The Staunton News leader has a nice feature on the races in the district; video footage of the candidates in short interviews. I looked forward to seeing the candidates....but:
Travis Smithdeal: "I have been trying to figure out how to squeeze an hour out of this campaign schedule and regular work schedule and family life and just cannot find it." Will you find time to actually govern this county?
Michael Shull: "I won't get a fair shot. You're bias (sic)" It is a change to present yourself to the voters. How is appearing on video to tell YOUR message biased?
Jeremy Shifflett: Didn't show; came up with a lame excuse.
It look to me like the three republican candidates, supported by the Augusta Rebulican Commitee, are dancing to the tune of the same drummer. The News Leader is the only daily paper in this part of the county; that you would shun them for endorsements and interviews tells me that you would shun all voters that are not part of the little club run by Kurt Michael.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Patriot Act
It bothers me when I hear comments along the lines "...I support the Patriot act; I have nothing to hide..." You may think you have nothing to hide, but our Government can make terrible mistakes, and can turn your innocent life into a living hell. Here is a story for you...(I am trying the trackback thing; hope is works).
mail harmless bacteria go to jail from the Aetilogy blog.
mail harmless bacteria go to jail from the Aetilogy blog.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Some thought on the presidential race...
The party of family values:
Fred Thompson: divorced
Rudy Giuliani: divorced, twice
John McCain: divorced
Mitt Romney: married 38 years, and the only Rebuplican candidate still married to his first wife.
"She said, '[Of] four leading Republican candidates for president, only one has one wife -- the Mormon,' " Mitt Romney quoting National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.
Fred Thompson: divorced
Rudy Giuliani: divorced, twice
John McCain: divorced
Mitt Romney: married 38 years, and the only Rebuplican candidate still married to his first wife.
"She said, '[Of] four leading Republican candidates for president, only one has one wife -- the Mormon,' " Mitt Romney quoting National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.
More thoughts on global warming....
I hear several arguments against global warming, some of which I want to address. First, the critisism that "consensus is not science"....
You are confusing consensus and the scientific method – proof of global warming by the scientific community is due to a consensus of the research – research performed under and supported by the scientific method. Consensus as a concept alone on this issue has NOT taken the place of the scientific method; it does however describes the overall body of evidence.
"Ice sheets in Greenald are growing!" Global warming may actually assist new ice sheet growth in Greenland because growth depends less on cold temperatures than on a strong supply of moisture and very heavy snowfall over northern land masses. Go to the original research as reported by Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in Norway.
"James Hansen profits from Global Warming". The assertion that Soros paid Hansen $720,000 is, simply put, a lie. Two minutes of investigative journalism will uncover what this story is really about. Take a moment and read Hansen’s response to this ludicrous charge: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf
“CO2 can't pollute the atmosphere because it has a specific gravity of 1.54 which means that is 150% heavier than air.” What you forget is that CO2 is a gas, and gasses behave to fill the volume of whatever container they are placed in. Thus CO2 would disperse and be found in the atmosphere in fairly uniform concentrations. This is elementary science.
"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as minuscule". How about going into a room with a CO concentration of 100ppm? You will be dead at the end of the day. Dioxin is measured as a danger pollutant at parts per Billion. Don’t under estimate the ability of chemical reactions solely based, in your view as minuscule, on a ppm or ppb.
You are confusing consensus and the scientific method – proof of global warming by the scientific community is due to a consensus of the research – research performed under and supported by the scientific method. Consensus as a concept alone on this issue has NOT taken the place of the scientific method; it does however describes the overall body of evidence.
"Ice sheets in Greenald are growing!" Global warming may actually assist new ice sheet growth in Greenland because growth depends less on cold temperatures than on a strong supply of moisture and very heavy snowfall over northern land masses. Go to the original research as reported by Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in Norway.
"James Hansen profits from Global Warming". The assertion that Soros paid Hansen $720,000 is, simply put, a lie. Two minutes of investigative journalism will uncover what this story is really about. Take a moment and read Hansen’s response to this ludicrous charge: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf
“CO2 can't pollute the atmosphere because it has a specific gravity of 1.54 which means that is 150% heavier than air.” What you forget is that CO2 is a gas, and gasses behave to fill the volume of whatever container they are placed in. Thus CO2 would disperse and be found in the atmosphere in fairly uniform concentrations. This is elementary science.
"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as minuscule". How about going into a room with a CO concentration of 100ppm? You will be dead at the end of the day. Dioxin is measured as a danger pollutant at parts per Billion. Don’t under estimate the ability of chemical reactions solely based, in your view as minuscule, on a ppm or ppb.
Thoughts on global warming
From a rant against global warming: "Democrats, especially Al "BOAR" want to run our lives and will go to great lengths to put a guilt bag on us..."
It always amuses me when personal attacks become part of a scientific debate; it lets me know that the losing side has become desperate, and has no logical retort.
