June 04, 2014

Environmentalism's Mobilization of an Aboriginal Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline

William Kay

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will transport 525,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Alberta’s oil sands to a new Pacific Coast terminal at Kitimat, BC. This 1,177 kilometre pipeline and related facilities will cost $6.5 billion to build. The dollar value of the oil that will ultimately flow through the Northern Gateway to the insatiable Asian market is an incalculable, astronomical sum.

Governments should roll out red carpets for such obviously beneficial projects. However it is 12 years since Enbridge first floated the Northern Gateway proposal and approval has yet to be granted (this should happen in June 2014).

Northern Gateway is one of five proposed pipelines being obstructed by the international environmental movement’s attempted siege of Alberta’s oil sands. Of the many stratagems environmentalists have deployed against the Northern Gateway, one of the more effective has been the mobilization of an aboriginal opposition.

In 2012 Enbridge claimed 60% of native communities along the pipeline route had accepted the company’s offer of an equity state in the pipeline. This figure is disputed. The deals are confidential and native leaders are reluctant to publicly support the Northern Gateway.

In any event, environmentalists have fostered militant opposition to the Northern Gateway among a number of First Nation communities located both in BC’s central interior and along BC’s northern coast – areas critical to the Northern Gateway.

Environmentalists have also spread a mythology about their native supporters regarding: their population sizes, the distinctness of their cultures, the representativeness of their internal governance structures, the persistence of their traditional lifestyles, etc.

This posting seeks to dispel these myths and to expose the natives opposing the Northern Gateway to be a mercenary auxiliary devoid of popular legitimacy, i.e. lacking any "social licence” themselves.

For the full collection of article go to http://www.ecofascism.com/ (article number 25, top left corner).

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:50 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Why Obama Made the Trade

Timothy Birdnow

Yesterday there was much speculation on our local talk radio station about why the Obama Administration hurriedly traded five of the very worst Talibani terrorists for one American deserter. People seem mystified by this act by the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama. The big question is, what does the Administration secretly know?

Well, first, I cannot remember a single instance where this Administration has acted in the best interest of the United States. Why should that change now? This President and his people seem absolutely determined to take whatever course of action that quietly injures this country. They pretty much got rid of SDI, and this has allowed a resurgence of Russia in Eastern Europe. They aided Al Qaeda in Libya. They refused to aid the Iranian people. They seem to want America to be brought down a peg or two.

Let us put to one side Mr. Obama's statements that he would stand with the Muslims, for instance. Let us put aside the fact that his father and step-father were both good Muslims, and that he was educated in an Islamic school in Indonesia. Set all that aside for the moment, and let us consider what practicalities the Administration is facing.

First, Bowie Bergdahl was "captive" for five years (a questionable claim since he left a note saying he was defecting to the Taliban) and yet now the President cuts this deal, a trade of five to one. (He sounds like a man who owes a loan shark.) Why now? Why did this deal have to go through at this very second?

Because it was a scandal that was going to boil over eventually, and Mr. Obama needed it now to turn attention away from the VA, that's why. They weren't overly sorrowful about the VA as it was, because that scandal did not go to the President's level and so was and is containable. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama tape was found where Senator BHO discussed the VA under Bush, and it became apparent he knew there was trouble at that bastion of socialized medicine. I suspect the President was surprised the VA scandal was as damaging as it has become.

I think the VA scandal came out when IT did to turn attention away from Benghazi and the NSA, and the IRS, which in turn had turned attention away from Fast and Furious. Not that the Administration is creating these scandals, mind you, but controling when the media reports on them.

So why does the Administration want them all at once?

Too much too soon means people tune out, and apologists can then convince the public that it's just a witch hunt, a "J'accuse!" from the Right Wing enemies of our humble pie President. Dump them all in rapid succession and it looks like BHO's enemies are picking on him.

So it is a good time to do this as well. Granted, laws were broken, but with the President's point men in Congress - particularly Harry Reid - nothing will come of it. Obama and his hatchet men from Chicago know that the Republicans are frightened of going to the mat with Mr. Obama. and they will huff and puff but exhaust the issue before anything really comes of it. They are counting on this.

Meanwhile, the President is pulling us out of Afghanistan, a sort of Belligeranus Interruptus. When Richard Nixon initiated the withdrawl of American troops from Vietnam he was particularly worried about the collapse time; he actually tried to negotiate a lag time so his Administration could save face. It was critical to Nixon that he not take the blame for a South Vietnamese collapse (which came almost immediately anyway since the Viet Cong weren't amenable to the deal.)

I believe that Obama knows the Afghani government is going to collapse without U.S. support, but he's going to pull out anyway, and he doesn't want to take the blame when it does. So I suspect this was a gesture of good will to the Taliban, something probably negotiated well in advance to give the BHO lag time. It would be especially sweet if the collapse would come on the watch of the next President, who may well be a Republican. Obama cannot afford to have it happen on his watch.

So he feigns concern for an American serviceman and trades half of the Legion of Doom for this guy.

Meanwhile an American soldier who made a wrong turn and wound up in Tijuana is languishing in a Mexican prison, and the President won't lift a finger to get the poor fellow out.

Obama does not care about the troops, but he does care about his legacy and about burying the VA scandal. He needed to make some sort of sacrifice to show how much he cares, and this one is no skin off his nose.

So this really isn't that hard to understand if you understand Obama. Obama didn't bother to stay in the situation room during Benghazi, and he let those men die so he could attend a fundraiser. He is about politics, and self-service. A man who uses his authority in government to advance his own personal desires is called a tyrant.

Understand that and you understand this whole issue.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:49 AM | Comments (62) | Add Comment
Post contains 884 words, total size 5 kb.

June 03, 2014

EPA Demands Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction

Timothy Birdnow

The Environmental Protection Agency wants a 21% drop in emissions from power plants here in Missouri.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/epa-proposes-mo-power-plants-to-cut-carbon-emissions-by/article_23c71b43-0574-58ff-bb44-5a115ef366cc.html

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

"But Missouri power plants won’t face as sharp a percentage decline as other states under the EPA’s plan, which sets different targets for every state depending on its energy mix.

The EPA targets are based on an agency analysis of what it deemed practical state actions to reduce emissions at existing fossil fuel plants, and it allows states to develop their own plans. For example, Washington state would face a 72 percent reduction in carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of generation, but that reflects a planned retirement of a coal-generating plant in the state, according to EPA officials.

The EPA is proposing that Missouri lower carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour of generation by 21 percent, from the 2012 average of 1,963 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour to 1,544 pounds per megawatt hour in 2030.

Missouri’s goal is among the most modest in the country, reflecting the state’s huge reliance on coal-powered generation. Only Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming have goals that call for higher emission rates per unit of electric generation."

