Blog

AGW: Fact or Political Lie?

Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a hot button topic over the past several years. The concept, as “settled science”, has been a major factor in the worlds political climate, the regulatory structure of many countries, as well as being the subject of much debate within the academic and scientific communities.

Over time, some former AGW alarmists have begun to change their positions on the issue. David Evans, a former full-time consultant for the Australian Department of Climate Change from 1999 to 2005, who modeled Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products, is the latest scientist to discount the affect of carbon dioxide on our climate.

According to Evans:

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was once on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic…

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”

Evans says that he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas” and if all things were equal then more CO2 in the air would mean a warmer planet. He asserts that the science goes wrong when it fails to account for the planets reaction to that increased CO2 in favor of computer models which have been proven false.

“The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.”

He says that the official climate models are based upon the premise that the extra moist air would amplify the level of warming by a factor of three, while carbon dioxide accounted for one third of their projections.

“That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism….

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.”

Most of our recent cap & tax initiatives, investment in green energy, demonization of carbon based energy production, and our enhanced regulatory environment is based upon this flawed climate model and the results it predicts.

We’ve had every reason to doubt it since the mid 1990’s. I wonder what makes us continue on that path?

 

Osama bin naughty

According to Reuters:

“A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. Commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.”

Odd, I thought that was one of the things Muslim extremists pointed out as proof of western decadence.

I’m sort of hard pressed trying to imagine what would constitute “jihad porn”. I can only assume it’s something along the lines of “Bare Kneecaps” or “Hot Elbows” or maybe even “Bellybutton Unplugged”.

Who knows? And better yet, who cares?

 

Progressivism and American Exceptionalism

In my reading of progressive philosophies and in my interactions with liberals, I’m constantly confused by their beliefs regarding American exceptionalism, or lack thereof.

It always surprises me to hear people say that our founding documents and the ideas of those who created them are relics of a bygone era. That they have no relevance in the nation that we have become some several hundred years later.

Even though I’ve always instinctively rejected that notion, I never really thought about what exactly is the basis of the exceptionalism that I take for granted and others love to reject.

Today, it came to me: It is not that we, as individuals, are special. It is that our nation was founded on principles that transcended the most enlightened nations of it’s day. Chief among those principles is the declaration that all men are created equal and that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

For the life of me, I can’t imagine how a progressive could improve upon these concepts, as once they were established, they are final. If some individuals are made more equal than others, is that progress? If we reverse the concept of governments deriving their authority only from our consent, are we an improved nation?

I think not!

No, I think American exceptionalism is alive and well as long as our Constitution stands as written. Progressive ideas may attempt to distort it, but it cannot be destroyed without our consent. It is our duty to deny that consent.

 

Private jobs versus Public jobs.

A federal employee who is on the verge of losing her job confronted President Obama about her status during a CBS News Town Hall meeting broadcast on Thursday morning.

Karen Gallo, an employee at the National Zoo told the President that she’s four weeks away from losing her job because of budget cuts. She went on to say that she is seven months pregnant and that she and her husband were in the process of building a new house.

The President’s response (see video below) was:

“Workers like you, for the federal, state, and local governments are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about ‘government jobs’ as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m gonna have to take exception to that statement. There is a very clear distinction to be made regarding the differences between government jobs and private sector jobs. That being that private sector jobs are self-supporting and government jobs depend on the private sector to support those positions.

 The salary, benefits, and pensions of government workers are funded exclusively by the people working in the private sector. It is absolutely necessary for people to earn from private industry in order to pay the taxes which are then used to fund the various government jobs. Government jobs that have been steadily increasing in number over the last few years. Since 2009, the federal government has nearly doubled the number of civilian employees in the federal workforce from 1.28 million to over 2 million jobs.

President Obama created those jobs, not by creating more revenue, like the rest of us do. Nope, he did it by imposing those costs onto the private sector by borrowing record amounts of money with the expectation that the private sector will repay through taxation.

How could anyone think there is not a difference between those who support the jobs and those whose jobs are supported?

 

Our Republic, can we keep it?

 

It is said that at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged on the street, asked him: “Well Doctor, what kind of government have you given us?” “A Republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

A Republican form of government is dedicated to the propositon that the power of a central government rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Our constitution , in Article 4, section 4 asserts that: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” assuring that as a nation, we are a collection of state Republics bound by a central constitutional Republic.

