BAGHDAD, IRAQ  The recent headline-grabbing announcement that, in an effort to bolster the network’s sagging ratings, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric will be coming to Iraq for 12 days in September has, as it should, caused new attention to be cast on combat zone journalism.

However, amidst all of the hubbub and hoopla about the ‘danger’ of her trip to Iraq, it is important to draw a distinction between what Ms. Couric and the majority of her colleagues in the media are doing, and what others in Iraq are contributing, information-wise, to the debate.

Hundreds of journalists come to Baghdad to cover the war and the reconstruction. Outlets like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and many others have Baghdad Bureaus, from which their reporters can access the ‘Green Zone’ (now known as the ‘International Zone,’ or ‘IZ’) for press conferences and meetings, and can correspond and work with stringers, fixers, and other individuals who can provide them with information, set up meetings with high-ranking officials (as well as, occasionally, those whom CBS executive producer Rick Kaplan called ``alleged terror leaders``), and, in general, give them stories and tell them what is going on in various parts of the country.

Movement around Baghdad is relatively simple for these Big News individuals. They usually have drivers and vehicles, and rarely go anywhere IZ included  without bodyguards, many of whom are former British or American Special Forces. When traveling outside the heavily fortified IZ on their own, as CBS has said it plans to do with Couric’s contingent, efforts are taken to keep their profile as low as possible.

This is not to say that these journalists do not face danger; Iraq is, after all, a combat zone, and all people here are subject to the perils involved in such  as the over one hundred journalists killed since the conflict began have demonstrated. However, the vast majority of reporters who come to Iraq do so with multiple precautions having been taken to keep them as much out of harm’s way as possible often at the cost of an eyewitness, contextually accurate story. Trips ‘outside the wire,’ as the territory outside the safety of coalition bases and the IZ are called, are rare, and when they take place, they are for brief periods of time at most. Trips to different locations are carried out both quickly and succinctly, with just enough information for a story being gathered, and then a fast departure made.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled ``Economics and the Environment, sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that``should it occur`` a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

 
Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a ``greenhouse gas`` which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced ``greenhouse effect`` needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

 
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called ``scientific consensus.`` There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted ``consensus`` of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s ``Summary for Policymakers.``

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the ``consensus statement`` on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a ``scientific consensus`` in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

 
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

 
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

 
What about the fact as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the ``fingerprints`` match ``fingerprints`` meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience a scale of decades, let’s say solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.

Policy Consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies. 

> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons. 

None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

Science vs. Hysteria

You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?

 
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter i.e., an energy user to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. ``Emission trading`` among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s ``Oil for Food`` scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions not even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.

To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.

* * *

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression-an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity-and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion-has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt-once the most heavily Christian areas in the world-quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? ...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?

Statistics: We've never been fond of the government's poverty data, believing they grossly overstate the problem. The latest data, however, show the poverty rate off sharply which means it's even better than it looks.

It probably won't get much play (seeing that it happened on George Bush's watch), but it's worth noting nonetheless: The U.S. poverty rate dropped from 12.6% in 2005 to 12.3% in 2006. (The 12.3%, by the way, is below the 12.9% average under President Clinton, but you probably won't see that mentioned much either.)

Just two years ago, the media were full of stories about how poverty had risen in America despite a global economic boom. This, it was repeatedly suggested, showed that the U.S. suffered from gross economic inequality capitalism's cardinal sin.

Which, of course, was utter nonsense. By any real measure, Americans  including the poor  are better off than the rest of the world. Moreover, the poverty data capture only one aspect of our economic existence: income. Study after study shows that Americans routinely consume well above their incomes, thanks in large part to government subsidies, aid, pensions and outright welfare.

Thus, when we say that someone is "poor," we have to define what that means. Technically, a person is poor if he or she had cash income in 2006 of less than $10,294; for a family of four, it was $20,614. Not much. But as we said, income isn't everything.

The problem begins when people confuse the government's official definition of "poverty" with "standard of living." It's the latter that matters, even for the so-called poor.

"Poor" households in America own an awful lot of stuff. Nearly 43% own their own homes, 73% own cars or trucks, 80% have air conditioning, 99% have refrigerators, 64% own washer, 57% own dryers, 97% have color TV sets (more than half have two), 78% own VCR or DVD players, and over a third have personal computers.

