffee cup, tearing out the bottom of the cup, putting the cup on your lap and pouring a freshly brewed pot of coffee into your cup. And then demanding someone else pay for whatever medical bills your idiocy brought about.

And finally we have Rick Perry’s favorite theory….

The theory of creationism. The idea that we should treat the Bible as scientific evidence, that the Earth is only a little over 6,000 years old, that the dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah’s flood and that all species were not only created in a single day by a divine creator, but that Noah was able to get all those species on his boat. (Given the millions upon millions of species in the world, you can see why there was no room for the unicorns). As scientific theories go, and yes there are people who seem to treat this as a scientific theory, Rick Perry among them, this thing has holes in it that I could drive an aircraft carrier fleet through. You have to ignore carbon dating (in other words basic chemistry), the millions of years it took the light from certain stars to reach us (in other words basic physics), the numerous levels of fossils and soil deposits (in other words basic geology), and the numerous similarities between species and that evolution at the single cell level for bacteria and viruses isn’t a theory it’s a provable fact (in other words basic biology)…in other words I’m not quite sure that there is any hard science you don’t have to ignore to believe in creationism. Now you are more than free to believe all those sciences are wrong, and that God has a really sick sense of humor in trying to fool you with all that hard data that contradicts the Biblical interpretation (oh I should mention this is not just Judeo-Christians, I know a Hindu who devoutly believes their religion’s creation myths without questions) but don’t expect me to respect your intellect at any level. And certainly don’t expect me to vote for an idiot like you if you are actually going to brag about having this claptrap taught in the schools. I’m sorry but Johnny Cochran had a stronger case than the case against evolution. Just because the minutia of theory hasn’t been worked out, much like there is minutia in gravity that doesn’t fit our exact theory of what it is, doesn’t mean that the broad strokes aren’t correct. On the one side you have a pile of evidence from numerous branches of science and personal experience that even if there is a God (which there is) he doesn’t get involved in gigantic ways, on the other side you have a book, a contradictory, heavily rewritten over the course of time, primarily allegorical book. Hmm… tough call on which one is a stronger scientific theory.  God gave me reason, I think he expected me to use it.  I have no problem teaching the holes in the theory of evolution, but teaching fables other than just mentioning the fact, some people disregard all scientific evidence and believe whatever they believe, fine….but teaching Creationism? I don’t think Intelligent Design (which I believe in) should be taught at the high school level, because it deals with complexities that are usually beyond the scope of a high school classroom—to bring it up would waste time that should be spent studying species taxonomy and cell biology and how organ systems work.

I’m trying to think of a theory more preposterous…and the only thing I can think of is Keynesian Economics…but that’s social science not the hard sciences, so we’ll save that for another day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Faith, God, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, People Are Stupid, Religion

Laws for Conservatives to pass: Encouraging innovation

As I have stated before I want the tax code rewritten. Ideally I would prefer going entirely to a sales tax (no corporate tax, no death tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax, no luxury tax, no tariffs, nothing but a flat sales tax). Short of that I want a flat tax rate with no loopholes (and again most of those other taxes eliminated). But if we can’t even have that, or at least a stepping stone to those other programs, we need to A.) lower the tax rates and B.) eliminate ALL loopholes. All of them, even the ones that encourage things we like, like mortgage deductions and child tax credits. ALL OF THEM.

However, I have proposed a very special kind of exemption in “Republicans and Reincarnation” that I will stand by.

That exemption was that Congress should offer a multimillion dollar prize to anyone who can create an engine that can replace the internal combustion engine that is cheaper and has fewer emissions. In addition to the prize they will be exempt from ALL taxes for the rest of their life. I do this because the kinds of people who tinker with this kind of technology in their garage don’t always think long term enough to consider the advantages of compounding royalty payments and thus they don’t see what should be the obvious incentives to spend time coming up with inventions that we need. The scatterbrained genius needs immediate incentives to work or at least to channel their energies. The only thing they would have to give up is the right to negotiate price on selling the rights for this invention. They will still be paid for every use of their invention, but I want these inventions in use yesterday and I don’t want them held up by negotiations, (and if we’re paying that kind of money for it Congress will not be able to hold it back if it knows what is good for it). (Especially since there is a mild conspiracy theorist in me that isn’t willing to fully dismiss those stories that better engines have already been invented but bought up by oil companies and kept out of the public’s view…I have no proof beyond hearsay and personal accounts. But given the short sighted nature of a lot of companies right now it wouldn’t surprise me).

Yes I fully understand the nature of capitalism, that it will always create the thing we need, when we need them. I understand that. But there are some things we could use right now even though we haven’t reached the level of absolutely need. I would prefer to get around the necessity for that kind of need and the temporary hardships it brings to an economy. For instance we all know that eventually the internal combustion engine will be replaced when the reserves of gasoline start going dry, and we know there will be a period of hardship in that change over period, so I would just like to skip the hardship if we could.

So here is a list of inventions I think congress should offer a $100 million dollar prize for, plus having to pay no taxes if you’re the first to come up with it. And I will justify why all of these would save us more money than the costs.