Many of us seem to believe that we are actually a Democracy, a belief that is encouraged and fostered by our politicians and popular media. It is important to dispel that belief for the following reasons:

Democracy is characterized by majority rule. In a Democracy, the individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of blind majority rule.

A Republic has a very different purpose and an entirely different form of government. Its purpose is to control the majority, primarily to protect the individual’s, or minorities, unalienable rights and the liberties of all people.

Our founders knew that in a pure Democracy, tyrany was a natural extension of the will of the majority. The concept of unalienable rights, an essential component of their revolutionary plan for self governance, could not exist in a Democracy. In order to secure and ensure those rights, a Republican form of governance, restricted by a central governments limited constitutional powers, was the only option.

How long can we as a nation exist under this Republican form of government? Theoretically, until the majority realizes that they can alter the government to suit their purposes. When the concepts of empathy, class envy, wealth redistribution, and expansion of rights from the unalienable variety to the cause du jour variety come to be the defining purpose of governmental intrusion on the citizenry, our Republic will have vanished.

I think we’re almost there.

 

Even more thoughts on conservatism

 

Another basic list of conservative attributes from Anthony G. Martin at the Columbia Conservative Examiner.

‘Government money’ does not belong to government. It belongs to the taxpayers who worked hard for it, and who had funds deleted from their paychecks even before they got to see them.

The government that governs best governs LEAST.

Government normally does not solve problems. People do. Big government usually IS the problem.

Oppressive large governments are responsible for more murders of citizens than all of the wars in history.

The private sector is where the juice of society lies. There you will find ingenuity, creativity, and the creation of wealth–provided government gets out of the way.

Government social programs reward pathological dependency. True adults, unless hindered by debilitating physical impairment, seek independent living as free persons who are not stuck in an infantile dependency on the government nanny.

The one role of government mandated by the U.S. Constitution is to provide for the national defense.

Human rights are not granted by government. They are inherent and automatic. We are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ Government can only choose to recognize and protect those inherent rights.

The right to self-defense, as encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment, is the key to all of the other rights described in the Bill of Rights. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and a free press are secured and kept secure by an armed citizenry.

Our form of government is NOT a ‘pure democracy’ or ‘majority rule.’ In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the will of the majority is tempered and limited by the rights of the minority, which are always intact and unalienable regardless of the ‘will of the majority.

 

Ten conservative principles

 

As a follow-up to the previous post, I’ve discovered a wonderful list of conservative principles which seem to embody the best of conservative thought in a concise list.
In his book, The Politics of Prudence, Russell Kirk writes of the following Ten Conservative Principles:

1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

 

What is a conservative?

 

Read a definition of a conservative today. One that I think is brilliant in its simplicity and right on the mark in its definition:

Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’

Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.

Third, a conservative believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

That’s about it.

I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable.

One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.

This was written by the late, great Lyn Nofziger, a senior advisor to President Reagan and one of the premier conservative thinkers of my lifetime.

 

A Servant’s Heart

I’ve been thinking about the concept of a servant’s heart lately. Not in a religious sense, but rather from a secular perspective.

It comes to me as I consider my relationship with my family, my employer and my country.

A servant’s heart doesn’t require that I act in a subservient manner, but that I take responsibility for my role within each of my relationships. For example, in my role of husband, father and grandfather, it is my responsibility to place my wife, daughter and grandchildren’s interests above my own with the hope that in return, they will do the same.

Politically, I must put the long-term best interests of my community and country before my short-term interests. I may struggle at times, but I must always remember that just because I can vote myself an entitlement from the public coffers doesn’t mean that I should.

I’d like to see our political parties take on that approach to their governing philosophies. We’d all be better off for it.

 

Osama bin Laden killed

Yesterday, a nearly 10 year mission was finally accomplished.

Osama bin Laden was located, his fortified compound assaulted, and he was killed by a small force of Navy Seals. President Obama held the country in suspense for several hours before addressing the nation at about 11:30pm last night.

I think it would have been appropriate for the President to share the announcement with former President Bush as his administration did everything in its power to accomplish the same goal.  For his separate comments, see below:

“Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”

nate beeler

 
 
%d bloggers like this: