Saturday, April 28, 2007

Newsweaks Anti Gun Biased 2-fer

The April 30th edition of Newsweek magazine has 2 anti gun comments that to me are simply stunning. The first is in an article called Story Of A Gun

Jamel Coward, who already had a .45, bought a Leinad 9mm and went out with a friend to try it out. On people. They drove down a street in what they believed to be the territory of the rival Crips, and Coward commenced firing. He wounded three bystanders before a bullet struck 19-year-old Erron Lewin in the neck. Lewin, who belonged to no gang, died on the spot.

So Jamel Coward, a member of the Double II Bloods of East Orange, N.J, illegally gets a gun and commits murder. But it is not his fault...
To the lives ruined by this weapon, you can add one more name, that of Jamel Coward, who, five years after he took target practice on a 19-year-old walking down a New Jersey street, faces a sentence of 25 to life after pleading guilty to murder.

I guess they must have skipped the part when the gun forced Jamel Coward to fire it at Erron Lewin.

Then in an Op Ed piece by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, called The Changing Gun Debate, he talks about how the feds are not helping stop gun violence and it has been the mayors that have taken the lead.
One way that our city has done that is by conducting an undercover sting operation against a group of dealers in five states whose guns kept turning up in crimes in New York. What did we find? Many of them sold guns in violation of federal law. We sued—and I'm happy to say, many of them have already agreed to stop breaking the law and to be monitored for three years.

What?!? Laws are now negotiable? When we are found to be breaking the law we have the option to agree, or not, to stop breaking the law? Here is an idea, why not just ENFORCE the law? How about that for a solution?
Take The Guns From Law Abiding Joe Citizen But Do Not Prosecute Congressional Aids That Commit Gun Crimes

Ace has a long involved post about "former diplomat" and current columnist for the ... wait for it... New York Times, Dan Simpson's idea to disarm America. Mr. Simpson's idea is so stunningly stupid that many originally thought it was all a joke. Some "highlights" and I use that word to mean ideas from an unhinged moonbat.
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Here is the whole article. You really need to read it for the full effect.

In unrelated news...

Webb aide's gun charge dropped by prosecutor
WASHINGTON--Authorities dropped charges yesterday against an aide to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb who carried a loaded gun into the U.S. Capitol complex.

"After reviewing and analyzing all of the evidence in the case, we do not believe the essential elements of the crime of carrying a pistol without a license can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt," said U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, top prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

Webb senior aide Phillip Thompson, 45, of Stafford County, was arrested on March 26 after Capitol Police spotted the loaded pistol and two other loaded magazines in a briefcase being scanned by an X-ray machine at the entrance of the Russell Senate office building.

Thompson told the officer at the building's entrance that the weapon belonged to Webb.

The senator said later he did not give Thompson the gun but refused to say whether it was his. Webb told reporters Thompson had carried the gun into the building "completely inadvertently."

District of Columbia law prohibits carrying a handgun or concealed weapon without a license.

Question for U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor... He was clearly carrying the loaded weapon, did he have a license, in which case the charge should be dropped since no crime was committed, or did he not have a license in which case it should be a fairly easy charge on which to convict.

So it appears what we need to do is take all the guns through warrentless searches from law abiding citizens while aids for Democratic congress members openly violate the law but are not prosecuted. Anyone have a problem with this?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Game 2 Is In The Books

You know that not keeping score idea... I am starting to like it. It was not pretty. When the coaches wife comes over and asked me if I will relieve him on the mound, you know things are not going well. So I came off the 7 day D.L., (sore back) to pitch the bottom of the 2nd inning and I got lit up, which technically was a good thing.

The other team appeared to have a better understanding of how to hit the ball... a long... long... way.
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint Without Even Trying

Unlike those who use fraudulent carbon offsets, the other day I reduced my carbon footprint by about 25%. It was easy, just use Seattle City Light and while dinner is in the oven, your power will go out for about 8 straight hours.

I figured it was about 25% since I still drove to and from work and created all sort of carbon dioxide while at the office. And by all sorts, I mean 0.117% of what nature creates.

For those who have not gone without power recently, let me just say, anyone who thinks the human species will voluntarily stop using power is INSANE. It. Aint. Gonna. Happen.

Now where do I send Seattle City Light a bill for one pot roast dinner?

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Brady Campaigns Idea Of How To Reduce Gun Violence

The Brady Campaign sent out this news release about the recent court case striking down the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975.
Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On DC Circuit's Ruling Striking Down DC Handgun Law

For Immediate Release:

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

News flash for the Brady Campaign, it is kind of the job of judges to rule on the constitutionality of laws, regardless of if they were a "democratically expressed will of the people" and "still strongly supported".

And by "reasonable restrictions", I guess the Brady Campaign means:
The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device

Because the act was so very effective in controlling violent crimes and murders.

In unrelated news, Washington D.C. ranked number 1 in violent crimes and murder per 100,000 residents for the years 2004 and 2005. For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place, Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
For Those Who Were Listening To The Radio This Morning

I was a guest between 6 am and 6:30 on the Sytman and Boze show on KTTH this morning talking about the baseball league rules post. This seems to have touched a nerve with a lot of people, more so than I ever anticipated. I really did not see this as that big of a deal, just your typical everyday Seattle lets all feel good about ourselves regardless of how well we really do attitude that I guess I am use to.

Anyways... I would like to revise and extend my comments from my early morning daze. Who knew that big ball of fire in the sky is out at 6 in the morning? I hope I made myself clear that I am not upset with all of the rules and in fact think a number of them make sense. What bothers me is how we seem to have such low expectations of our kids. Believe me, they know a whole lot more than what we give them credit for. When we show as much enthusiasm for the kid that had to hit off the tee and 5 or 6 swings later hits a dribbler half way to the pitcher as we do for the kid that puts one deep into center field, the kids see through that and frankly they think we are insane. Now I am not saying we tell the one kid that he sucks but lets also not jump up and down like we just hit the mega millions jackpot when junior manages to run from home plate to first base without falling down. Losing and failure is part of life. Sports is suppose to teach you to learn how to win AND lose.

While I was on for half an hour, it seemed like 3 minutes tops. I was hoping to discuss some of the things I would change. First off, back in the day, when I was at that level, we played 2 games a week and practiced another 2 times a week with each practice being an hour and a half. Nowadays the kids play one game and practice just one day, for an hour. Not sure if that is a fields availability issue or lack of coaches like the caller mentioned. I know I have seen substantial improvement in our teams skills and wished there were more practices or maybe another month of practice before games started. Another thing I have found odd is when I played, kids always walked to practice or rode a bike. On Andrew's team, almost all of the kids are driven or a parent walks them and most parents stay for practice. Parents were never at practice when I was a kid. Not sure why that is either, maybe just a sign of the times.

I also wanted to mention some of the rules and regulations are probably lawyer / lawsuit driven. I get the feeling that if some kid gets hit by a pitch, instead of rubbing some dirt on it and walking to first, he may instead pull out his cell phone and call a personal injury lawyer. Once again, sign of the times.

The one comment I made that I would have liked to change was at the end, I was asked for a closing comment and I fumbled around with something along the lines or rewarding kids when it is not the best effort. I should have said something more along the lines of the kids would be better off if we raised our expectations of what they can accomplish.

On a more personal note, Andrew played catcher for one inning last night. Wore the full catchers gear and during that whole inning, of maybe 50 pitches he had to throw back, once again, wearing the full gear, only one of his throws was not catchable. If you would have told me that a month ago, I would have told you to cut back on your crack usage.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Scoreboard Update

Game number one is in the books and nobody got hurt, nobody walked and nobody struck out but for some reason a lot of the kids wanted to know if they were winning or losing. Who would have thunk it?

Ground outs and fly outs were recorded which kind of surprised me, both that they did record them and that there were some to record. The more amazing thing about that though was the fact the none of the kids that got out ended up laying on the ground in the fetal position scarred for life as a result.

So let's cut to the chase... who won? With the league rule of all kids get to bat once each inning, even though you could keep score if you wanted, when one team has 4 or 5 more players, how is that possible? So did we win or lose... hard to say, the other team clearly had a handful of older bigger kids who were very good. On the other hand in the two innings that were played only one of our batters had to resort to the humiliation of hitting off of a tee while they had 3.

But according to Andrew, they scored 5 or 6 and we scored 8. So I am putting this one in the books as a "W".

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Baseball League Follow Up

For whatever reason, my post about Andrew’s Little League baseball game rules seemed to have hit a nerve. Orbusmax picked it up. Sytman and Boze of KTTH mentioned it on air. It was posted on

So for those who were wondering… the age range is 6-8. Most of the kids seem to be in 1st grade. Now I started playing baseball when I was no older than 8. We did not have tee ball or coach pitch or any of that stuff. 6 inning games, 3 outs per side, 3 strikes, 4 balls, all the rules applied. One of the only exceptions was a 6 run limit per inning.