1. The first is obviously the replacement for the internal combustion engine that actually works. I don’t care if it’s electric, a brilliant new type of internal configuration on the internal combustion engine, hydrogen fuel cells or the static electricity engine from Atlas Shrugged—I don’t care if it’s long lived hamsters on steroids and meth with a tread wheel…all I care about is the following: It costs less than $100 to build. It can power truck or SUV with a full load for 300 miles, without being refueled, while going at 65 miles per hour or higher. It must be able to be refueled in less than 10 minutes from a completely empty and a full refill can cost no more $20. Oh and it has to have 20% less emissions than the cleanest internal combustion engine available. This is the problem with all the current alternatives electric cars have no speed or ability to pull large loads (not to mention they take too long to charge). Hydrogen fuel cells are too expensive. I want powerful, fast and cheap. If you can get those standards on a fully loaded SUV then the figures for a small sedan should be even better. The advantages to this are obvious. I don’t really care much about the emissions because I don’t believe in the BS that is global warming, but I live in Phoenix and so I do know the problem that is smog so I would like to see that lowered. Obviously if we weren’t dependent on oil (or at least as much oil) then that will hurt the bottom line of oil sales in the Middle East, which means less money going to terrorism, which means we might not have to spend so much fighting terrorism. Further with less money being spent on fuel and shipping this will of course save money in your pocket,  which will bring cost down and profits up…and you can figure out how that cycles through the economy and works better for everyone.
2. A battery that will work and survive for 7 or more years in temperatures ranging from 30 below 0 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. It also needs to hold at least 3 times the charge of a battery of comparable size can do now. This is one of the biggest problems of electric cars. Here in the South-west you can’t have an electric car because everything is so spaced out that you risk using an entire charge before reaching your destination and it gets so hot out here that car batteries need to be replaced every two to three years (expensive enough in a regular car, outrageously expensive in an electric car). On the east electric cars won’t function when it gets too cold. If you could overcome these problems with electric cars, even at their current levels of horsepower would be far more efficient and useful and thus worth the cost. The benefits then become the same as invention 1. However improved batteries that store more would have additional uses that would save us all money even if we had improved battery technology. Just for example how much power does it take to power every street light in the world every night? Right now it’s prohibitively expensive and bulky to power most of those with solar cells and batteries…but it might not with much smaller, more efficient batteries that didn’t have to be replaced. Apply that same idea to numerous other small things that could run off better batteries. That’s a lot of saved energy, which means a lot of saved money.
3. One of Obama’s BS ideas to help get more jobs was infrastructure improvement. Wow more jobs for unionized construction workers, I’m sure that will help the economy. However, this does bring up a fact that infrastructure is a large and continual part of federal, state, and local government costs. One of the reasons why is because that crappy asphalt and concrete we put on the roads keeps wearing out, develop pot holes, become road hazards and need to be replaced. And replacing them takes time (lots of time, which hurts traffic and destroys productivity, not to mention all the wasted money just sitting there letting the engine idle in traffic) and lots of money—those workers are union and government. They are about as overpriced and overpaid as work gets in this world. So here is what I want, I want someone to come up with some kind of chemical that can be added to the concrete or asphalt, or some new substance all together, that will prevent it from wearing out or at least radically slow the decay. If you could make every road last just 10 years longer than they currently do the saving in government expenditures alone would pay for that prize for inventing the stuff.
4. We haven’t come upon it yet, but more than oil we have another natural resource that is getting very, very sparse. Water. “What?” you say, “The Earth is covered in the stuff!” Yes it is, but that’s salt water. Clean, desalinized, drinkable water is becoming more and more rare (especially with continuing growth of world population). There is not nearly enough drinkable water to support 7 billion people at first world level (and it should be our goal to get everyone up to first world level) at present. We need more drinkable water. But most processes for desalination are prohibitively expensive as it currently stands. Trust me we will need a cheap and quick way to desalinize massive amounts of water within the next 50 years. Let’s make sure we have the technology to do so without having to first have millions die from not having enough to drink. Further if you could cheaply do it, then you could easily do it to supply areas suffering from drought which always causes economic problems.
5. Cars that drive themselves. We all saw Minority Report (and a few other films) and have seen cars that just take verbal commands and take you to your destination while you can spend your time reading, working, talking, doing anything other than have to pay attention to the other insane people on the road. The average American spends about 130 hours in a car. Think of what you can do with an extra 130 hours, about 5 and half days (just for comparative purposes if you’re Jack Bauer you can save the world a half dozen times and kill 143 people in that amount of time…so there is a lot you can do in that amount of time). So an average extra 5 days worth of time for all 300 million people in the US, less stress from driving the freeway. This system would have to be based on being able to avoid accidents, so lower insurance rates and less money wasted on fixing cars. And let’s not even talk about the fact that you’d never have a drunk driving a car, so the loss of life from driving goes down drastically. Yeah I think that’s worth $100 million.
6. The fruit picker. To hell with making robots walk and talk. I want someone to develop a robot that can 90% of the time recognize if a vegetable or piece of fruit is ripe and then harvest that plant without damaging it. People complain about the plight of the migrant worker…well this would eliminate the need for that kind of work. Which would in turn eliminate this country’s terrible habit of keeping a pseudo slave class in the form of illegal immigrants. The saving for this should be more than obvious.
7. Plants with over active metabolisms. Think about it. Think of how much the lumber and paper industry could benefit from trees that took half the time to grow. Or what plants which convert carbon dioxide into oxygen twice as fast could do for any future space programs…which could in turn open up space itself for exploration, mining and colonization. I know I’m stretching with this one…but it has possibilities. I’m a little worried about this being brought to the food industry, but it has possibilities as well. In the end it would pay for itself I think.
8. The transporter. All the other things on this list I think are actually possible but just have yet to be invented (okay I’m stretching with number 7, but it’s not out of the realm of theoretically possible). This one, well, what I know of quantum mechanics tells me that this is never going to happen. Still I want one. I don’t even care if you never figure out how to get it to transport organic material. Think of what you could do just in terms of shipping with a transporter. It would of course be prohibitively expensive up front, but long term I think this could pay for itself.

Why is there nothing from the medical field here? Yes I know that most of our current government expenditures are in the medical field, but this is to encourage people to start tinkering in their garages on their off time. Do you want medical experiments going in people’s garages? Hell no.

Why are there no flying cars? Because while the flying car is cool there are two big problems. First it offers no additional economic value. Second because how do you brake something that’s flying?

And yes we would all love a light saber or a time machine or a holodeck, but again those are not exactly scientifically possible and I’m not sure they would be good for society.

I might also like to see a Roomba that can clean bathrooms and kitchens, but I’m not sure that will save $100 million in the economy.

What other inventions could redefine the world?


Filed under American Exceptionalism, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Environmentalism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Selfishness, Taxes

What I want to hear Obama say…but he won’t…

I’m not going to have a law of the week this week. Rather I’m going to talk about what I want to hear out of Obama’s mouth this week when he brings out his “jobs plan.”


He states that his new plan will create jobs. This is a fascinating concept as the government has never been able to do such a thing except for a short period of time and always at a detriment to the overall economy and not to its benefit. Always at an increase to our debt.  But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way to stimulate the economy to recover…although, and I know no one wants to hear this but it’s true, that before we hit a recovery we need one last dip in the economy (the stock market, the housing market, all other commodities markets will probably take a hit and we’ll see another rise in inflation and unemployment) and we need to get through it but our only options are either bring on the next dip now and get through it as quickly as possible or to delay this last dip and every day we delay it means it will be longer, deeper, and hit more people when it comes. I’ll take the shorter pain now than the worse pain later, thank you.


So what I do I need to hear from Obama if he was A) intelligent enough to know how to improve the economy and B) willing to actually do it?


First ObamaCare has to go. It must be overturned in its  entirety. There is not a single line worth keeping. This will allay a lot of fear about hiring new employees and get businesses to start planning to grow again. Further it will keep health cost down.  With this needs to come laws that will allow insurance companies to cross state lines (and not just medical insurance, I mean every kind of insurance). This will drastically and immediately lower the costs of insurance across the board. Not only will this reduce the overhead of all major insurance companies (meaning they can charge less and still make a profit) the added competition will drive down the prices even further and all companies that offer insurance to their employees will quickly be paying less for every employee which will make expansion even easier.


The U.S. government needs to cut income tax, corporate taxes, and capital gains taxes by at least 5% across the board. Further the death tax and marriage penalties need to be permanently eliminated. To accompany these cuts ALL loopholes will be removed from ALL tax codes (yes that means GE will finally have to pay some taxes).  I’d really love to see a flat tax, or even better switching to all sales tax, but I’m willing to take a baby step in this area. The sudden influx of money to both personal and business bank accounts will help spur further economic growth and expansion.


Federal money for unemployment benefits needs to be ended for anyone who has been out of work for more than six months.   To avoid some unnecessary pain we can of course give them a 90 day notice, but this perpetual dole needs to end.


Everyone employed by the federal government (except the military) is taking a 10% pay cut. You’re overpaid sons of bitches deal with it.  (Elected officials can take a 100% pay cut).


In addition to the 2.4 trillion we have already agreed to cut as part of the debt ceiling agreement, for every dollar of tax revenue that we are no longer taking in because we lower the tax rates the federal government will cut $100 dollars of spending from its budget. Not only will that keep us solvent, it will improve our credit rating, reduce the debt, strengthen the dollar and improve the economy.


The law needs to be passed that within the next 10 years the Federal Reserve  will raise the prime interest rate to 6% and then never touch it without the express permission of congress and the President and only then for a limited period of time. No industry can grow with the interest rate being this low; it discourages all investment and risk taking. Yes we’ll have some inflation but it will also stimulate growth that should outpace the inflation.


Alaska and the Gulf Coast are open for full drilling, but any environmental damage will come with a fine equal to 10 times the cost of the clean up (that will ensure the oil companies quadruple check every safety measure), which will lower energy prices and thus offset most if not all the inflation caused by the raising of the interest rate.


All the insane regulations that stop the construction and running of oil refineries.  Right now it is next to impossible to build an oil refinery and all the regulation is based on horrendous my of global warming.  Yes there do need to be a lot of regulations about running oil refineries because they deal with a lot of chemical that could be very harmful to the environment if released…sadly about 10% of the regulations we have in place.  The rest is BS.  Oh, and while we’re on the subject of oil refineries, did you know that every state requires different blends of gasoline.  This is insane because it requires the refineries to refine 50 different kinds of oil.  We need to come up with one national set of requirements, it can’t be done by federal law, but it needs to be done by the states on their own because it will drop the price of gas by several cents.


The Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, HHS, Edu, Transportation, Interior and Labor will cut their staff by at least half (although I’d prefer firing just about everyone in these useless sinkholes of red tape and tax payer money).


The EEOC, National Labor Board, and EPA will undergo a full review of their powers and have most of their authority stripped.


A Constitutional Amendment which will guarantee nationwide “open shops” for all businesses will be proposed.   Also all unions for federal employees need to be disbanded.  (Also I wouldn’t mind if the heads of the teacher’s unions were brought up on treason charges as their continual actions to destroy the U.S. education system is at best treason—crime against humanity might be more accurate.)



A Constitutional Amendment redefining the Commerce Clause as applicable only to commerce that actually moves across state lines will be proposed. Further the defined commerce clause will limit the scope of the federal government to acting in ways only to prevent impediments to the free commerce and economic activity between states, not to put up new barriers of its own.


All U.S. trade tariffs will be abolished. Tariffs only hurt the consumer and protect failing businesses.


All government regulations will be up for review (I’d say put Rand Paul and Michele Bachman in charge of this committee) with the purpose of reducing all federal red tape by at least half if not more.


Tort Reform Laws must be passed immediately.


The federal government needs to A) stop forcing banks to make subprime loans (which means the Community Reinvestment Act needs to be scrapped) and B) it needs to stop suing banks for making those loans.


Finally those wastes of space and volume known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to stop being quasi government organizations. Either the federal government needs to buy up all private shares or it needs to sell its own stake in the company. Either way right after that the entire assets of Fannie and Freddie need to be liquidated at Fire Sale prices and the organizations disbanded. Yes this will cause housing prices to drop once again, but it will also provide stability to the market, make houses affordable, and encourage banks to finally loan money again. And to everyone who bought a house for more than it was worth…I don’t care, you bought a house when all the signs were there that the market would collapse, you bought a house when it was stupid to do so, you did not think, time to face the consequences of not thinking ahead.


Now if Obama did all of that you would have three things happen. First, the country would be back to 2% or less unemployment within 5 years. Second, the economy would grow like never before and this growth would actually permeate the entire world and even Europe’s financial problems would be nearly gone in a little over a decade. And third, I would actually vote for Obama in 2012.


But we know that Obama isn’t bright enough to know what will actually fix an economy.


Nope, I predict what we will hear is more of the same. Stimulus. ‘Cause that’s always worked before (at least in the delusion fantasy world that liberals live in).



Filed under American Exceptionalism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Michelle Bachmann, Natural Rights, Net Neutrality, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

California, Land of the Crazies, and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.

Continuing with my astonishment at the absolute insanity that seems to permeate all of society at this point, one must mention California, Land of the Crazies. The state is all but beyond hope, and let’s take a look at why it’s so far gone.

There is no need to go over the obscene welfare state, extreme illegal immigrant problem (a problem so bad that they have become a powerful voting block, despite having no legal right to vote), and the fact that the state has avoided bankruptcy only through budget tricks that make Enron look ethical. These are all known facts. The problem comes in when you consider what California is doing about it…

Well first they elected Jerry Brown. Brown used to be Governor of California back in the 1970’s when he did the same thing to California’s economy that dim Jimmy Carter was doing to the national economy, i.e. destroying it. So it made perfect sense to reelect him again? I’ll grant you the Republican option wasn’t very good, but Brown’s track record is literally that he destroyed the California economy. I don’t care how bad the Republican option is, you don’t elect a man who has already failed at this very job.

But let’s ignore who got elected to the executive branch. The real insanity comes from the legislative branch. Sane people might want to get California’s budget under control, lure businesses back, reduce unemployment, make the cities safer. Something along those lines…but not the lunatics in California.

Let’s look at some of the things that California has busied itself with while the state went to hell.

Well first you have the fact that they decided to tax all the business that did in the state. This was a tax designed to go against Amazon and its business within the state, to tax them, to hurt them. It was backed by businesses whose bottom line was hurt by Amazon and designed to make it so bad that they would not be able to do business in the state—rather than lowering their prices to compete, Amazon would have to raise its prices just to stay profitable. Who suffers here? Amazon obviously, but also the consumer who no longer can find things at cheaper prices online. That’s right, the socialists in the legislature of California conspired with businesses to price gouge consumers. Do you begin to see why capitalists scoff at claims of maintaining fairness by government officials?

This law is unpopular in California. So much so that there is a move to have it overturned by the voters in a special election. In response to its unpopular nature what do the liberals in the state capital do? They move to have the laws referendum votes change to make sure that their business killing, job destroying, consumer hurting law will not be overturned. How wonderfully democratic of them. Did I say democratic? I meant fascist.

Also there seems to be no end to new business regulations coming out of California. Because being one of the five worst states for businesses isn’t enough…apparently the geniuses in California think that the only way to improve the economy is to be the most business unfriendly area in the world! Maybe that will help bring money back into the state.

But why stop with regulating businesses, when you can regulate individuals as well. If you’re a parent who wants to go out for the night and so you just hire the sixteen year old down the block to look after the kids, guess what, in California you and the sixteen year old babysitter will soon be criminals. Yes, that’s right you can now only hire adults, you have to pay them an hourly wage, have them keep an official time card, pay all the social-security/unemployment/and all other taxes for a full time employee, provide breaks and you must pay them at least minimum wage. Well if you thought teenagers were having a hard time before this in finding a job, apparently in California the goal is 0% for all teenagers. So teenagers won’t have any money to buy stuff, and parents won’t ever be going to movies or restaurants again which will kill the dining and entertainment industries even more. Not to mention is the state telling you who you are allowed to trust your children too, you personally as a parent should have no rights in this area whatsoever, the state knows best.

But the insanity doesn’t even come close to stopping there!

California is about to completely ban Styrofoam! Yes no more Styrofoam plates or cups in any restaurant or store. None whatsoever. This will of course be great for the environment because as we all know Styrofoam takes 700 years to biodegrade. Let’s ignore the fact that wax covered paper, which is what Styrofoam will be replaced by takes 400 years to biodegrade, require more money, over twice the energy (so a larger carbon footprint if you cared about such things), over ten times more chemicals to create (you think wood is naturally that color or consistency) and has far more chemical byproducts in its creation that are all harmful to the environment. To hell if Styrofoam is vastly more friendly to the environment when you actually take everything that is required to make it into account. We need to ban it because we follow the religion of environmentalism which can never be questioned by those little things called facts. This is California the state that destroyed hundreds of farms in central California all to defend an ugly fish no one ever heard of and so evolutionally backward that it can only exist in central California and will die at the drop of a hat. (Has anyone ever explained to environmentalists that the environment is almost designed to get rid of species that can’t adapt and to protect every single species is actually working against the very mechanism of evolution?)

Oh and why stop there? Let’s release thousands upon thousands of convicted felons back onto the streets. I’m sure that will do wonders for the state.

And dare we forget what California is doing to make great strides in education. Let’s make sure that we teach Gay History. But in addition to making sure that we bring up all the gay people in history, we can’t bring anything negative about any single gay person in history. (I’m not sure if this means we have to just ignore Roman history or if we have to portray all the Roman Emperors as saintly figures who wouldn’t ever do anything wrong…but either version seems somehow wrong). Did I miss a memo? Are gay people these magical people who are incapable of doing anything wrong? Because, for all his literary genius I recall that Oscar Wilde was quite the asshole, as was Michelangelo and J. Edgar Hoover. Yes, they’re all people who should be covered in any halfway competent History course, but to whitewash their acts just because they’re gay smacks a bit of 1984. Last time I checked gay people had morons and geniuses, those who were saintly and those who unspeakably evil, nice and cruel, charitable and stingy…why? because they’re human. Sexual orientation does not change the fact that you are a member of the human collective. If your acts are spectacular enough, for good or for evil, that they merit being brought up in a history course they should be brought up. Whether you’re gay, bi, straight, asexual or some category I’m forgetting, if you did something worthy of making history you get put into history, who cares who you’re attracted to. Or as my friend The Snark Who Hunts Back put it “Sorry, I was unaware I had a separate history from straight people.”

And I could go on and on…$150 additional tax for people who live in rural areas to pay for protection from fires that the fire service “accidentally” sets every year, SWAT teams sent to arrest people for selling milk, forcing all teachers to join the teacher’s union, not legalizing a major business in the form of pot use and then taxing the shit out of it, (this list could go on for pages) and dare we forget the banning of Happy meals and anti-Semitic push by the Nazis* who run San Francisco to ban circumcisions (thank god that one failed).

The state is insane! Completely, totally, certifiably, bat shit insane!

Which brings me back to the title of this blog “and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.” What’s the Luthor plan you ask? Well you probably already know it, you were just hoping I wasn’t going to go here. Most of the lunatics in California are concentrated in two areas Los Angeles and San Francisco, with a few other pockets scattered up and down the coast. In other words the loonies all seem to be west of the San Andres Fault line. What’s the Luthor plan? Well, as you may recall from the movie, it’s the idea that we need to place several large nuclear weapons on the San Andres, detonate them, and let that part of the state fall into the ocean. Good riddance. Yeah, that Luthor plan.

I’m of course joking, but can you really say that there is any logical way of dealing with insanity at this level?

*You may think that my calling the people who run San Francisco Nazi’s is just petty name calling. It’s not. They were making a law to ban a Jewish practice and enforce it with full fascist use of the law. That’s not hyperbole or name calling, using laws to hurt Jews demands that they be called what they are.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Laws for Conservatives to Pass: Executive Order Oversight

One of the things that makes me like Michele Bachmann is that she has said that if elected one of the first things she is going to do is go through all of Obama’s executive orders and throw out most of them. After all, Obama has been giving executive orders that not only are not popular, that put the whole nation under some loose kind of rendition  (yeah, you nearly forgot about that one didn’t you), executive orders creating more czars than a Bolshevik could possibly deal with, putting in rules specifically rejected by Congress on the deportation of illegal aliens , and of course an executive order that will allow the EPA to shut down power plants.

There's a check or balance missing somewhere here

Let’s see he can veto any law he wants, and now apparently he can write any law he wants on his own, and dare we forget he has the audacity to tell the Supreme Court that it doesn’t have the right to interpret the Constitution differently from him…what do you call it when a single person has all the powers of government invested in themselves?

Now some very, very foolish people have argued that the right of executive orders needs to be done away with. That’s insane. The executive office could never operate if it did not have the ability to issue orders on how to carry out laws. However executive orders are meant to clarify how laws will be carried out, not to write new ones, and certainly not to trump the power of the legislative branch.

Now I would prefer this to be a Constitutional Amendment, and will probably argue for that when I get around to writing a book on all the Constitutional changes that need to be made (but that is years off right now) but for right now it seems that this might only require a law (it may require a Constitutional Amendment, but I’d love to see Obama try to defend some of the shit he’s done with these orders publicly). Congress needs to pass a law that says that any executive order can be taken up by the Senate and voted down by a majority vote. This would return some of the power to the Senate, as the upper house of the legislative branch is supposed to have over the powers of the Presidency in order to check rampant insanity (like what we see with Obama), and offer just another check and balance to the system. Remember it was never supposed to be efficient or powerful.

Now as far as I can tell such a law wouldn’t require a Constitutional amendment since the power of executive orders isn’t exactly a power granted to the president in the first place. So Congress reasserting its right to be the sole legislative authority shouldn’t be a stretch constitutionally (although as I said, this might just make a good amendment anyway).

I think the Senate should have the right to look at any executive order and decide whether it is in line with the laws they have already passed. And if not the right to vote it down. If an executive order isn’t brought up within a year of it being issued it will just be assumed to have passed the bar.

Notice what you’re arguing if you don’t like this. You’re saying that a President can just issue orders of how the entirety of the federal government will act and behave and no one has the right to overrule him. That’s effectively a law, a law without any checks and balances involved in its creation. To give one branch, literally one man, that much power is beyond insane.

For generation this power has mostly been used only to fill in the grey area that comes in with enforcing most laws…but then there came Obama who decided that he should just legislate from the Oval Office whenever he felt like it. This is insane. Even if you agree with everything Obama has done, you have to know that someday a conservative will return to the White House, that’s inevitable, do you want someone you disagree with to have this much uncontrolled, unchecked, unfettered power? I don’t trust Obama, but even if you do, can you honestly say you trust every single person who will ever hold that office to not use that power like a dictator? I doubt it. There needs to be a check on this power. And since it is effectively a law, but one that the legislative branch did not pass, it should be held to a lower standard (only half of one branch has to vote it down).

Yes executive orders are a necessary part of the system. But it is a power that can easily be abused and it needs to be curtailed


Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Declaration, Economics, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Natural Rights, Obama, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Books for Conservatives: Crichton’s State of Fear

So I just read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (yes I realize it’s been out a few years, but my backlog of books is quite extensive, it helps sort through a lot of hype and allows me to pick up hard backs fairly cheap). This turned out to be one of the most enjoyable Crichton books I have ever read.

The story itself is on par with the rest of the Crichton’s work, enjoyable, fast paced, not exactly Pulitzer quality, but a good quick read. Action, the over tones of love, a lot of discussion of science, and a smarmy villain who gets his—all standard Crichton. (One of the nice points of this book is that the smarmy villain in this case is a bastard of an actor, who knows nothing and thinks he knows everything, who once played the President on TV, and who, if Crichton had lived and written this book within the last year, would have had an unstable child who was known for making bizarre comments about the blood of large cats. Yeah, Crichton does not hide his contempt for this actor. I wonder if it’s based on anyone in the real world. Too bad this character finds himself on the dinner menu for a tribe of modernization hating natives in the South Pacific.)

What’s more interesting is the topic. As with almost all Crichton novels there is a strain of scientific theory at the heart of the novel. Unlike most Crichton novels, this one comes with numerous footnotes and bibliography. Why does Crichton feel he needs to include footnotes on the scientific data he presents? Because this book is about global warming and the irrational faith of those who believe that man has a significant effect on the entire global climate system. Or, as he states in the first appendix “We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.”

In the book the villains, a combination of the wackos at ELF and a bunch of ignorant do-gooders spout off all the party lines about global warming…and Crichton’s heroes have responses to all of it (and citations for the responses). Temperature hasn’t been rising in any manner that should give you worry, temperature has always been going up and down without rhyme or reason, some glaciers have been shrinking, others growing. The sea level is not rising. And, of course, every action by people attempting to save the environment over the last 100 years has resulted in destruction to the environment…and yet we’re supposed to trust these wackos with good intentions but no facts this time…yeah that makes sense.

The main point of the work is that there is money and power to be made in creating a state of constant fear…which the climate change myth offers.

For conservatives it’s an enjoyable read which gives you a healthy list of resources to look up to prepare yourself for an argument with liberals on the issue of the mythical idea called global warming. The Schandefreude you get from seeing liberal arguments is just icing on the cake. For liberals I would say this is even a more important book to read…after all, if your arguments can’t withstand the truncated arguments of Crichton, how can they possibly withstand the body of evidence in the bibliography?

Of course my favorite part of the book has to be the last few pages which are not part of the book proper, but an essay. Crichton talks about a scientific theory which proposed an upcoming disaster that would face the human race and an easy solution to save us from this disaster. He compares global warming to this historic scientific idea as both were widely believed by the public, by politicians, by the elites and by the major scientific organizations of the time; both theories had research that was peer-reviewed and both times dissenters to the so-called evidence were mocked, insulted and considered to be heathens before the altar of science. This other idea: eugenics. Remind me how that one turned out. Oh yeah, millions upon millions tortured and killed…and do you think that a new call by environmentalists to all but go back on the last hundred years of progress are not going to have disastrous consequences?

It’s enjoyable and well worth the cost of the paperback.

1 Comment

Filed under Books for Conservatives, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism

Laws the GOP should pass: Some Common Sense Environmentalism

Well, the obvious one would be some massive spending cuts. Or maybe a balanced budget amendment. Or maybe a flat tax that includes no loopholes, exemptions or credits. But this weekend’s cowardice and blinking tells me I’ll have to wait for January 2013 at the earliest for anything that rational.

In lieu of that, I’ll go with the kind of long term thinking that was so clearly missing in Washington throughout this whole debt debate. And for that we’re going to go back to discussing the environment. (In case you’re wondering why all the recent environment/global warming posts lately, I finally got around to reading Crichton’s State of Fear and I’m in that mindset…review of that book coming soon).

So, unlike the Chicken Little’s who believe the sky is falling when it isn’t (new NASA data shows once again heat is not getting trapped) but environmentalists would rather scream about impending danger than actually do anything of value that will actually have a legitimate and positive effect – like actually help us save money while using all these supposedly green technologies.

Now, I’ll admit that we are not at a point that we can replace oil and coal and remain a first world nation, not just yet. Even if we replaced all the coal plants with nuclear ones (which won’t happen, again because of the Chicken Littles) even if we put solar paneling on every house, even if we put wind turbine in every community and even if we switched every car to a hybrid, we’d still need oil. So talking about getting rid of oil and coal is just silly. That doesn’t mean we can’t make moves in those alternative energy sources to help bring down their cost per unit and make them at least cost efficient for the average person. Further as we all know I hate oil not for environmental reasons, but because every barrel of oil sold, whether it’s from Saudi Arabia or from Alaska helps keep up the overall price of oil, and that means funds are still streaming into the Middle East and from there into the hands of the organizations most opposed to civilization as a whole. The more we cut oil the more we cut tyranny and terrorism bank rolls (which in turn would mean we could cut our military and DHS funding).

How do I suggest doing that? Well we all know I’ve advocated for nuclear power, which would save us a huge amount of money in producing your average kilowatt hour. But there are other things that would be indicative of long term planning that would actually help to lower our use of oil.

At present the only city I have heard of that is putting up any amount of solar paneling on all its government buildings is Seattle. I can’t see them making that cost efficient with Seattle’s aversion to clear skies, but I would assume it would eventually have to break even and then start paying for itself….however, I can’t understand why the entire Southwest, where the sun always shines, hasn’t put solar panels on every state and city building. Here in Phoenix that would have to pay for itself in only a few years. And cutting government spending on electricity is a two-fold bonus, not only does it reduce the cost of everyone’s electric bill (as the demand drops) but it also means they have to fleece us for that much less in taxes.

Or, how about this. We have learned from the debacle that is the Americans with Disabilities Act what you can and cannot do in requiring building standards. Why do I bring up the ADA? Well a lot of business was killed by this act. Contractors used to be able to buy old buildings that were on the verge of falling apart cheaply, then renovate them and turn them around resulting in a good profit, business for the building industry, and new avenues for the housing and commercial markets. The problem with the ADA was that adding all the handicap accessible changes to old building became prohibitive for a building that was just sitting there and making nothing in terms of income. Thus no one had the capital to begin a lot of renovation projects, which meant that competitive pricing in apartments and commercial space disappeared—bad for the economy all around. What we’ve learned from the ADA is that requirements for new buildings work well and good for new building projects but you need to give a grace period for older buildings, giving them time to make the initial improvements that will allow them to start making income and say within five years of the start of the project make all the required changes (if this change were made to the ADA it would open up millions, perhaps billions of dollars in renovation within the next decade; that’s jobs and money and taxable income). (Hmmm, reading that paragraph you would think that government even when it has the best intentions tends to ruin everything it touches…oh wait that is exactly the case).

So before you think that last paragraph was completely off topic, let me propose that states enact laws that any new projects starting in 2014 (that should give them fair warning to build up enough capital) for any commercial buildings or large housing projects need to have solar panels on the all of the buildings (but with the addendum that renovation will have five years to put those in so as not to further kill that segment of the contracting industry). Any housing project needs to also include one wind turbine per, oh let’s say, every 25 homes (The cost of a wind turbine spaced out among 25 buyers shouldn’t be too much). Yeah they’re ugly, but not as ugly as power and telephone poles and we got used to those. Also with them spaced out like that it should cut down on how many birds they kill. Is that going to save a lot of money? Well not enough to go out and buy a new car, but it could save you a couple hundred bucks a year. Also for these large projects and commercial buildings, and this may be just an Arizona problem, but single paned glass needs to be forbidden. Every place I have lived and worked in Arizona has single pane glass, which makes no sense because if we just had double paned glass we could save hundreds (for individuals) perhaps thousands (for companies) in cooling costs (which here is Phoenix is a large portion of everyone’s electric bill).

It’s these little things that show long term thinking that should be implemented if you’re going to discuss environmental laws. Things that will cost a little more upfront but will save massive piles of money in the long run.

(Further if you put in those laws about solar panels and wind turbines then you would probably see a quick boom in the industry as everyone tries to get their building projects done before they have to meet the standards, which would also help revitalize a few sectors.)


1 Comment

Filed under Environmentalism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking

A few thoughts on Global Warming…

So while doing some research I found the same answer over and over and over again. The earth gets warmer and colder over time. It’s a wacky thing. Some might even call it a cycle. It was warm in the ancient world (so warm you could grow grapes in Northern England, it’s too cold to do that right now), then it got cold around 900AC then warm a century later then warm again; so warm that Erik the Red could actually live in Greenland (you can’t really do that now) then it got really cold again, so cold we call it the little Ice Age. Then it got warm again. That’s where we’re at right now.

But here’s the really fun part, we’re still not as warm as it once was. Looking at this cycle you would have to be an idiot of extreme measure to think that this latest warming period was directly caused by human intervention (Especially when you consider that CO2 levels are vastly lower than they were back in the Paleozoic era and as far as we can tell temperature wasn’t all that different.) An intelligent person might notice it looks more like a sine wave—it goes up, it goes down. A very natural pattern.
Here’s another fun part…try and find the eruptions of Thera or Krakatoa, which threw up more particulate matter than the entire industrialized world puts up in a decade, on this chart. Hint their eruptions seem to cause no change whatsoever in overall temperature.

Notice also those nice lines I drew in showing that not only our current temperature, but our current temperature plus a couple degrees is still lower than what it has historically been.

So exactly what was your proof that climate change was caused by the burning of fossil fuels again? A yeah, it got a little warmer over the last century…big deal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmentalism, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid

Nobody understands Science!

This has been a fun week for me watching people who don’t understand science. First Stephen Hawking came out and said that there was no Heaven…not, you know, a scientific assessment that he cannot find evidence of such or that he does not see a scientific necessity for it (although his argument that there is no necessity for God was a little flimsy as arguments against God go)…no he made a statement of fact. A blanket statement that there is no heaven or afterlife. To state that the lack of evidence proves something doesn’t exist is bad science. To say you can prove any negative is logically impossible. Now it may be good science to say that you shouldn’t believe in something if you have no proof for it (even though there is proof of an afterlife and God, just not irrefutable proof), but to make an assertion that there is nothing is just below Hawking’s intellect, but clearly he is forgetting the rules of science and logic. (Of course asking an astrophysicist for metaphysical truths is like asking an architect for an opinion on quantum physics or a linguist for their opinion on politics—they may be right, and they may have evidence, but their credentials make them a layman in the field and they need to prove they know something about the field before you should listen to them. In this case, Hawking is coming up as lacking in a Metaphysics credential). And I would have looked forward to see him take a few philosophical hits…but what came was so much funnier what I expected.

Enter psycho Christian Kirk Cameron, who knows even less about science and logic than Hawking knows about metaphysics. Now, is a man who denies the basics of evolution the best person to criticize anyone on anything? Probably not. But it’s amusing to watch. Two people who either don’t know about the rule of reason (or at least have forgotten for one of them), yelling meaningless statements of illogic at each other. I kind of hope this begins a back and forth shouting match because, like the battle of Stalingrad, it doesn’t matter if anyone wins, just so long as both sides take massive hits it warms my heart.

But this got me to thinking, nobody seems to understand science. Both the wacky conservative fringe and most of the left seems to be utterly clueless as to what science says and what it can say.

Let me start with the idiots in my own party (because maybe if I’m lucky I will offend them and they’ll leave). The wacky Christian Right does not seem to have a very good grasp on biology. Let’s start with homosexuality. It’s a biological trait. The structure of the brain determines whether you like a different gender or your own. What a shock! A biological trait affects how you engage in a biological function. Mindboggling to say the least. Now there may be some gray area over whether this is caused directly by genes or by hormone level while in utero, but any way you look at it, by the time you’re born your brain is set a certain way and you will either like men, women, or both. You don’t get to choose. (This also suggests that the Christian Right does not understand psychology, after all who the hell says to themselves, “Let me pick a lifestyle that will get me ostracized from society because I think it will be fun,” but I would like to stick primarily here to the hard sciences.) Thus it becomes the height of insanity to blame, criticize or ostracize someone for a biological trait they have no control over (would you yell at people for natural hair color? Height? Being born blind? No.) Now if you want to critique some in the homosexual community for rejecting monogamy, that’s fine so long as you critique straight people with the same moral failing and understand that ethical choice is not related to the biological condition. And if you want to scream about how gay pride parades are obscene and simply not doing the gay community any help, please join me in that one.

