The New American is a John Birch Society publication.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2132
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
US must act to halt global warming in order to save the Great Lakes.
http://media-newswire.com/release_1067417.html
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
The Climate Security Act?: Reject the ignorami
Sunday, June 1, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_570242.html
If there indeed is a second Great Depression to come, this will be the government measure that guarantees it arrives with a devastating gut punch.
The U.S. Senate returns to session this week and will take up something deceptively labeled "America's Climate Security Act of 2008." It's a bill designed to combat man-made global warming.
But anybody with a brain should be able to understand that the only thing this bill would "secure" would be our national demise.
Not only is it one of those sadly classic bureaucratic "solutions" in search of a problem, it is a sad exercise in the ecocratic ignorami pushing command economics in the name of free markets
As Pat Toomey, the former Pennsylvania congressman who heads The Club for Growth, notes, "Americans can look forward to fewer jobs, lower income levels, rising electricity prices and higher fuel bills."
If that's not attractive enough, how about the real kicker of "America's Climate Security Act of 2008"? It will do virtually nothing about the greenhouse gases it supposedly is designed to reduce.
Thankfully, this proposal is not a slam-dunk in the Senate. It's not yet "filibuster-proof." That could change, however, if the ignorami rush the bandwagon.
But this bill has nothing to do with aiding the climate. It has everything to do with the government gaining ever more control of an economy that it, in large part, already is responsible for damping. America's security depends on its rejection.
I concur with the most widely accepted theory in this area which is basically this: It was formed around 4.5 to 4.7 billion years ago by the coalescing of many particles that were revolving around what is now our sun.
Somewhere and sometime back there when some ancient stars died and exploded (the "Big Bang") they spewed out a collection of all of our known elements. Gravitational forces caused these elements to separate and collect into gigantic rotating discs. In the one we wound up in, the heavier elements collapsed to form our sun and other matter kept coalescing into larger and larger "rocks" (for want of a better description) and then these rocks kept colliding and forming bigger rocks which became the smaller innermost planets in our Solar System of which Earth is one. About 50 million years after the Earth formed and stabiized an orbit, It was hit in a violent collision by another very large body and the collosion flung off enough material to coalese and form our moon. This event is also believed to be the one that caused earth to tilt on its axis. So the most accepted theory is that the moon is derived from earth but its unique formation happened about 50 miilion years after earth.
At first Earth was probably just a ball of molten lava. Over the eons it kept getting hit by fairly large comets containing large amount of water (ice) and this water kept collecting and helping to moderate the temperature and help form our crust. All of this was going on at about 4.2 billion years ago.
The earliest known fossils date back to about 3 billion years ago. However, some scientists feel that some types of amino acids could have been there as far back as 3.8 to 4 billion years ago. As you know these are the building blocks of life.
Obvioously there is a lot of speculative theory in this hypothesis, but astrophysicists continue to come up with evidence that the major timelines and formation theories are reasonable.
I believe the stuff I've written here but the one nagging question I've always had (which was recently so well put by Ben Stein) is this:
What was there before the Big Bang?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
perhaps you mean beyond our universe? if you believe the big bang, like most scientists, then there is nothing we can know scientifically outside the universe. without matter, there is no space; and without space, there is no time.
then again, if you believe saltydawg, there are an infinite number of infinite universes. so time outside our universe would be defined by a completely different dimension that we cannot observe. of course, it's the "cannot observe" part that makes such theories more religion than science.
Selective Precaution
How does the third world insure itself against Lieberman-Warner?
By Lawrence Solomon
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mI3NTBkM2Y4OGI=
Senators Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va.) base their proposed Climate Security Act legislation on two fundamental premises: That there is a scientific consensus on global warming and that, even if the scientists are wrong and the global-warming risk never materializes, we will at least have aided the environment.
Both premises are wrong. Not just wrong. The premises could well have it exactly backwards.
First, consider the alleged scientific consensus. Nearby you’ll find the cover page from the 2006 press announcement from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body coordinating the worldwide effort to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The cover page offers this impressive claim:2500 SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REVIEWERSImpressive, isn’t it? You may be even more impressed if you see the accompanying press materials. And you can forgive the press for being impressed, too, at the intellects assembled to establish that global warming is real and manmade. After all, 2,500 expert scientists can’t be wrong.
800 CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS AND
450 LEAD AUTHORS FROM
130 COUNTRIES
6 YEARS WORK
1 REPORT
2007
That figure of 2,500 scientists received saturation media exposure, and then it was amplified by environmental groups, bloggers, and others. A Google search of “IPCC” and “2500” produces almost 250,000 results, the vast majority of them references to the scientific consensus. Senators Lieberman and Warner can be forgiven for believing, as the press did, in the existence of a consensus.
But what did those 2,500 scientists actually endorse? To find out, I contacted the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and asked for the names of the 2,500. I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record.
There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed — I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.
From my interviews, it also became clear to me that, if a consensus exists, it exists on the other side. For instance Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a former peer reviewer for the IPCC’s work on the spread of malaria and other diseases due to warming says, “I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC.” Other scientists also told me that, in their particular discipline, the IPCC’s position was the outlier, far from the mainstream.