Up until recently, slow and predictable changes in the Earth's movements determine the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. During a 100,000-year cycle, the Earth warms and it cools, with the warm period lasting approximately 10,000 years. Historically, temperatures rise first, followed by increased levels of CO2. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 varied, but never crossed 280ppm; today those levels are at 380 ppm and climbing.
The reason CO2 levels in the atmosphere are important, is it that CO2, water vapor, and methane trap heat in the atmosphere. Without this trapped heat, the Earth's average temperature would hover around -18C. The "minuscule" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is critical, because 99% of the gases (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) absorb little heat.
The general role of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect itself are well understood. It is based on basic physics, basic science.
There are an overwhelming number of studies (in peer reviewed, scientific journals) that have shown:
1. Surface temperature measurements in the US that have shown an accelerating trend towards higher temperatures
2. Temperature in the troposphere is increasing
3. While the Earth and the lower atmosphere are warming, the stratosphere is cooling. This is what would be predicted by the anthropogenic global warming theory. This cannot be explained by solar variability theory.
4. Ocean surface temperatures are increasing,
5. Ocean temperatures at various depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters.
6. The sea level has been rising
7. There is a net ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica.
8. There is significant sea-ice loss in the Arctic, and the loss is dramatically accelerating.
9. There is glacier loss in Greenland and in Antarctica.
10. There is an increase of the tropopause (the actual atmosphere where “weather” occurs).
11. Species adapted to climates are migrating towards the poles.
12. Hurricanes are becoming more intense.
13. Almost every glacier, worldwide, is declining.
14. Permafrost is thawing, and getting warmer at greater depths.
15. The ocean circulation patterns are changing.
Senator Inhofe gave his passionate 45 speech on the senate floor, “debunking” global warming. Instead, scientific evidence “debunked” every single one of his points. The “Great Global Warming Swindle”, a documentary film by Martin Durkin, argues against the anthropogenic warming theory. The critique of the film is summarized by the bulletin of the Australian Meteorological Society “The [movie] does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science” Many of the scientists in the film felt they were “completely misrepresented” and “totally misled”.
The words of Martin Reese, President of the Royal Society (the Academy of Sciences for the UK), ring ever so true “Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.”
I challenge anyone who thinks that Global Warming is a hoax or who thinks the anthropogenic theory is incorrect to cite a peer reviewed scientific journal article that proves their point.
It always amuses me when personal attacks become part of a scientific debate; it lets me know that the losing side has become desperate, and has no logical retort.
Up until recently, slow and predictable changes in the Earth's movements determine the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. During a 100,000-year cycle, the Earth warms and it cools, with the warm period lasting approximately 10,000 years. Historically, temperatures rise first, followed by increased levels of CO2. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 varied, but never crossed 280ppm; today those levels are at 380 ppm and climbing.
The reason CO2 levels in the atmosphere are important, is it that CO2, water vapor, and methane trap heat in the atmosphere. Without this trapped heat, the Earth's average temperature would hover around -18C. The "minuscule" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is critical, because 99% of the gases (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) absorb little heat.
The general role of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect itself are well understood. It is based on basic physics, basic science.
There are an overwhelming number of studies (in peer reviewed, scientific journals) that have shown:
1. Surface temperature measurements in the US that have shown an accelerating trend towards higher temperatures
2. Temperature in the troposphere is increasing
3. While the Earth and the lower atmosphere are warming, the stratosphere is cooling. This is what would be predicted by the anthropogenic global warming theory. This cannot be explained by solar variability theory.
4. Ocean surface temperatures are increasing,
5. Ocean temperatures at various depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters.
6. The sea level has been rising
7. There is a net ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica.
8. There is significant sea-ice loss in the Arctic, and the loss is dramatically accelerating.
9. There is glacier loss in Greenland and in Antarctica.
10. There is an increase of the tropopause (the actual atmosphere where “weather” occurs).
11. Species adapted to climates are migrating towards the poles.
12. Hurricanes are becoming more intense.
13. Almost every glacier, worldwide, is declining.
14. Permafrost is thawing, and getting warmer at greater depths.
15. The ocean circulation patterns are changing.
Senator Inhofe gave his passionate 45 speech on the senate floor, “debunking” global warming. Instead, scientific evidence “debunked” every single one of his points. The “Great Global Warming Swindle”, a documentary film by Martin Durkin, argues against the anthropogenic warming theory. The critique of the film is summarized by the bulletin of the Australian Meteorological Society “The [movie] does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science” Many of the scientists in the film felt they were “completely misrepresented” and “totally misled”.
The words of Martin Reese, President of the Royal Society (the Academy of Sciences for the UK), ring ever so true “Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.”
I challenge anyone who thinks that Global Warming is a hoax or who thinks the anthropogenic theory is incorrect to cite a peer reviewed scientific journal article that proves their point.
Blogging Again
Sorry for the absense. If you knew me, you would know why....I will pick this up again, but try to focus on short posts just to keep my thoughts out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)