The first day of practice, the coach asked how many of the kids had played before. Most of the hands went up. I knew that might not be the case though when a number of those same kids needed to be told which hand the mitt goes on. Somewhere along the line I was roped into helping coach. It has been fun watching the improvement and it has been substantial. But the reality is some of these kids are really, really bad and will never ever be anything other than really bad. I am not sure what the point is in encouraging a kid who simply lacks the basic skills to play the game.

My non insane brother in law emailed me the other day saying his 4 year old was starting tee ball this week. Now I can see these rules applied to 4 and 5 year olds, maybe even 6 year olds but once you start reaching 7 and above, some of them seem a little much. Letting all the kids bat, OK, fine. Coach pitch, sure I have to be at work the next morning. Having them hit off of a tee? Not so much. If anything isn’t that going to make the kid stand out as the loser kid who had to hit the ball off of the tee? Not counting outs? The chance that the team in the field is going to successfully catch a pop fly or throw the runner out at first, 3 times in an inning… Einstein could not calculate those odds. Why not reward the team that can accomplish that?

This last fall I was an assistant coach for Andrew’s 7 and under coed soccer team. Now since I know almost nothing about soccer, my official responsibility was to remind the kids which goal was ours. One game day, I got to the field and our head coach, Dan, walks up to me before the game and with a big smile on his face and says “The other team looks really small”. Sure enough, our mostly 6 and 7 year olds were obviously older than the other team. Now just like in baseball, nobody officially keeps score in U7 soccer except for all of the kids and the Dads, Mom’s, maybe not. About 2 minutes into the game, we had a sizable lead and you could tell our kids were pulling back and passing the ball around when they could have walked right in for another score. After the “game” I asked Coach Dan what he thought the final score was. We both agreed that it was 40 something to maybe 4. Two weeks later we are playing a team that must have missed the coed description of the league and I later learned had been together the previous 2 years. We ended up losing a close game right at the end. Later that day I was getting my haircut. The lady that cuts my hair is very nice, does a quality job but is typical Seattle liberal. I was telling her about the two games and she said I am sure the kids appreciated the more competitive game a lot more. I explained to her no, it was clear that they all seemed to enjoy winning and scoring lots and lots of goals substantially more. It reminded me of an old saying, “While you may learn more from losing, I do not want to be the smartest person in the world”.

First game is Thursday evening. I will make sure to post the unofficial score.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Mandatory Gun Carry Zones

Lots of comments from recent posts on both sides of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of gun free zones. One thing I would like to clarify is that those of us that are opposed to the concept of gun free zones are not asking that they become mandatory gun carry zones.

Most places you go during the day are not gun free zones and you know what... most people at those places are not carrying guns. I am also trying to remember the last time I heard of law abiding citizens legally carrying guns engaged in shootouts. It just does not happen.

Now if you insist we should have gun free zones and if you think they are a good idea that makes people safer, make sure you put one of these in your yard

Because if you are not willing to put a sign in your yard advertising the fact your home is gun free and you are not capable of defending yourself, please do not ask me to be OK with my son's school doing the same.
Let The Games Begin

Got an email from the head of Andrew's "baseball" league letting us know "games" start this week.
As a reminder of our league rules for this level, no scores will be kept and all players will bat each inning, regardless of the number of outs made by the fielders. All players will play in the field. Coaches will pitch to batters, up to 5 or 6 pitches, with the hope that each child will be able to put the ball into play. There will be no walks and no strikeouts. If the batter is unable to hit the pitched balls, the player will hit off of a batting tee for that at bat. Games will last an hour, regardless of the number of innings played.

Safety is a priority, and there will be no on deck swinging of bats during a teammate's at bat. All players not on base or at bat should be in the dugout until it is their turn to come to the plate to hit. Please, no climbing of the fences. Coaches, please make sure that you have your safety kits and medical release forms with you at all practices and games, and report any injuries to me.

Why don't we just wrap them in protective bubble wrap and let them lay down in the outfield for an hour? That way nobody gets hurt and nobody goes home a loser, you know, just like in real life.

Monday, April 16, 2007

That Happened A Lot Sooner Than I Expected

Was not expecting to have to write this post for at least a little longer but... Saturday April 7th. The kid took advantage of my overly aggressive play. I saw I was exposed but I would have laid 10 to 1 odds he would not see the move.

I asked for a rematch and he just looked at me and said, "You really did not play that well, I am not sure you deserve one".
Unarmed and vulnerable

From a Virginia Tech Blog, August 31, 2006
Bradford B. Wiles

Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.
Imagine if students were armed

In an editorial dated Sept. 5th, 2006, Larry Hincker Vice President of University Relations from... wait for it... Virginia Tech, replied to an editorial from Bradford Wiles titled "Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31. The last line of Mr. Hinckers editorial states:
Guns don't belong in the classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.

Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imagine what will happen when they are not armed.

Update: The original Unarmed and vulnerable commentary has been located.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Which Charity Should I Donate To?

I am taking part in a study that ends with me selecting a charity of my choice that gets $100 cash money. Any suggestions on who should get the money?

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

An Unbelievable Happening At Church On Easter Sunday

I went to the 8 am Mass this last Sunday, Easter Sunday. First time I have been to 8 am Mass since... well maybe ever. I am more of a 10 am Mass attendie. Well anywho, to my surprise there were more than one lesbian couples in attendance and you will never guess what happened... wait for it... nothing. No beheadings, no floggings, no calls to the religious police to have them arrested or tortured. No sermons about how certain people will live for eternity in the fires of hell. Not. One. Thing. As far as I could tell they were allowed to worship freely without incident. Who would have thunk it?!?

And no, I am not a member of the "Religion Of Peace".
The Solution To The Race Problem

Matt Rosenberg makes some solid points about the Seattle Public Schools and racism, but come on, we all know there is only one solution and this guy is not ashamed to say it:

Double Standard? - Click Here for more great videos and pictures!

Monday, April 09, 2007

Green Seattle's Not So Green City Hall

By way of Sound Politics...

This is fairly old from the Seattle PI, but new to me and timely in that as Stefan Sharkansky points out, Seattle has one of the greenest Mayors

Seattle's new City Hall was designed with the environment in mind, using the most energy-efficient technologies.

But the building acts like an old-fashioned electricity hog. It has lofty public spaces and walls of glass designed to welcome citizens and suggest an open and transparent government. It also uses 15 percent to 50 percent more electricity some months than the older, larger building it replaced, according to Seattle City Light utility bills.
According to City Light figures, the new building uses 7,045 kilowatt-hours of energy on average per day, compared with 5,940 kilowatt-hours per day in the old place.
The new, $72 million City Hall, which opened at 600 Fourth Ave. two years ago, is considerably smaller than the 1960s-era building it replaced. It also houses far fewer employees.

"It was designed to be a building that is much more inviting to the public ... beyond what the old municipal building ever was," she said. "This is an energy-efficient building."

The new City Hall is designed to meet requirements for silver certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. The documentation for certification was just sent last month to the U.S. Green Building Council.

Certification considers all aspects of a building's design, such as the materials used, water and energy efficiency, natural light, views, landscaping and how a building is oriented on the site.

"Energy efficiency is a big part of LEED," said Gwyn Jones, a spokeswoman for the Green Building Council.

But the certification process doesn't audit actual performance of the building or how much energy it really uses.
On Friday, City Light managers seemed confident that their charts showed the new building used significantly less energy than its now-demolished counterpart. But utility managers had used the wrong address for the old building in the chart, substituting the big, 24-hour Public Safety Building that used to be across the street by mistake.

When the correct numbers were checked later, it was clear that the new building consistently uses more electricity. Some months the difference is slight; other months it is more dramatic.

Lake said she is at a loss to guess why the building would use more electricity than its predecessor, especially because the air-cooling and heating systems primarily use natural gas, not electricity.

She guessed that maybe light fixtures high above the floor, while energy-efficient, require more electricity to cast their light that far below.

It was just a guess.

City Light Superintendent Jorge Carrasco said it might make more sense to look at the issue from a different perspective. If the building didn't have all the energy-saving features and investments, it would be using even more electricity every day. The devices reduce consumption in the building on the average of 19 percent, he said.

"That comparison corrects for all other things," he said.
And Now The Newsweek Global Warming Quiz

Now take the Newsweek Global Warming Quiz. I bet you can not beat my score of 7 out of 9 correct, or as Newsweek calculated it, 11%. I am not joking.
Global Warming Quiz

Before you complain about my global warming beliefs, make sure you can beat my score of 8 out of 10 on the global warming quiz.

Tip to Ace.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Urine Test For A Welfare Check

This has been going around the Internet. Can anyone argue otherwise?
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check??
Are Humans A Significant Factor In Global Warming?