End excerpt.

So, at 21% Missouri is one of the LOWEST targeted reductions being proposed! In fact, the EPA wants a thirty percent reduction nationally!

You really cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions without reducing energy output - which means higher prices - much higher.

If America adopts this mad scheme we will permanently become a second tier economy.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:21 AM | Comments (78) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Political Humor

Dana Mathewson forwards these:

*If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.*~Jay Leno~


*The problem with political jokes is they get elected.*~Henry Cate, VII~


*We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.*~Aesop~


*If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union Speeches, there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven.*~Will Rogers~


*When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.*~Clarence Darrow~


*Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.*~John Quinton~


*Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.*~Oscar Ameringer~


*I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.*~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952~


*A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.*~ Tex Guinan~


*I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.*~Charles de Gaulle~


*Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.*~Doug Larson~


*There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on senators.
*~Will Rogers~


Harry Truman:


If you want a real friend - that you can trust in Washington - go buy a dog!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:53 AM | Comments (80) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Just assume we have a climate crisis

Paul Driessen

President Obama is now warning us that "storms like Hurricane Sandy will become more frequent as climate change intensifies.” It’s merely the latest in the administration’s seemingly endless stream of headline-grabbing scare stories, designed to justify the job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by Environmental Protection Agency fiat. We need to keep one vitally important fact in mind.

Every one of these "looming calamities” is based on assumptions, assertions and computer models that represent the real world about as well as the special-effects T rexes and raptors do in Jurassic Park.

My article today is a must-read guide to climate catastrophe computer modeling – and the garbage in, garbage out predictions, projections and scenarios they spew forth … costing us unfathomable billions in taxpayer-funded "research,” soaring energy costs, lost jobs, reduced human health and welfare, and an economy that at best limped along at a pathetic and frightening 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2014

Impose job-killing policies on the assumption that we’re causing a CO2-driven catastrophe

Paul Driessen

Climate modelers and disaster proponents remind me of the four guys who were marooned on an island, after their plane went down. The engineer began drawing plans for a boat; the lumberjack cut trees to build it; the pilot plotted a course to the nearest known civilization. But the economist just sat there. The exasperated workers asked him why he wasn’t helping.

"I don’t see the problem,” he replied. "Why can’t we just assume we have a boat, get on it and leave?”

In the case of climate change, those making the assumptions demand that we act immediately to avert planetary crises based solely on their computer model predictions. It’s like demanding that governments enact laws to safeguard us from velociraptors, after Jurassic Park scientists found that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from fossilized mosquitoes … and brought the carnivores back to special-effects life.

Climate models help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems and the forces that drive climate change. However, they are terrible at predicting Earth’s temperature and other components of its climate. They should never be used to set or justify policies, laws and regulations – such as what the Environmental Protection Agency is about to impose on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Even our best climate scientists still have only a limited grasp of Earth’s highly complex and chaotic climate systems, and the many interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric, terrestrial and other forces that control climate and weather. Even the best models are only as good as that understanding.

Worse, the models and the science behind them have been horribly politicized. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was ostensibly organized in 1988 to examine possible human influences on Earth’s climate. In reality, Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and environmental activist groups wanted to use global warming to drive an anti-hydrocarbon, limited-growth agenda. That meant they somehow had to find a human influence on the climate – even if the best they could come up with was "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” [emphasis added]

"Discernible” (ie, detectable) soon metamorphosed into "dominant,” which quickly morphed into the absurd notion that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have now replaced natural forces and become the only factors influencing climate change. They are certainly the only factors that climate activists and alarmists want to talk about, while they attempt to silence debate, criticism and skepticism. They use the models to generate scary "scenarios” that are presented as actual predictions of future calamities.

They predict, project or forecast that heat waves will intensify, droughts and floods will be stronger and more frequent, hurricanes will be more frequent and violent, sea levels will rise four feet by 2100 [versus eight inches since 1880], forest fires will worsen, and countless animal species will disappear. Unlikely.

Natural forces obviously caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Pleistocene Ice Ages. (A slab of limestone that I dug up has numerous striations – scratches – left by the last mile-thick glacier that covered what is now my home town in Wisconsin.) After long denying it, the IPCC finally acknowledged that the LIA did occur, and that it was a worldwide agricultural and human disaster.

However, the models and computer algorithms the IPCC and EPA rely on still do not include the proper magnitude of solar cycles and other powerful natural forces that influence climate changes. They assume "positive feedbacks” from GHGs that trap heat, but understate the reflective and thus cooling effects of clouds. They display a global warming bias throughout – bolstered by temperature data contaminated by "urban heat island” effects, due to measuring stations being located too close to human heat sources. They assume Earth’s climate is now controlled almost entirely by rising human CO2/GHG emissions.

It’s no wonder the models, modelers and alarmists totally failed to predict the nearly-18-year absence of global warming – or that the modeled predictions diverge further from actual temperature measurements with every passing year. It’s no wonder modelers cannot tell us which aspects of global warming, global cooling, climate change and "climate disruption” are due to humans, and which are the result of natural forces. It’s hardly surprising that they cannot replicate ("hindcast”) the global temperature record from 1950 to 1995, without "fudging” their data and computer codes– or that they are wrong almost every time.

In 2000, Britain’s Met Office said cold winters would be a thing of the past, and "children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” The 2010 and 2012 winters were the coldest and snowiest in centuries. In 2013, Met Office scholars said the coming winter would be extremely dry; the forecast left towns, families and government agencies totally unprepared for the immense rains and floods that followed.

In 2007, Australia’s climate commissioner predicted Brisbane and other cities would never again have sufficient rain to fill their reservoirs. The forecast ignored previous drought and flood cycles, and was demolished by record rains in 2011, 2013 and 2014. Forecasts of Arctic and Antarctic meltdowns have ignored the long history of warmer and colder cycles, and ice buildups and breakups.

The Bonneville Power Administration said manmade warming will cause Columbia River Basin snowpack to melt faster, future precipitation to fall as rain, reservoirs to be overwhelmed – and yet water levels will be well below normal year round. President Obama insists that global temperatures will soar, wildfires will be more frequent and devastating, floods and droughts will be more frequent and disastrous, rising seas will inundate coastal cities as Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves melt and disintegrate, and 97% of scientists agree. Every claim is based on models or bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence.

And still the IPCC says it has "very high confidence” (the highest level it assigns) to the supposed agreement between computer model forecasts and actual observations. The greater the divergence from reality, the higher its "confidence” climbs. Meanwhile, climate researchers and modelers from Nebraska, Penn State, Great Britain and other "learned institutions” continue to focus on alleged human influences on Earth’s climate. They know they will likely lose their government, foundation and other funding – and will certainly be harassed and vilified by EPA, environmentalists, politicians, and their ideological and pedagogical peers – if they examine natural forces too closely.

Thus they input erroneous data, simplistic assumptions, personal biases, and political and financial calculations, letting models spew out specious scenarios and phony forecasts: garbage in, garbage out.

The modelers owe it to humanity to get it right – so that we can predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to whatever future climate conditions nature (or humans) might throw at us. They cannot possibly do that without first understanding, inputting and modeling natural factors along with human influences.

Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their biases and their evangelism of political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, "transform” our energy and economic systems, redistribute wealth, reduce our standards of living, and "permit” African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era only in a "sustainable manner,” as defined by callous elitists.

The climate catastrophe camp’s focus on CO2 is based on the fact that it is a byproduct of detested hydrocarbon use. But this trace gas (a mere 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) makes life on our planet possible. More carbon dioxide means crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better. CO2’s role in climate change is speculative – and contradicted by real-world measurements, observations and history.

Computer models, scenarios and predictions of planetary Armageddon are little more than faulty, corrupt, even fraudulent pseudo-science. They have consistently forecast what has not happened on Planet Earth, and failed to forecast what did happen.

They must no longer be allowed to justify EPA’s job-killing, economy-strangling, family-bashing rules for vehicles, power plants, cement kilns, refineries, factories, farms, shopping malls and countless other facilities that are or soon will be regulated by agency fiat.

___________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:49 AM | Comments (241) | Add Comment
Post contains 1543 words, total size 11 kb.

The Difference Between the Real World and Obama's


By Alan Caruba

I keep wondering what it must have been like to be a young student at West Point listening to their Commander in Chief’s platitudes and ignorance wash over them. West Point is where our nation’s future leaders in war receive an education in how to protect the nation by crushing our enemies, if Presidents and Congress will let them.

Unfortunately for them, this President seems to think that climate change is the nation’s biggest enemy and that a loose coalition of Islamic fanatics is the other. There was no talk of an increasingly aggressive China, a Russia that seized Crimea and would like a chunk of the Ukraine, or an Iran that got out from under some strong financial sanctions and will continue to build its own nuclear weapons no matter what Obama and other negotiators may want.

Meanwhile, the Egyptians have decided they would prefer a military dictator again as their president instead of a leader from the Muslim Brotherhood. Such choices are endemic to the Middle East. Real democracy is rare there. In Syria its dictator, Bashar al Assad, is still in power when, it could be argued, a few hours spent bombing his air force and other military facilities might have cost him his job and saved over 160,000 lives. So now Obama is reluctantly arming his opposition, some of whom could end up being as oppressive as al Assad.

The highlight of Obama’s speech was his announcement that the U.S. would be out of Afghanistan by 2016 except for a small force to train its military. Here’s what I had to say about Afghanistan in November 2009, a few months into Obama’s first term:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/babbling-about-afghanistan.html

"If you look back, you discover that the former Soviet Union had 100,000 troops there and spent ten years in Afghanistan…one day in 1989 they just packed up and went home to Russia. Shortly thereafter the Berlin Wall fell, followed by the entire Soviet government in 1991.” And Afghanistan was deemed by Obama to be a "war of necessity.” Americans in 2009 would have been happy to depart, having been there for eight years with nothing to show for it.

Presidents who do not get the waging of war right end up killing a lot of American troops. Lyndon Johnson knew years earlier that he should have gotten out of Vietnam, but stayed on. And, yes, George W. Bush stayed on in Afghanistan and Iraq after achieving the initial goal of responding to 9/11 and then of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. War is not about nation-building.

The U.S. stayed on in Europe after WWII because the Soviet Union was the new threat there. We stayed on in Japan to ensure it learned how to govern itself without an all-powerful emperor and then because of a threat from North Korea and communist China. Internationally, we maintain a military presence by invitation in many nations because as the only global superpower we are also the only one that stands for freedom.

Obama has made it clear that he does not like our being a superpower. One need only look at the way he has reduced our military to pre-WWII levels.

How bad was the speech? When The New York Times published an editorial about it on May 28, it said "The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.” How incompetent does Obama have to be to elicit this kind of criticism from one of the greatest voices of liberalism in America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/president-obama-misses-a-chance-on-foreign-affairs.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2FPresident%2BObama%2BMisses%2Ba%2BChance%2Bon%2BForeign%2BAffairs%2F

At this point in his second term with two more years to go, Obama has been a spectacular failure domestically, diplomatically, and on the battlefield he chose. He has told the Taliban when we will leave and they will be back because we are talking about the Middle East. As for the rest of the Islamists, Obama abandoned the phrase "a war on terrorism” early on.

As former Ambassador John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Surrender is Not an Option” said in a recent commentary, "Typically, Mr. Obama made no mention of seeking ‘victory’ in the war against terrorism, a still-foreign concept to him, in a war whose very existence he denies.”

The only victory Obama has ever prized is the winning of elections. He was nowhere to be found the evening our ambassador and three security personnel were killed in Benghazi and the next day he flew to Los Angeles to do more fund raising. When their bodies returned, he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied about a video as the cause of an event that occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.

We have two more years of Obama as President. That cannot bode well for the future, either here or around the world.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:42 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 6 kb.

June 01, 2014

Common Core, Mindful Meditation, and the Exorcist

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in Canada Free Press Dr. Illene Paugh discusses the perils of Mindful Meditation in the Common Core curriculae. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63422

Dr. Paugh made the case:

"The "secular” practice of mindfulness is "rooted” in Buddhism. Jon Kabat-Zinn established a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in 1979. Myla Kabat-Zinn and Jon Kabat-Zinn wrote, "Learning to Breathe: A Mindfulness Curriculum for Adolescents to Cultivate Emotion Regulation, Attention, and Performance.” As a former educator, the indication that emotion must be regulated into a perfectly attentive automaton bothered me because every child is an individual with a certain attention span, interest, emotion, and level of curiosity. How would calming a person make them excel in life?"

[...]

"The six core lessons, Body, Reflection, Emotions, Attention, Tenderness, and Healthy Mind Habits are obviously not going to let students just "simply be.” What are these mindfulness skills? A quote by the World Teacher, Krishnamurti (born in 1895 in India) and used in the "Mindfulness in Education, Learning from the Inside Out” video is quite telling:

"You want to have your own gods – new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old – all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches. Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions; instead of the old worships you have new worships. You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for enlightenment on someone else; … you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self…”

End excerpts.

I left the following comment:

"I attended a Jesuit high school back in the early '80's and this was the big fad among the faculty. What it really entailed was a short nap in the classes of the teachers who implemented it, especially for the teacher. Nobody enveloped themselves with the existence, or whatever it is you are supposed to do.

One of the big proponents of this was Fr. Walter Halloran, who had been one of the novitiates present at the famous exorcism that spurred Peter Blatty to write the novel and movie of that name. Halloran just wanted some shut-eye and the "mediation" would frequently last the entire class, with loud snoring coming from the direction of the chalkboard.

It's interesting to note that Fr. Halloran was quite clear on the supernatural happenings at the exorcism he attended in early interviews, but later serious doubt crept in. Did it tie in with his practice of Mindful Meditation? I wonder if he exorcised his own memory with this stuff."

End comment.

And indeed it was so. I attended Fr. Halloran's theology class while at St. Louis University High School. I thought the man a horrible teacher, frankly. He combined a rather cholic nature with a phlegmatic, dull as dirt personality, and I did not like him one bit. When not sleeping, er, meditating Fr. Halloran droned on about, well, I really can't remember because he was so dreadfully dull. I felt the class was a collosal - and expensive - waste of time.

Now, I did not know about his association with the exorcism (which was held here in St. Louis at several locations, including the boy's (not girl) aunt's home in the suburb of Bel-Nor as well as at Alexian Brothers Hospital (now gone). See the story here. http://www.slu.edu/1029-rel-exorcism-discussion

Had I known about that I would have understood Fr. Halloran better; in hindsight I do not dislike the man so much and pity him a great deal more.

No doubt Fr. Bowdern chose Halloran because of his lack of imagination and phlegmatic nature. Most people would not fare well after such a horrifying event. I most certainly would not; I doubt I'd ever get a night's sleep ever after that! What was needed was someone young and vigorous and dull. Halloran fit the bill, and so he was chosen to act as co-exorcist in this long battle with spiritual forces of Hell.

This would effect anybody, and I suspect it did Halloran. He was rather grumpy, and wrestling with El Diablo would certainly do that to anyone. He was into this mindful meditation stuff, doubtlessly to expunge the memories and to circumscribe his own world to the natural, pushing the supernatural (and I have little doubt Halloran was under spiritual attack from the demons) as far away from himself as possible. I also suspect he drank quite a bit (they all did at SLUH, and half of the Jesuits went into detox my Sophomore year.) He was, I think, looking to put that event as far behind him as possible.

And he seemed to have succeeded; in early interviews he was quite explicit but in later ones he often expressed doubts about anything supernatural having happened. It may be he was under orders - the Jesuits are an army and they do not have freedom of speech. It may be he was ordered to shut up about it, to downplay it as much as possible.

But it may well be that his campaign to forget actually worked, and he DID forget what happened.

Whatever the case may be, it suggests that mindful meditation may have a detrimental influence on education. If Halloran could make himself forget, one wonders what else can be made to be forgotten? Or what can be made real that was not real? Delusions can be powerful things - the Progressives have been laboring under such for decades, and have nearly destroyed this country.

Dr. Paugh has a salient point.

Here is a brief excerpt from an interview with Fr. Halloran
http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2008/03/interview-with-fr-walter-h-halloran-sj.html

SD: Father, how many times were you present in the exorcism sessions?
Fr. Halloran: I suppose every night for three weeks.
SD: Did you have any insight into the origin of the problem?
Fr. H: In a way he was a victim to the frame of mind of the aunt (who was into spiritualism).
SD: What happened at the end? We're told the Archangel Michael manifested.
Fr. H: I was taken off five days before the conclusion, but from what I understand there was a very loud sound, a boom -- sort of like a sonic boom -- and then the boy opened his eyes and said St. Michael came and that it was over. At the same time this took place there were about six or seven priests over in the college church saying their office and there was a huge boom over there and the whole church was completely lit up. Father Bowdern, who was doing the exorcism, and the boy were at the rectory. There was a very, very bright light that lit up the whole church.
SD: What was the most striking physical phenomena that you witnessed yourself during the exorcisms?
Fr. H: I think the markings on the boy's body. I didn't think there was any way they could have been self-induced, the marks, the scratches, the words, the numbers and that sort of thing that appeared in blood red]. When the evil spirit took over the child, there seemed to be nothing he could do about it. There were a couple of times when something very dangerous might have happened and he had no recollection whatsoever of anything that took place when he was in one of these sieges. And that affected me, the power that someone or something has over someone.
SD: Did you see anything fly across the room or furniture move?
Fr. H: Yeah. The first night I was there I was kneeling at the bed on which the boy was lying and the bed started going up and down and then I just about got hit with a holy water bottle that was sitting on the dresser and came flying across the room and just missed me by an inch or two.
SD: How high was the bed going?
Fr. H: Oh, I'd say eight inches.
SD: Was there any particular prayer that the evil spirit seemed to react to the most?
Fr. H: Yes. It was more elements or words or phrases in each prayer. Whenever the Blessed Mother's name would be invoked or mentioned, the child would get very, very agitated and when Our Lord's name - Christ, Our Lord, or Jesus --when that was said, and the same thing with Michael the Archangel. And then he'd become very, very agitated with holy water. With some of the prayers you sprinkle the person with holy water and he'd become wild, physically wild, flying around and that sort of thing.
SD: Flailing around with his hands, that sort of thing?
Fr. H: Yeah.
SD: Did you see the 'Exorcist' movie?
Fr. H: I saw it right after it came out. I went with Father Bowdern and I thought it was a typical Hollywood, glitzy thing, real bizarre, trying to bring people to be fearful or to scream. I was disappointed with it. I thought it was a mess. And Father Bowdern did too. He gave sort of a running negative commentary throughout the whole movie. I thought the two of us were going to be thrown out of the theatre.
SD: So there was no neck craning around?
Fr. H: No. It was just ridiculous, and the gross one where the little girl is ing with a crucifix. It just didn't happen, that's all, and the huge amount of green vomit: Nonsense.
SD: There was some spitting, though, wasn't there?
Fr. H: Yeah, there was spitting, and when I think back on it, it amazes me, his accuracy. He'd spit right in your eye from about eight feet away.
SD: I understand at one point you saved the boy's life. He was ready to go over a cliff, wasn't he?
Fr. H: Yeah. I took him out to the retreat house in St. Louis, a very pretty place, to get out of the hospital and get some fresh air, and he didn't know anything about the Stations of the Cross and so I asked if he wanted to learn and he's says, oh sure. He was an affable little kid. Not many 11-year-old would say they were interested in finding out about the Stations of the Cross, but he was. And I explained what each one signified and we got to the 12th station and I said, this commemorates Christ dying on the cross and with that he took off and ran toward the edge of a bluff that dropped down about 150, 200 feet down to the tracks and I hollered at him and nothing happened so I ran and for once in my life I made a decent tackle.
SD: Did you have any manifestation afterward, or was that the end of it? Did you come under demonic attack afterwards?
Fr. H: No, I never did.
SD: Did you fast during that whole thing?
Fr. H: On and off I did.
SD: Bread and water?
Fr. H: No, things like just taking a cup of coffee and a piece of toast and skipping a meal and at that time we were still practicing abstinenence during Lent.
SD: Did Father Bowdern fast?
Fr. H: He did quite a bit, and sometimes he would go off because he was getting worn out the exorcism lasted six weeks].
SD: How old were you?
Fr. H: About 28.
SD: Anything else that sticks out in your mind when you think back about Rob?
Fr. H: Well, when they baptized him -- it was a conditional baptism, because he had been baptized a Lutheran as a baby -- when they went through the ceremony again, on the way down to the church from his uncle's home, he kept grabbing the steering wheel of the car. He had the car up on the boulevard and some close calls of hitting or being hit by other cars. Then when they were giving him first Holy Communion, and I was present for this, he really fought that, he was flailing around and he'd open his mouth and then as soon as Father Bowdern came close with a Host, he'd swing at him. And I was supposed to be holding him all this time. But he'd relax and I'd relax a little bit and then he'd get an arm free and the voice would keep yelling, "No! He will not receive" or -- and his eyes were closed! -- he'd take a swing at Father Bowdern in the groin and say, "How's that for a nutcracker?" And then it must have been 15 or 20 minutes of this carrying on and he relaxed and received Holy Communion.
SD: Did you fear for your life.
Fr. H: No, not really. But I wondered why me, what purpose I was there for. There was one time he asked us to stop and took his pajama top off and he was covered with these marks, scratches, and he said they hurt. It was Holy Thursday and I was telling him about Holy Thursday and he started writhing around in pain and he said, look, I can't stand this. He seemed more affected; when I said things like "the Blessed Sacrament" or mentioned the ordination of priests and things like that.
SD: What a confirmation of the power of our faith, and the powers that struggle with each other on this earth.
Fr. H: Yes. That's what affected me most, and I guess that's why I was so disappointed with the movies.
SD: Do you think it was Satan or a demon?
Fr. H: During the rite when it was asked its name the only answer I can remember that was given was "legion," which reminds us of the swineherd running into the lake.
The boy eventually married and settled back on the East Coast after attending Loyola High School in Baltimore. Father Bowdern died more than thirty years after the exorcism, in 1983. Meanwhile the movie, re-released last fall, became one of the most famous of all time. Father Halloran is featured in the video In the Grip of Evil, an excellent docu-drama and one that, like anything dealing with evil, should be preceded with prayer, Bible reading, and holy water.
Link (here)
.
Father Halloran gained a measure of renown as a paratrooping chaplain during the Vietnam War. At 48, he was then the oldest airborne chaplain at the time. He was awarded two Bronze Stars.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:14 AM | Comments (116) | Add Comment
Post contains 2432 words, total size 14 kb.

May 31, 2014

Canada Wages War on Christians

Timothy Birdnow

Canada is becoming the Western equivalent of an Islamic hell-hole.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lea-singh/canada-on-verge-of-banning-christians-from-professional-life/#.U4iareOE080.facebook

From the article in Front Page Mag:

"An intense struggle is happening in the realm of professional licensing in Canada. The religious freedom of Christians and others is colliding on a grand scale with the "equality rights” of the LGBTQ identity group, and as the tide turns in favor of equality rights, we are starting to witness socially accepted ostracism of Christians by professional bodies.

On April 24th, the law society of Canada’s largest province voted against admitting among their ranks graduates of Trinity Western University, for the sole reason that the school’s community covenant, which students (and teachers) voluntarily sign upon admission or hiring, reserves sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage. Nova Scotia followed suit, wording their rejection as approval on the condition that TWU change its community covenant or allow students to opt out. In British Columbia, where the school is located, the law society voted on April 11th to admit TWU graduates to the bar, but momentum is building for the law society to reverse that decision in a special meeting on June 10th."

End excerpt.

So now it is acceptable to discriminate in the name of egalitarianism.

Hat tip: Mark Musser

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:23 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

Change We Can Believe In!

Timothy Birdnow

Over at Protohuman Ugh bemoans the decline of property in his neighborhood since Obama took charge. I agree: here are some before and after shots from my locale.

Before:


and after:





Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:12 PM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Obama, Pomme de Terrible

Timothy Birdnow

So now Michelle Obama has launched an attack on the lowly spud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/michelle-obama-on-attempts-to-roll-back-healthy-reforms.html?_r=1

Our bulbuosly bottomed heroine bloviates:

"Right now, the House of Representatives is considering a bill to override science by mandating that white potatoes be included on the list of foods that women can purchase using WIC dollars. Now, there is nothing wrong with potatoes. The problem is that many women and children already consume enough potatoes and not enough of the nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables they need. That’s why the Institute of Medicine — the nonpartisan, scientific body that advises on the standards for WIC — has said that potatoes should not be part of the WIC program."

End excerpt.

So now SCIENCE is firmly on the side of she of the bubble behind. Government funded science, the same kind that tells us carbon dioxide is about to cause a catastrophe, that a bug spray that saved millions of lives is bad, that an apple preservative is cancerous, that plastic containers are bad etc. etc. Of course, DDT has been proven to have been unjustly maligned, Alar not dangerous, etc. Even the bane of the '80's - dioxin - has been re-evaluated and found not so dangerous. Oat bran is not really so good for you. Coffee not bad. Red wine is now understood to be neither good nor bad.

If you based your demands, er, guidelines on "science" you would have seen repeated changes in what was generally believed (and I say believed because very little actual science is involved in these nutritional research projects) you would have had children gorging on oat bran muffins, drinking red wine, and catching malaria.

What must be remembered is that these studies are financed by government, and government is often a tool of special interests. There are lobbyists who promote certain products, and if they catch the ear of the right person in Washington funding goes into the research. That research is then skewed in the direction the paymaster wishes it to go. Grants are available to "correct" research and the end result are "findings" that are entirely predictable if you know the original parameters.

Take the Atkins diet. Atkins was mocked for years because there was a powerful anti-meat lobby hell-bent on weening Americans off meat - especially beef - and onto a more international diet of rice and vegetables. Animal rights types hated it, too, and so the push was in the exact direction our good FLOTUS wants to take our country. Atkikns was proven to be correct, however, to the chagrine of the left, and his diet is now a proven weight-loss technique, although it has never gained popularity among the "beautiful people" like Shelly.

And so the yogurt and Bok Choy crowd peers down their pointy little noses at the people who do Atkins, or who eat potatoes, and claim "science" is on their side.

What actual science? I really would like to know.

And if potatoes are easily accessed by people, why aren't vegetables? I find both in my grocer's produce department.

Because people do not like eating carrot sticks, or turnip greens, or snow peas when they can have meat and potatoes, that's why. So they must be forced to change their diets, like it or not.

But, but, but, isn't obesity a big fat problem in America? Don't we have to DO something about it?

First, we do not have the foggiest idea of what is causing modern obesity. Fingers are pointed at certain things, and doubtless they are partially true, but they do not explain what is happening when actually examined. Before the 1970's obesity was unusual, and this depsite the fact that people ate MORE meat, more potatoes, and whatnot. Yes, sugar has become more prevalent in processed foods, as is salt, but I do not know that this alone explains what has happened.

Could it be that, instead of going outside to play, kids sit all day in front of a computer screen, or in front of a television set? Might that not be a major part of the puzzle?

Furthermore, it is the left that has caused this state of affairs. It was liberals who were soft on crime for decades, making it dangerous for children to go out unaccompanied by adults. It was the liberals who pushed the idea of single-parent households, so the parent is overwhelmed and cannot supervise. It was the liberals who demanded that women work as part of "having it all" with the end result being the television and computer are the babysitters. Fast food is the direct result of this cultural shift, a shift demanded by the progressives; parents did not have time to fix nutritious, sit down meals for their children. And the "fix" for this was government run meals in schools.

I can tell you this; force someone to eat something they do not want and you guarantee the will never eat it. When I was a child my parents once forced me to drink a glass of milk I did not want. To this day I have never put a glass of milk to my lips. What Mooch is doing will have similar results.

And so now she hates potatoes.

First, she bears a striking resemblence to the vegetable she so despises. Consider:

Mr Potato Head Reject
Michelle Obama has been names this year's most fascinating person. 


Frankly, I don't think she likes the competition.

Mrs. BHO inspires me; I would like to promote the idea of the Mrs. Obama potato clock. It would be a clock powered by a potato in the likeness of Mrs. Obama, one that would count down the hours until we have seen the prodgious backside of our dear First Gravy, er Lady.

UNIQUE Potato Clock

Now THAT is a pomme de Terrible!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:34 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 11 kb.

Green Beret rips Gyneth Paltrow

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://pagesix.com/2014/05/30/green-beret-slams-gwyneth-paltrow-twitter-hate-is-not-war/?_ga=1.199477678.1447650448.1401516855

Green Beret slams Gwyneth Paltrow: ‘Twitter hate is notwar’

May 30, 2014 | 7:50pm
A US Army Green Beret has hit out at Gwyneth Paltrow in a scathing essay after the actress compared enduring Internet haters to the ravages of war.
Modal Trigger

Sergeant First Class Bryan Sikes is seen in this photo provided by ClashDaily.com.Photo: ClashDaily.com
Sergeant First Class Bryan Sikes, who suffered a broken neck and back in a 2008 IED explosion in Afghanistan, was infuriated by the actress’ idiotic comment comparing negative online comments to being at war during a tech conference this week.
She whined, "You come across [online comments] about yourself and about your friends, and it’s a very dehumanizing thing … It’s almost like how, in war, you go through this bloody, dehumanizing thing, and then something is defined out of it.”
Sikes seethed in an open letter to Paltrow on ClashDaily.com, "I can only imagine the difficulty of waking up in a 12,000 square foot Hollywood home and having your assistant retrieve your iPhone, only to see that the battery is low and someone on twitter (the social media concept that you and all of your friends contribute to on an hourly basis to feed your ego and narcissistic ways), has written a mean word or 2 about you. You’ve hit the nail on the head, war is exactly like that. You should receive a medal for the burden you have carried on your shoulders due to these meanies on social media.”
Sikes continued: "I could see how you, and others like you in "the biz,” could be so insecure and mentally weak that you could pair the difficulty of your life on twitter to my brothers who have had their limbs ripped off and seen their friends shot, blown up, burned and disfigured, or wake up every morning in pain—while just starting the day is a challenge.
"You know what is really ‘dehumanizing’, Miss Paltrow? The fact that you’d even consider that your life as an "A-list” celebrity reading internet comments could even compare to war and what is endured on the battlefield.”
He summarized: "Let me be the first to burst your bubble: a long line at Starbucks, your driver being 3 minutes late, a scuff mark on your $1200 shoes and a mean tweet do not constitute difficulty in the eyes of a soldier.”
Paltrow, and her rep, have yet to respond.
Sikes, originally from Minnesota, enlisted in the armed forces in 2005, and was awarded a Green Beret in 2007. He served in Afghanistan in 2007, returned home and went back in 2008, when an SUV he was traveling in rolled over an IED in Southeastern Kabul.
Sikes, in his late 20s, said the attack left him with a broken back, broken neck, shrapnel in his leg and "bounced my brain around my skull a bit,” in an 2013 interview with ClashDaily.com founder Doug Giles. SSEE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUUvf5wwIg

 
In the same interview, Sikes took a more powerful stance about dealing with negative comments on social media.
"It’s laughable to think because someone didn’t click like on a Facebook picture, that I’m going to get twisted about it. I’ve got bigger things to worry about. My wife and kids mean more to me than anyone else will. I can care less about what else is going on and the vanity of everything. I don’t have time for it.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:29 AM | Comments (122) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 8 kb.

Bast & Spencer article: The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

Paul Driessen

Claims continue to be made that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.

What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer

Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have "crippling consequences,” and that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes'sdefinition of consensus covered "man-made” influences but left out "dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus. She also failed to acknowledge that a study published in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer "yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

To read the rest of their article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:14 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

Dennis Avery article: Carbon dioxide won't cause famines

Paul Driessen

Climate change has been "real” since Earth was formed – and human history is replete with warmer and colder, wetter and drier periods that sometimes lasted hundreds of years. The warmer ones (like the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods) were generally times of bountiful crop yields and cultural prosperity. The colder periods were typically times of crop failure, famine, desperation, disease and death.

Agricultural and environmental economist Dennis Avery has written a perceptive and informative article on what we can learn from the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1850 – and about supposed "lessons” that are misleading interpretations of history and poor guides for public policies today.

Carbon dioxide won't cause famines

In fact, more atmospheric CO2 will spur crop growth – if we let it

Dennis T. Avery

Historian Geoffrey Parker is the author of Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the 17th Century. In a recent opinion piece, he suggested that the desperate climate from 1600 to 1700 is a template for human collapse in our twenty-first century. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/lessons-from-the-little-ice-age.html?_r=0There are two massive flaws in his theory.

Almost all past agricultural and cultural collapses occurred during "little ice ages,” not during our many global warm periods. In addition, today’s seeds, fertilizers and modern farming techniques and technologies are far superior to anything mankind possessed during previous crises.

The seventeenth century was part of the 550-year Little Ice Age, the most recent of at least seven "little ice ages” that have befallen the planet since the last Pleistocene Ice Age ended some 13,000 years ago. Studying sediment deposits in the North Atlantic, Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory found such centuries-long "little ice ages” beginning at 1300 AD, 600 AD, 800 BC, 2200 BC, 3900 BC, 7400 BC, 8300 BC, and perhaps at 9100 BC. In fact, these worldwide Dansgaard-Oeschger disasters arrived on a semi-regular basis some 600 times over the past million years.

Each of these icy ages blasted humanity with short, cold, cloudy growing seasons, untimely frosts, and extended droughts interspersed with heavy and violent rains. Naturally, their crops failed. Humanity’s cities starved to death, repeatedly – with seven collapses in Mesopotamia, six each for Egypt and China, two for Angkor Wat and at several calamities in Europe.

The early cultures gave the illusion of continuity: the Nile and the Yangtze always had at least a little irrigation water. However, "little ice age” hunger and disease drove human and animal migrations across thousands of miles and over continents, led to major invasions like the Huns into Europe’s Dark Ages, and caused the collapse of kingships and ruling dynasties around the globe.

While acknowledging the existence of the cold, chaotic periods, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has barely factored them into its computer models. The IPCC seems to think it is just coincidence that our warm and relatively stable Modern Warming directly followed the latest awful Little Ice Age.

Moreover, our recent climate has been more stable than the chaotic "little ice ages.” Iraq has not had a three-century drought recently. The Volga River Valley has not been too flooded to farm for 700 years, as happened after 600 BC. British logbooks show the Little Ice Age featured more than twice as many major hurricanes making landfall in the Caribbean, compared to the twentieth century.

Parker mentions three possible driving forces for the seventeenth century collapse: volcanoes, El Niños, and the sun. There’s no cycle in the volcanoes, however, and the El Niños are too short – rarely lasting more than a year or two. That leaves the sun, and the powerful influences it has on Earth’s temperature and climate.

Indeed, Parker’s own book focuses on the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715 AD), the solar cold cycle that existed during and caused the depths of the Little Ice Age. During this time, the sun had virtually no sunspots for 70 years, significantly reducing the crop-growing warmth reaching our planet, while producing long periods of horrendous storms and floods that killed crops and ruined harvested grains.

We must compliment Parker for recognizing that the climate was the key to these global crises. He fails, however, to acknowledge that this has been a recurring pattern.

With this omission, Dr. Parker draws the wrong conclusion about the threat to future societies. There is no visible reason to expect famines today due to carbon dioxide, which improves plant growth for crops, forests, grasslands and algae, as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.

The danger is the cold, chaotic weather of the "little ice ages” themselves. That will shrink agricultural zones and shorten growing seasons. Another such icy period is inevitably coming, though not likely in the next two centuries, if past cycles are an accurate guide.

Regardless, for the next 20-25 years, humanity will likely be in another cooling period, caused by the sun’s reduced energy output and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. We are about 150 years into the modern warming. Since the shortest of these warm periods during the Halocene was 350 years, and they generally last 350 to 800 years, it is unlikely that we will enter another Little Ice Age for a couple more centuries.

But even a prolonged cooler period (akin to what Earth experienced 1860-1900 and 1940-1975) could create problems for some crops in some areas: such as grapes in Washington, Wisconsin and Great Britain. Mostly, though, modern crops and agricultural practices can handle colder weather and shorter growing seasons reasonably well – and certainly much better than was the case for previous generations of humans during previous colder spells

Dr. Parker nearly redeems himself by making the most valid point of all. We now have science and transportation to deal much more effectively with that coming "little ice age.” Our biggest advantage is our modern high-yield agriculture. Today we harvest perhaps six times as much food per acre as the desperate farmers of the seventeenth century, and our yields keep rising, thanks to scientific breakthroughs like nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and hybrid seeds.

We must also thank unfairly maligned biotechnology, which lets us grow many crops that are disease, drought and insect resistant; rice that can survive prolonged periods under water; plants that are resistant to herbicides and thus facilitate no-till farming that improves soils and reduces erosion; and specialty crops like "golden rice” that incorporate formerly missing nutrients into vital foods.

Our crop yields are also rising because of another surprising factor: more atmospheric carbon dioxide. This trace gas (400 ppm or 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) acts like fertilizer for plants, and thus for the animals and people who depend on them. Studies show that doubling CO2 in the air will boost the growth of herbaceous plants by about 30% to 35%; trees will benefit even more.

Indeed, satellites show that Earth’s total vegetation increased 6% just from 1982 to 1999, as CO2 levels increased. Famines in a CO2-warmed tomorrow are therefore less likely, not more.

If humans have food, they can do all the other things necessary for civilization. However, we must double food production per acre – again and rapidly – to feed the world’s oncoming peak population, and enable all people to enjoy the nutrition that Americans and Europeans already do.

Equally important, since 1960, higher yields have also saved wildlife habitat equal to a land area greater than South America from being plowed for more low-yield crops. The price of farming failure in coming decades will not be famine. Instead, it will be the loss of hundreds of millions of acres of wildlife habitats.

Misguided opposition to biotechnology, fossil fuels and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide could very well condemn millions of people to malnutrition and starvation, and numerous wildlife species to extinction.

__________

Dennis T. Avery is an agricultural and environmental economist and a senior fellow for the Heartland Institute in Chicago and the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia. He was formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State and is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Readers may email him at CGFI@mgwnet.com and visit his website at www.CGFI.org

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:48 AM | Comments (151) | Add Comment
Post contains 1357 words, total size 9 kb.

Bummer Stickers

Jack Kemp

Here are two new political bumper stickers:

I visited Benghazi and all I got was this lousy shroud.

I visited a VA Hospital and I got was this lousy shroud.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:42 AM | Comments (150) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

May 30, 2014

Quantum Phone Call

Timothy Birdnow

Scientists have effectively used quantum entanglement to transmit information. http://phys.org/news/2014-05-team-accurately-teleported-quantum-ten.html

From the article in Physorg:

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands is reporting in a paper they have had published in the journal Science, that they have successfully used entanglement as a means of communication, over a distance of ten feet (three meters). Furthermore, they note, they did so with 100 percent reliability and without altering the spin state of the quantum bits (qubits) involved.

To date, scientists have struggled to use entanglement as a means of communication—it's been achieved but the error rate has been so great that it would be unfeasible as a real-world application. In this new effort, the researchers claim to have solved the error rate problem—they've brought it down to zero percent. They did it, they report, by trapping electrons in diamonds at very low temperatures and shooting them with lasers, resulting in the creation of qubits. The diamonds, the team reports, serve as really tiny prisons, holding the electrons in place. Held as they were, the researchers were able to cause a spin state to exist and then to read it at both locations, which meant that information had been conveyed.

ABSTRACT
Realizing robust quantum information transfer between long-lived qubit registers is a key challenge for quantum information science and technology. Here, we demonstrate unconditional teleportation of arbitrary quantum states between diamond spin qubits separated by 3 m. We prepare the teleporter through photon-mediated heralded entanglement between two distant electron spins and subsequently encode the source qubit in a single nuclear spin. By realizing a fully deterministic Bell-state measurement combined with real-time feed-forward quantum teleportation is achieved upon each attempt with an average state fidelity exceeding the classical limit. These results establish diamond spin qubits as a prime candidate for the realization of quantum networks for quantum communication and network-based quantum computing.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-team-accurately-teleported-quantum-ten.html#jCp



Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:48 AM | Comments (90) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 3 kb.

The Regulatory Death of Energy in America



By Alan Caruba

Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately fifty percent of the total. Today it is approximately forty percent and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579585843675203708?KEYWORDS=EPA+Set+to+Unveil+Climate+Proposal&mg=reno64-wsj take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.

Environmentalism, as expressed by many of the organizations that advocate it is, in fact, an attack on America, its economic system of capitalism, and its need for energy to maintain and grow its business and industrial base. Electricity, of course, is also the energy we all use daily for a multitude of tasks ranging from heating or cooling our homes to the use of our computers and every other appliance.

The EPA regulations are said to be necessary to reduce "greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) which the Greens deem to be a "pollutant” in our atmosphere. It is not a pollutant, despite a Supreme Court decision that identifies it as such, but rather a gas vital to all life on Earth, used by all vegetation for its growth. CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to all animal life. Humans, all seven billion of us, exhale CO2!

Viv Forbes, the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition http://carbon-sense.com/ and a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, notes that the Earth’s atmosphere "is not a greenhouse” and "does not have a glass roof. It uses convection to redistribute heat very quickly.” The claim for several decades has been that CO2 has an effect on the Earth’s surface temperature, but Forbes points out that "water vapor is a far more effective agent for insulating the Earth and preserving its warmth than carbon dioxide,” adding that "there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.”

Indeed, even though the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased, Forbes points out that "Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise before carbon dioxide content rises, sometimes centuries earlier.” Significantly, at the same time Greens have been crying out against emissions of CO2 from coal-fired utilities and other sources, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle now verging on eighteen years!

The EPA is lying to Americans regarding carbon dioxide and, worse, its proposed regulations will reduce the number of coal-fired utilities and drive up the cost of electricity for Americans.

One of the many Green organizations, Earthjustice, claims that "Climate change threatens the world as we know it—and the chief culprit is fossil fuel burning. To avert ecological disaster, Earthjustice is pushing for a shift from dirty to clean energy to stabilize our climate and build a thriving sustainable world.”

There is literally nothing that mankind can do to "stabilize” the Earth’s climate. While the Earth has been going through climate change for 4.5 billion years, there is no evidence that anything mankind does has any effect on it. The change the Earth has encountered, as mentioned, is a cooling, a far different scenario than the "global warming” claims of the past three decades or more.

Tom Richard, the editor of ClimageChangeDispatch.com, notes that "Arctic sea ice has rebounded to higher and higher levels each year. Antarctica is actually gaining in size and there has been no increase in droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, ‘extreme weather’, flooding, et cetera.”

Reducing CO2 would have zero benefits while, at the same time, the EPA regulations would have a dangerous and totally unnecessary effect on CO2 emissions from plants producing electricity. Other nations around the world are actually abandoning "clean energy”. i.e., wind and solar power, in favor of building many more coal-fired plants to meet their need to provide energy for their populations and their economic growth. China and India are just two examples.

To support its claims of the forthcoming EPA regulations, EarthJustice is claiming that climate change "hits people of color the hardest” and that power plants "disproportionately impact Latino communities.” It noted "the moral obligation of faith community to act on climate change and support carbon pollution limits.” This has nothing to do with the actual facts of climate change and CO2 as noted here and is a blatant political campaign to secure support from these groups.

The reality, as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a policy research organization founded by former Senate leaders from both parties, was quoted in the May 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal saying "A 25% reduction (of CO2) with a 2015 baseline might make it impossible for some companies to operate”, noting that the cap-and-trade policies of emissions allowances that the EPA is putting in place "amounts to a hidden tax” on a whole range of electrical generation and industrial plants that produce CO2 emissions. The EPA will likely use the term "budget program” to avoid "cap-and-trade”, a proposal that was rejected by Congress.

Writing in Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin, said that the new regulations on carbon emissions "will have a potentially devastating impact on America’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants” noting that "the move was made possible by Supreme Court decisions that ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to regulate (CO2) emissions, giving the President virtual carte blanche to remake this sector of our economy without requiring congressional consent.”

In July, the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, will hold its ninth international conference on climate change. http://climateconference.heartland.org/ Previous conferences have brought together some of the world’s leading authorities on meteorology and climatology to debunk the decades of lies Greens have told about climate change and global warming.

The President has put "climate change” high on his list of priorities and it is an attack on the nation’s ability to affordably and extensively provide the energy needed to meet current needs for electricity and reducing our capacity to meet future needs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on record saying that the President’s bogus "climate change” policy could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and force more than a third of coal-fired plants to close by 2030. The Heritage Foundation says "The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.”

This is a form of regulatory death for the nation and comes straight out of the Oval Office of the White House.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-regulatory-death-of-energy-in.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:21 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1088 words, total size 8 kb.

A Less-Is-More Presidency

Dana Mathewson

No, it's surely not what we have now, and haven't had in a century, but it would be nice to have one such as is imagined here. This Steven Hayward article from Power Line, with copious quotes from a George Will article (proving Will still hasn't lost his fastball), inserts a few well-deserved knives into Woodrow Wilson, blaming him for the first Imperial Presidency and starting us down the slope we're still on.

"... sensible voters might embrace someone who announced his 2016 candidacy this way. . .

"Candidates are constantly asked, ‘Where will you take the country?’ My answer is: ‘Nowhere.’ The country is not a parcel to be ‘taken’ anywhere. It is the spontaneous order of 316 million people making billions of daily decisions, cooperatively contracting together, moving the country in gloriously unplanned directions.

"To another inane question, ‘How will you create jobs?,’ my answer will be: ‘I won’t.’ Other than by doing whatever the chief executive can to reduce the regulatory state’s impediments to industriousness. I will administer no major economic regulations — those with $100 million economic impacts — that Congress has not voted on. Legislators should be explicitly complicit in burdens they mandate."

The entire article (Hayward's) is greatly recommended, and is here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/a-less-is-more-presidency-and-who-ruined-it-in-the-first-place.php


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:01 AM | Comments (137) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.