What's more, things have gotten better over time  regardless of what the poverty rate shows. In 1973, the year that official data show had the lowest poverty rate ever at 11.1%, one of every 12 low-income children was considered underweight; today, there are virtually no underweight children. Indeed, among rich and poor alike, obesity — a disease of affluence — is the bigger worry.

As for housing, in 1970 more than a quarter of poor households lived in "crowded" conditions (defined as more than one person per room). Today, it's below 6%.

OK, you say. But 47 million people don't have health insurance. Surely, they must be sicker than ever. Not quite. As demographer Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute notes, the U.S. infant mortality rate has fallen 70% since the mid-1960s, and "children in poor families are more likely today to have an annual medical visit or checkup with a doctor than even non-poor children just 20 years ago."

For all Americans, access to medical care has steadily increased — whether they have insurance or not. (Incidentally, government data show 21% of all uninsured have incomes above $50,000, which is higher than the U.S. median of $48,000.)

In 1973, the poorest fifth of the population consumed roughly 40% more than they reported in income. In 2004, the percentage was 95%. In other words, a family of four reporting an income at the poverty threshold of $20,000 now consumes nearly $40,000.

How can you consume more than you earn? One way is to earn more than you report. In 2001 alone, the U.S. government estimated that $804 billion of personal income wasn't reported. And the poverty measure doesn't count EITC payments or non-cash welfare, such as food stamps and housing vouchers.

Yes, too many people are still poor. But the fact is, the gains that have been made are gigantic. If America's poor were to form their own country, they would be in the top 5% of the world's income distribution, according to World Bank data.

So, where`s the problem? Every species on Earth has a plethora of microorganisms which have specialized in parasiting and infecting that particular species. There are many, many diseases which are incapable of jumping species. (How`s your case of wheat rust coming, Billy?) By mixing our genes with animal genes, we are offering these heretofore benign diseases the chance to mutate into something that can attack mankind. Since the microorganisms are being introduced to human genetic material mixed with their favorite foods, they are going to be able to acquire a taste, shall we say, for the human genome. I fear we may create the Last Plague.

This biological alchemy is the penultimate hubris; we are ignorantly opening Pandoras box, having no idea what may be inside while believing we are shielded by our divine wisdom. The problem is that the potential benefits are so great that we simply can`t help ourselves. I understand, and I sympathize. I am a great believer in science, and I believe we should explore the double helix for the betterment of ourselves and posterity. I fear, however, that we are too smart for our own good, and our sophomoric efforts could cost us dearly. We need to be very, very careful.

The recent discovery by a retired businessman and climate kibitzer named Stephen McIntyre that 1934 -- and not 1998 or 2006 -- was the hottest year on record in the U.S. could not have been better timed. August is the month when temperatures are high and the news cycle is slow, leading, inevitably, to profound meditations on global warming. Newsweek performed its journalistic duty two weeks ago with an exposé on what it calls the global warming "denial machine." I hereby perform mine with a denier's confession.

I confess: I am prepared to acknowledge that Mr. McIntyre's discovery amounts to what a New York Times reporter calls a "statistically meaningless" rearrangement of data.

But just how "meaningless" would this have seemed had it yielded the opposite result? Had Mr. McIntyre found that a collation error understated recent temperatures by 0.15 degrees Celsius (instead of overstating it by that amount, as he discovered), would the news coverage have differed in tone and approach? When it was reported in January that 2006 was one of the hottest years on record, NASA's James Hansen used the occasion to warn grimly that "2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006." Yet now he says, in connection to the data revision, that "in general I think we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years."

I confess: I am prepared to acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks in some part to an increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. I acknowledge this in the same way I'm confident that the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers: not because I've measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the methods of the scientific community, above all its reputation for transparency and open-mindedness.

But that faith is tested when leading climate scientists won't share the data they use to estimate temperatures past and present and thus construct all-important trend lines. This was true of climatologist Michael Mann, who refused to disclose the algorithm behind his massively influential "hockey stick" graph, which purported to demonstrate a sharp uptick in global temperatures over the past century. (The accuracy of the graph was seriously discredited by Mr. McIntyre and his colleague Ross McKitrick.) This was true also of Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who reportedly turned down one request for information with the remark, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

I confess: I understand that global warming may have negative consequences. Heat waves, droughts and coastal flooding may become more intense. Temperature-sensitive viruses such as malaria could become more widespread. Lakes may be depleted by evaporation. Animal life will suffer.

But as Bjorn Lomborg points out in his sharp, persuasive and aptly titled book "Cool It," a warming climate has advantages, too, and not just trivial ones. Though global warming will cause more heat deaths, it will also mean many fewer cold deaths. Drought may increase in some areas, but warming also means both more rain and longer growing seasons. Temperature changes will harm some wildlife in some places. But many species will benefit from a bit more warmth. Does anyone know for certain that the net human and environmental losses from global warming will exceed overall gains?

I confess: Denial never solves anything. But neither does sensational and deceptive journalism.

Newsweek illustrates this point by its choice of cover art -- a picture of the sun, where the surface temperature hovers around 6,000 degrees Celsius. Given that the consensus scientific estimate for average temperature increases over the next century is a comparatively modest 2.6 degrees, this would seem a rather Murdochian way of convincing readers about the gravity of the climate threat. On the inside pages is a photograph of a polar bear stranded on melting ice. But the caption that the bears are "at risk" belies clear evidence that the bear population has risen five-fold since the 1960s. Another series of photographs, of a huge Antarctic ice shelf that quickly disintegrated in 2002, suggests the imminence of doom. But why not also mention that temperatures at the South Pole have been going down for 50 years?

I confess: It's easy to be indifferent to far-off and diffuse threats. It's hard to work toward solutions the benefits of which will not be felt in our lifetime.

Then again, if Americans are not fully persuaded of the dangers of global warming, as Newsweek laments, don't chalk it up to the pernicious influence of the so-called deniers and their enablers at ExxonMobil and Fox News. Today, global warming is variously suggested as the root cause of terrorism, the conflict in Darfur and the rising incidence of suicides in Italy. Yet the 20th century offers excellent reasons to be suspicious of monocausal explanations for the world's ills, monomaniacs intent on saving us from ourselves, and the long train of experts predicting death by overpopulation, resource depletion, global cooling, nuclear winter and prions. Also, hypocrites. When we are called on to bike to work, permanently abjure air travel, "eat locally" and so on, we expect to be led by example, not by a new nomenklatura.

I confess: Though it may surprise those who use the term "denier" so as to put me on a moral plane with Holocaust deniers, I have children for whom I would not wish an environmental apocalypse.

Yet neither do I wish the civilizational bounties built up over two centuries by an industrial, inventive, adaptive, globalized and energy-hungry society to be squandered chasing comparatively small environmental benefits at gigantic economic costs. One needn't deny global warming as a problem to deny it as the only or greatest problem. The great virtue of Mr. Lomborg's book is its insistence on trying to measure the good done per dollar spent. Do we save a few lives, at huge cost, as a byproduct of curbing global warming? Or do we save many, for less, by acting on problems directly?

The WMAP satellite measures the temperature of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) over the entire sky. CMB radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation that fills the entire universe and can be detected in all regions of space. This radiation is remnant heat from the Big Bang and is very cold, measuring just 2.725° above absolute zero.

On the map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation produced by the WMAP satellite, the void came up as a cold spot. Since the temperature of CMB radiation is quite uniform in all of space, scientists already knew there was something special about the region.  Lead researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota said "we already knew there was something different about this spot." Due to its cooler appearance on the CMB Map, the void was dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot."

----- Original Message -----

From: Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:25
Subject: Re: NY Times letters to the editors, Aug. 27, on electoral  college
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

 
I'm all for a national popular vote, and indeed every other well-established democracy where the people vote for president has one (see our report on this at: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1867  ).
 
But it is true that you can win with low pluralities if you don't have a majority requirement and a fractured political system
(which we don't have). Presidents of the Phillipines have been elected with well under 30%, say. France has a runoff election system, and in
2002 the leading vote-getter in the first round had less than 20% -- but of course the runoff election method clarifies the majority choice between the top two, just as an instant runoff system would do.
 
One can also win in our current system with low pluralities as well, however. People who think the Electoral College is somehow "protecting" us from low-plurality elections haven't thought the issue through very deeply. Indeed Ross Perot would have won a majority in the Electoral College in 1992 if he had increased his vote by a consistent share across all states to a national average of just under 35% -- and indeed at a certain point would have won the Electoral College without winning the popular Vote. See our "Perot simulator" at: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2071
 
I find it curious that some people associate a national election for president with "direct democracy" as opposed to being a republic. We of course are a representative democracy, and within that system of government we have elections where every is equal. Our president serves within a constitutional structure that provides various checks and balances. That's not going to change when holding elections where votes are equally weighted and every state and every voter matters.
 
Rob

Given the bitter division in this nation now between conservatives and liberals, I doubt the Republic could survive such direct democracy; the fracturing coalitions would tear the Republic asunder! 

There is a world of difference between a governor, whose government deals primarily with mundane issues such as road repair, parks, and the like with the enormous power of the presidency.  The presidential prize means the power to control on a vast scale; something the left covets most.  While parties may fight over the governorships, they will do almost anything to control the presidency; these are not in the same league.  Why are so many parliamentarian systems unstable in the world?  They don`t have the benefit of winner-take-all, that`s why!  Our system was designed precisely because America was an unstable nation to create, and the Founders understood the need to get behind one executive (after all, they had witnessed the failure of the Articles of Confederation).  The American system was genius in it`s ability to pull diversity into unity -``e pluribus unam`` was not a slogan chosen at random.  This proposal would turn our unam into pluribus.

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling: New York Times,
February 24, 1895: "Geologists Think the World
May Be Frozen Up Again." New York Times, October
7, 1912: "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an
Encroaching Ice Age." Los Angeles Times, October
7, 1912: "Fifth ice age is on the way. Human race
will have to fight for its existence against
cold." Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923:
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
Washington Post, August 10, 1923: "Ice Age Coming
Here." Los Angeles Times, April 6, 1924: "If
these things be true, it is evident, therefore
that we must be just teetering on an ice age."

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming: Los Angeles Times,
March 11, 1929: "Most geologists think the world
is growing warmer, and that it will continue to
get warmer." Chicago Daily Tribune, November 6,
1939: "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands
of cities [throughout] the world which have been
affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer
climate in the last two decades." New York Times,
August 10, 1952: "[W]e have learned that the
world has been getting warmer in the last half
century." New York Times, 1953: "[N]early all the
great ice sheets are in retreat." U.S. News &
World Report, January 8, 1954: "[W]inters are
getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are
receding, deserts growing." New York Times,
February 15, 1959: "Arctic Findings in Particular
Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures."
New York Times, February 20, 1969: "

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling: Science News,
November 15, 1969: "How long the current cooling
trend continues is one of the most important
problems of our civilization." Washington Post,
January 11, 1970: "[G]et a good grip on your long
johns, cold weather haters -- the worst may be
yet to come." The article was titled, "Colder
Winters Herald Dawn of New Ice Age."  New York
Times, December 29, 1974: "

resent climate
change [will result in] mass deaths by starvation
and probably in anarchy and violence." Christian
Science Monitor, 1974: "

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming: New York Times,
August 22, 1981: "[Global warming of an] almost
unprecedented magnitude [is predicted]."
Washington Post, January 18, 2006: "[Rising
temperatures] could, literally, alter the
fundamentals of life on the planet." Time, March
26, 2006: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than
Ever . . . More and More; Land is Being
Devastated by Drought . . . Rising Waters Are
Drowning Low-Lying Communities . . . By Any
Measure, Earth Is at the Tipping Point; The
climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame."

Let me check my calendar. My guess is it won't be
too long before we'll be worried to death about the next big cooling scare.

make up your minds, please!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:32 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

The Ancient Hebrews did not pay taxes as we know them-at least not at first.  They were commanded to pay a tithe, which was a flat 10% tax to support Church and State (they had no seperation in those days). Biblically commanded, this tithe worked amazingly well, and the Hebrews  flourished under a reasonable tax code.  We are now learning the wisdom of maintaining a low tax rate, as many of the nations in the former Soviet block have been experimenting with flat taxes hovering just over 10% and have been having startling economic results; revenue up, economic activity up, interest rates down, defecits down,  etc. 

Our old friend Wil Wirtanen forwards this article from the Wall Street Journal which only buttresses the case for lower taxes-on everyone:

How to Raise Revenue
August 24, 20074
The Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday that the famously fearsome budget deficit is plummeting almost as fast as Congress's approval ratings. The deficit this fiscal year is expected to be $158 billion, a meager 1.2% of GDP. Since the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the budget deficit has fallen by $217 billion mostly because of a continuing torrid pace of revenue growth.

The supply-side revenue effects on the rich are remarkable: Tax rates on higher incomes have been halved, but the federal tax share of the top 1% has nearly doubled. And the budget deficit has fallen. That's what happens when tax policy gets the incentives right.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 5 kb.

S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (Sepp.org) puts out an excellent newsletter, and this item appeared in his ``Week that Was``:

We Care About GW, But Not Really

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:03 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 5 kb.

Democrats hate fairness.  Utterly convinced that America is hopelessly unfair and evil, they craft laws and regulations designed to stifle the natural flow of things in favor of artificial quotas and barriers.  They bitterly resent a free and unfettered economic system, and despise the disciplines of the market, the normal desire of employers to find qualified people, the merit based systems which drive a free economy.  Prejudiced against the ``priveledged`` who succeed by virtue of hard work, education, and dedication, they enshrine into law a systematic discrimination against those they considered as having an advantage, while likewise discriminating against those they mean to help by assuming they cannot succeed without the force of government being wielded in their behalf. Quotas and set-asides do nobody any earthly good; they act as a disincentive to the majority while belittling and dishonoring the efforts of the minority.  Their attempts at guaranteeing equality of outcome produce, instead, far greater inequity and bitterness among people. 

Here in Missouri there is a ballot initiative to end reverse racial/sexual/ethnic/ discrimination.  Robin Carnahan, daughter of the late Governor Mel Carnahan, and Secretary of State, has done what Democrats traditionally do when faced with something they don`t like-she cheated:

(From the Federalist Patriot)

Ballot supporters such as Ward Connerly, founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, point out that Carnahan’s verbal gymnastics lead voters to think that they could be voting to remove protections against discrimination, when in reality, such a vote would make any form of discrimination on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity illegal by ending affirmative action and race-based quotas and preferences. Connerly has managed to get similar ballots passed in every state in which he has introduced the measure, and he is confident that this lawsuit will come out in his favor. However, Carnahan has been sued three different times over ballot language and won all three cases. This is a heavyweight fight in the Show-Me State and it will be well worth watching.

If right is on their side, why do liberals have to cheat?  They are never willing to let the power of their ideas stand or fall, but prefer to manuever behind the scenes, to impose their worldview on the public through force of arms wielded by the State. They are tyrants, forcing people to accept their vision of what is good for them.  I repeat, they hate fairness.

Of course, what is fair is what is good for the Democrats, by their standards.  THAT, my friends, is the very definition of tyranny!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Wil Wirtanen makes another valid observation:

It is a well known fact that light travels faster than sound.

That explains why libs appear bright till you hear them speak.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

There is a foul beast that lurks in the dark woods. Evil and unholy, it inhabits the shadows and recesses, waiting for the time of destruction to arrive. Monstrous and powerful, this supernatural entity has crept the Earth in search of sustainance to quench it`s hate-filled appetite for destruction, and its malevolence knows no bounds.  Oh, and this unspeakable horror has taken up permanent residence in the Ozark Hilton, my cabin in the hills!

I have had a problem with mice for some years, but I have been able to maintain a form of Detente`; they have kept to the corners while I hold the middle ground of the shack.  Now, for new readers, the Ozark Hilton is a shack I built down in southern Missouri with some treated lumber posts and scrap materials.  The accomadations are, shall we say, rustic with one room 11 by 16 and tar paper covering the dangling boards.  A barrel laid on it`s side with a stovepipe provides heat, and  I have dandy air conditioning, provided the wind blows.  Pallets on the ground provide a deck, two cinder blocks with a toilet seat provide a wonderfully ventilated bathroom facility, kerosene and propane provide light, and water has to be trucked in.  I recently put a sheetmetal roof on the place, removing the old tarps which had provided that particular service in a rather leaky fashion, and I was in the process of closing off the remaining walls and insulating them with free newspapers I collect from lawns.  Mice had been a nuisance, but we had an understanding; they could live in the walls and under the cabin provided they didn`t do any major damage. 

By then the Beast from Revelation moved in.  Suddenly I was coming down to a disaster every visit, with lamps knocked to the floor (often broken) papers and blankets ripped up, the little devil even opened some canned goods with pop tops I had stored there!  I investigated humane methods of ridding myself of this varmint, but could find none, and he become increasing bold as he was literally destroying my cabin; he chewed a large hole in the wall to the outside!  Something had to be done.

My boss recommended using D-Con, and so I regretfully put out five boxes of the stuff (I didn`t want to kill the creature) and I heard my friend munch his way through one box last Saturday night while I was trying to sleep. I figured that was that, and planned to go down yesterday to be certain his corps wasn`t decaying in my palatial digs.

I arrived yesterday afternoon to yet another disaster; again it looked like a bomb had been detonated in the cabin.  Somehow the little love child managed to open a blastic storage box, pulled out some blankets, and tore into some crackers and granola bars I keep for a quick meal. He also tore into two containers of salt, spilling the salt all over everything in the box, as well as a bag of coffee.  I should point out that all five boxes of D-Con have been consumed, yet this ancient evil is still thriving in what is becomming the ruins of my cabin. 

I did smell something unsavory, so perhaps a mouse died, but the mouse-king still lives, plotting against me in his nest in the walls. (Granted, given the humidity and the lack of proper shower facilities, I may have been responsible for the unsavory smells, now that I think of it...)

I`m at wits end; who will rid me of these meddlesome peeps?  I do not wish them ill, but all of the hard work I put in on the shack will be for nought if this continues.  I took pains to remove all my trash, and to see that there was no standing water available. That is all I can think of doing at the moment.

This rodent problem brings the terrorism issue to mind; much like my rodents, Jihadists strike from hiding and shun open battle.  They creep around in corners and inside of walls, striking when the opportunity presents.  I suppose I`ll have to ask General Petraeus for the overflow from the surge to be redeployed at the Ozark Hilton! I need a larger footprint there.

At any rate, I want to apologize for my failure to blog this morning, and for my slow response time in getting back with everyone who e-mailed or left a comment; I was battling mighty forces and the struggle of good versus evil is most certainly in doubt down at the luxurious place known as the Ozark Hilton. I may have to surrender, and hope for generous peace-terms.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 785 words, total size 5 kb.

WELCOME AMERICAN THINKER READERS!

I`ve written several blog pieces in the past about the folly of green Christianity, and I`ve greatly expanded it into a full-blown article on the pagan roots of environmentalism and the reasons why Christians should take no part in the movement.

Be warned; this piece is quite girthsome (5000 words m/l) and, were it a pair of pants, probably would be too big for Michael Moore. It took me weeks to write, as I doggedly pecked away at it every morning before it became too hot to write. (My computer is in an upstairs dormer, and the 100*+ temperatures here in the `Lou sapped all of my intellectual strength.)

Many thanks to Mr. Lifson for publishing this supersized piece; I have to thank him for just taking the time to read the monstrosity! I had no idea it would grow so large when I started it; it really is the topic of a book rather than a short article in an internet blog. 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:50 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Our good friend David from Ultima Thule sends this review of Heinrick Svensmark`s book ``The Chilling Stars``:

The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change (Paperback)
by Henrik Svensmark
Book Description
The authors explain their theory that sub-atomic particles from exploded stars have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2. Their conclusion stems from Svensmark's research which has shown the previously unsuspected role that cosmic rays play in creating clouds. During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world. The theory, simply put here but explained in fascinating detail, emerges at a time of intense public and political concern about climate change. Motivated only by their concern that science must be trustworthy, Svensmark and Calder invite their readers to put aside their preconceptions about manmade global warming and look afresh at the role of Nature in this hottest of world issues.
 
The Best Popular Introduction to Climate Science, April 25, 2007
By  Fritz R. Ward "dayhiker" (Crestline, CA United States) - See all my reviews
    

But the promise of new research, even the promise of a better model, is hardly sufficient to insure the adoption of Svensmark's "Chilling Stars" as a new paradigm for research in the modern era. Historically, as Thomas Kuhn has demonstrated, "science" advances by using a paradigm, a carefully constructed set of theories. These paradigms guide research until a point at which there are too many unexplainable gaps in the theory for the paradigm to continue to be useful. At this point, a new paradigm replaces it. Usually the process by which one paradigm replaces another is fraught with argument, debate, and in some cases dramatic confrontations among advocates of competing ideas. This is how science operates and it generally works quite well. Svensmark's work has been subjected to just this sort of rigorous testing for the last decade and has shown itself to be remarkably versatile. However, late 20th and 21st century science is altogether different than science in earlier periods of human history. Scientists used to be motivated by religious considerations (a desire to better understand creation) or humanitarian motives (curing diseases like polio) or simply curiosity. Such motivations are still common among many scientists. But increasingly, political advocacy coupled with the public funding of science has led to a new motivation for science: the advancement of a political agenda. In such an environment, it may not matter that the work of Svensmark and his colleagues better explains climate, the development of life on the planet, and even better predicts the future. The political usefulness of their studies does not, at present anyway, coincide with that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and so it is quite possible that their work simply will not get the attention it deserves. This signals a dramatic, and perhaps fundamental, change in the way science operates. Will the future see a continued commitment to experimental research and the free publication of diverse views, or will the modern scientists win out, stiffling open debate and corrupting data to advance their agendas. The case of Michael Mann and his famous "hockey stick" graph is instructive in this regard. Mann, an advocate of the man made global warming hypothesis, knew that the medieval warming period and the little ice age of the last millenia contradicted the GHG theory. So he simply revised history by creating a chart that that showed a stable climate for a thousand years followed by a dramatic increase in the 20th century. He also hid his raw data and algorithms from public and scientific scrutiny for almost a decade, an act that would have immediately disqualified his work from serious consideration among the previous generation of scientists. But in the "Brave New World" of science, his graph graced numerous IPCC publications. Calder rightly calls Mann's work "Orwellian" and dismisses it in favor of finding a theory that accurately explains, rather than explains away, actual climate changes in earth's history. But one cannot help but wonder if Orwell's vision was correct. Time, and in particular, the reception of this spectacular book, will tell. Be sure to get the book yourself and enjoy the read.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1778 words, total size 11 kb.

More from the Beerman:

Most of this is boring stuff but #11 is something that I didn't know. I did,
however, state years ago & many times since that we will feel the "effects"
of the Clinton presidency for years & years.
The problem is that most of the idiots will never relate these things to
Clinton.

>
>  Subject: Bill & Hillary:Worse than you thought & worth remembering
>
>
> Dear ( Ex ) President Clinton:
>
> I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "Thank me, I voted for
> Clinton-Gore." So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my
> "Thank you" for what you have done, specifically:
>
> 1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica
> Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did
> I leave anyone out?
>
> 2. Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really
> planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but
now
> he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.
>
> 3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place
> (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to
know
> is what the meaning of "it" is. It really is great to know that certain
> sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one
> does NOT have sex.
>
> 4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new
> generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag
the
> Dog" could be plausible after all.
>
> 5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look
> graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and
John
> Kennedy look moral.
>
> 6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th
> Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying
> about Democratic campaign fund raising.
>
> 7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's from
> the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal
> convictions (so far) in the other " Clinton " scandals.
>
> 8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our
> foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations" carefully
> disguised as necessary trips.
>
> 9 Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars (I really didn't need
> it in the first place, and I can't think of a more deserving group of
> recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars)
> for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your
> cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other
> administration.
>
> 10. Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of
> convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them
> rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of
> Arkansas)
>
> 11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that
> Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming
> gifts you've received from your "friends."
>
> 12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for
> vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also
> appreciate removing all of that excess weight ( China , silverware, linen,
> towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out
> of Air Force 1. The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax
> dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!
>
> 13. And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar
> advance for her "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for
> your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!
>
> 14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to
let
> Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in
> Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part
of
> the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to
> release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not
> release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time,
> Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted"
> that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and
eventually
> thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade
> Center This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time
> that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from
> all later reports. Why shouldn't Americans know the real truth?
>
> What a guy!!
>
> AND THE REST OF THE STORY Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State
> Senator, now comes under the "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,"
> which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her
> Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all
Americans
> were pension eligible after only 4 years?)
>
> If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is
> already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives
> Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?
>
> WE DO!
>
> It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency,
they
> purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua , New York
Makes
> sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still
makes
> sense.
>
> Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at
> around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within
> the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.
>
> The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the
use
> of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage
> payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton 's
> salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the
> salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!
>
> When she runs for President, will you vote for her?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1128 words, total size 7 kb.

The Beerman sends tidings of great joy for the NOW gang; an abortion supercenter is opening in Aurora, Illinois (just outside of Chicago). They`re taking the Wal-Mart/Sam`s Club concept into the abortion business!

Largest Ever Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill Threatens to Open Near Chicago
Pro-Life Action League to hold major protest on Aug. 25

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 5 kb.