Over the past 25 or 30 years, the earth has been warming. That is a fact. What is in question is how much of that is attributable to humans. More specifically the topic of global warming has been about humans causing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. We hear about carbon footprints and carbon offsets and our need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Human caused carbon dioxide is what the global warming argument is all about.

What seems to be missing from the discussion is how much are humans responsible for greenhouse gases in general and specifically carbon dioxide? How significant of a factor in global warming is human caused carbon dioxide? First let's look at greenhouse gases. There are a number of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide being one of them. Carbon Dioxide makes up 3.6% of all greenhouse gases. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas. Sources of carbon dioxide are decaying plants, animals, volcanoes humans and the ocean.

Now here is the important part, humans are the cause of about 1/30th of all carbon dioxide. So if you do the math, human caused carbon dioxide accounts for about 0.117% of all greenhouse gases. Now humans produce other greenhouse gases as well and all human produced greenhouse gases amount to about .28% of all greenhouse gases, but like I said, carbon dioxide is what is being targeted. Nobody talks about methane offsets or your nitrous oxide footprint. So the greenhouse gases that are not human caused carbon dioxide make up 99.883% of all greenhouse gases. And as those of us from King County know, 99.8% is a rate that “Any bank would envy

To understand how small 0.117% actually is, let me put that number in terms most people can relate.

If you make $50,000 a year and the boss told you your raise was going to be 0.117%, you would now be making $50,058.50 a year, a raise of 2.8 cents an hour.

For someone that weighs 200 pounds, 0.117% of their weight is less than a quarter of a pound.

If you are on a 2000 calorie a day diet, 0.117% would 23 calories or the equivalent of 1 and a half Ritz crackers.

If you decided to travel from home plate @ Safeco Field down I-5 to the Tacoma Dome but stopped after .117% of the distance, you would go a total of 196 feet, half way from home plate to the center field fence.

If you invested 10,000 for 30 years at 0.117% at the end of 30 years, you would have made 357.02, about 3 cents a day. In comparison, the historical stock market return of 11 percent would have made 218,923, about $20 a day.

We humans needs to understand that we are insignificant in the big picture and have almost no effect on the earth's climate.

Statistics from Plant Fossils of West Virginia

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

649,371 Reasons To Believe In Global Warming

Originally via Orbusmax

Evergreen faculty member receives $649,371 grant
OLYMPIA, Wash. - A faculty member at The Evergreen State College who is a nationally known expert on insects has been rewarded a $649,371, five-year grant from the National Science Foundation, the college announced.

John Longino will lead a study to find new insect species and to explore possible effects of global warming on insect diversity.

"This work is trying to identify the scope of global warming," Longino said from a research station in Costa Rica. "This may give us all a little extra push to do something about it."

Now I realize he needs to finish the research in a hurry as I am sure the private sector is clamoring to line his pockets with mountains of cash to study ants in Costa Rica but shouldn't Professor Longino finish the study before he comes to the conclusion that the result will give us a little extra push to do something about global warming?

One of the arguments against global warming is the conflict of interest inherent in the scientific community. If a government is handing out cash to study something that may be a problem, what is in the best interest of the scientist, to report back there is no problem and no need to study the issue further or is it to report back that an impending catastrophe is just around the corner and we need more funding for more research?

Sunday, April 01, 2007

How does the Farmers Almanac predict weather?

We derive out weather forecasts from a secret formula that was devised by the founder of this Almanac, Robert B. Thomas, in 1792. Thomas believed that weather on Earth was influenced by sunspots, which are magnetic storms on the surface of the Sun.

Over the years, we have refined and enhanced that formula with state-of-the-art technology and modern scientific calculations. We employ three scientific disciplines to make our long-range predictions: solar science, the study of sunspots and other solar activity; climatology, the study of prevailing weather patterns; and meteorology, the study of the atmosphere. We predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions with current solar activity.
Proof That Global Warming Is Caused By Man

Start watching this 60 Minutes piece @ 2:15.

For years the "glaciologist" just did not believe in global warming being caused by mankind. A chunk of ice breaks off of the glacier... "There is a bit of your proof".

Sorry, I must have missed it. I am not making the connection how watching ice break off of a glacier, something that has happened every spring for millions of years is proof of mankind causing global warming.

Watch this @ 54:40.

Whom do you believe, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes or Professor Akasofu, the head of the International Arctic Research Center?