And while we’re on the subject of the Christian right not getting the basics of biology, let’s talk evolution. Similarities in DNA between species, undeniable evolution of single celled organisms and virus, fossil records and a million other little things point to the undeniable fact that life on this planet is A.) Billions of years old (I love the Christians who try to deny carbon dating, thus showing they have little understanding of chemistry) and B.) that life evolved over time from very simple cells to very complex creatures. That’s a scientific fact. Science and facts come first and faith and belief can justifiably fill in what science and fact do not; it doesn’t get to work the other way around. Now if you want to discuss how science does not explain how lifeless chemicals suddenly became self-replicating DNA cells or how an evolved primate suddenly becomes self-aware, and use Intelligent Design to explain those infinite jumps from one thing to another, fine. Science as yet has no explanation for those things, so the idea of a creator is justifiable. It is not however justifiable to use an Intelligent Designer to explain the shape of a banana…evolution works fine on that one on its own. The jury is out on whether or not evolution completely explains the platypus or, as we all know, it is proof of God’s sense of humor.

Facts first, then belief. If facts contradict you belief…too bad your belief is wrong. You’re more than free to try and prove the facts wrong, but once you’ve failed, be mature enough to admit it.

And liberals I know you’ve been enjoying that flogging of your opponents…but now it’s your turn. Liberals don’t seem to understand the basics of physics and the scientific method. After all, you couldn’t believe in global warming if you had any concept of either. Let’s look at some facts, (and I know to some liberals all facts are created equally, but in my world facts that are true are better than the facts you like to make up to fit your argument). The world got colder around 800 AD, the world got warmer around 1400, it got colder again around 1600, and warmer again soon after that. All without the help of burning fossil fuels. How warm was it before 800? Well there are records of wineries as far north as Lincolnshire. It’s too cold in Lincolnshire right now to grow grapes…so it was warmer than we are now. And remember how water levels used to be higher and thus Iraq was a fertile crescent and not a barren desert…or how Homer describes Troy as a port city (and archeology backs that up) yet when they dug it up it was miles and miles from the shoreline…I guess the water levels have lowered in the last few thousand years…and clearly before the heavy use of fossil fuels. (So really if it’s getting warmer and the water levels are rising we’re just getting back to what the human race was once used to). Oh and then there is the fact that Mars seems to be going through its own warming and cooling cycle at the exact same time as our thus suggesting that warmth on the planets might have some relationship to how much energy the sun is releasing. (And I seriously doubt the fumes from my car are affecting the nuclear reactions of the sun). Global warming is a myth. There is not actual proof of a causation between man and the global climate (however, I will admit building Phoenix in a valley, and covering it all with heat conducting concrete and asphalt was probably not the best idea if you wanted to avoid creating a permanent heat bubble in the summer…but that still isn’t affecting the global climate). But ignoring the fact that causation has never been proved, it’s also the illogical reaction to this. Oh my God it’s getting warmer (or cooler depending on decade)! Well if it got warmer then that would mean you would have more land in Russia and Canada that would be fit for growing crops and human habitation (actually far more land than would be made uninhabitable around the equator). So warming would actually be a net gain. But the other problem is that there has been a 1 degree change over the last century. That medieval warming cooling I mentioned was a variation of 3 possibly as much as 5 degrees. Oh, one degree I’m scared. Global warming is hype designed to sell industries based on green technology. It’s a magnificent con job without any scientific backing. Now if you want to talk about legitimate environmental issues like the low levels of ground water that we have left or the level of pollution caused by dumping chemical in certain areas, that’s fine, that fact based concern about the environment…but give up the man made global warming myth.

And while conservatives think that science explains nothing, liberals make the equally stupid idea that science somehow explains everything. Liberals, like Hawking, like to use science to disprove the idea of God. Hate to tell them this, but science can’t do that. And to try and use it to do that is bad science. On a personal level you can say, I see no proof and thus choose not to believe, but don’t mistake your belief for scientific fact. Just because you’ve found the Higgs—Boson particle or some quasar out in space doesn’t disprove God, no amount of science can (bonus points if you caught the pun in this sentence)…conversely it’d be damn hard for science to prove God, but that’s why it’s called faith and not science. Faith is a legitimate source of knowledge where reason and science offer no clear answer…but it doesn’t trump reason and science.

Oh, and a note on quoting sources. Recently I got into a debate with someone on global warming and he quoted as his proof (I kid you not) Carl Sagan and Jane Goodall (among a few other people who did not have backgrounds or credentials in earth sciences) as scientists who have proved global warming. (In case you’re wondering I quoted as my sources Bjorn Lomberg, David Evens and Michael Crichton (who while not an environmentalist per se, did extensive research on the subject)). And then he yelled at me for questioning what a guy who looks at stars and a woman who lives with gorillas would know about global climate systems. I mean neither of them has a degree in meteorology let alone earth sciences or any background in the field that I’m aware of. He just screamed and went away as if questioning the credentials of his sources was heresy. Clearly this person was a moron…But no more than someone who quotes a book written fourteen hundred, two-thousand, or twenty-five hundred years ago (Koran, New Testament, Hebrew Bible if you’re having trouble matching those years up) as proof for why I should listen to valid scientific sources. In a battle between scientists who are discussing their actual field and people who are not scientists the experts should win unless you have a damn good reason to ignore them (like the claims of bias and greed made by climate scientists who point out that you will go broke trying to disprove man made global warming, but will be very well funded if you say the myth is truth).

I think everyone needs to go back, take a few hard science courses and learn what science does and does not say. (And this coming from an English Major).

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmentalism, Faith, People Are Stupid