Recently in Lunatic Fringe Category

Why is it this does not surprise me?

With calls for more alternative energy sources, in many cases mandated by state laws, the so-called environmentalists are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that those alternative energy sources will not see the light of day.

Oh, they make all of the appropriate noise about making the move away from the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, for generating electricity. But once plans for wind farms or solar electric facilities are proposed, those same environmentalists then protest against the power lines needed to get that power to the consumers.

So what is their real agenda?

To control the populace by controlling access to the sources of energy.

In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don't have.

They give with one hand and take away with the other.

Even while negotiations are ongoing with Iran about their nuclear program, one must wonder what plans Iran has for its nuclear weapons, assuming they succeed in developing them. While some have painted a picture where Islamic terrorists smuggle them into Israel or the US with the idea of obliterating cities in each country, I and others believe there's a much simpler means for Iran to achieve their goal of damaging, if not destroying the US, and ultimately, Israel.

It won't take a number of nuclear weapons in a number of cities to do the damage. All it will take is one. It won't need to be used in Washington, DC in order to decapitate the American government. It won't even need to be smuggled on to US soil.

All it takes is a single missile capable of carrying a warhead high above the atmosphere over the US. It does not need to descend to a designated target. All it needs to do is detonate, creating an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, that will disrupt or damage electrical systems and damage or destroy electronics. With a single high altitude detonation, Iran's nuclear weapon could send portions of the US back to the mid-18^th Century. There will be little or no electrical generation, telecommunications will not work, and in short order, people will start dying. There will be no transportation, needed to move food, no electricity, needed to run every aspect of our modern life, and no communications, needed for everything from calling for help to running the government.

The...scenario is the one envisioned by a long-running commission to assess the threat from electromagnetic pulse, or EMP. The subject of its latest, and little discussed, report to Congress is the effect an EMP attack could have on civilian infrastructure.

An EMP attack occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes high in the Earth's atmosphere. The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys all the electronics in its line of sight. For a bomb detonated over the Midwest, that includes most of the continental U.S. Few, if any, people die in the blast. It's what comes next that has the potential to be catastrophic. Since an EMP surge wipes out electronics, virtually every aspect of modern American life would come to a standstill.

The commission's list of horribles is 181 pages long. The chapter on food, for instance, catalogs the disruptions up and down the production chain as food spoils or has no way to get to market. Many families have food supplies of several days or more. But after that, and without refrigeration, what? The U.S. also has 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 drinking water-treatment facilities, and 19,000 wastewater treatment centers -- all with pumps, valves and filters run by electricity.

Getting everything up and running again is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, and the commission estimates that many systems could be out of service for months or a year or more -- far longer than emergency stockpiles or batteries could cover. The large transformers used in electrical transmission are no longer built in the U.S. and delivery time is typically three years.

Do you think Iran wouldn't or couldn't pull off such an attack? Think again.

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?"

The answer is simple: Replace the conventional warhead with a nuclear weapon and it's the exact launch and mission profile that would be used for an EMP attack. With their Shahab-3 boosters, all Iran would need to do is launch their missile from a freighter off the coast of the US in order to get a detonation over the central US. What's even worse is that we'd have only a few minutes warning from NORAD of the launch and there'd be little we could do about it except wait for the lights to go out.

While many of the military systems might survive such an attack, there would be little they could do, either. Unless Iran came right out and admitted they'd committed the attack or we otherwise had proof of their perfidy, the military wouldn't have a target to retaliate against. But if they did, about the only satisfaction we might have is to learn our military reduced Iran to radioactive slag.

Hardening our infrastructure to be resistant to EMP is something we must do if we are to take this particular weapon out of the hands of powers that have nothing but animosity towards the US. As a side effect, such hardening would also help protect our infrastructure from electrical and electronic disruption caused by massive solar flares. (A small consideration, but a beneficial one, nonetheless.)

It isn't only Iran we have to worry about. There are other antagonistic nations out there with nuclear capability that would love nothing better than to see America brought to its knees. But at the moment Iran appears to be the biggest threat in that regard.

Neo-neocon writes about the Republican/conservative "underground" in places like California's Marin County, where being a conservative can be the kiss of death for your business, career, and social life. While the ever more intolerant hypocritical leftist Democrats spout their vitriol filled dogma, conservatives must remain silent, otherwise they would become pariahs in their own home towns. Despite this, Neo exhorts conservatives living under those circumstances to come out into the light, to engage the unthinking emotion-driven leftists, to not cede them an inch when it comes to expressing one's own beliefs.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the plight of those such as Bookworm who are Republicans (or Independents, or at the very least non-liberals) living in mega-blue areas such as Marin County, and who choose to keep their mouths firmly shut about their politics for fear of social rifts.

The temptation to "pass" for liberal is very great. I understand; I do. I even feel your pain.

But I have come to believe that the costs of keeping silent are much greater than the costs of speaking up--both for Bookworm and her fellow closet Republicans, and for our country. And yes, even for her liberal friends.

It is the start down the slippery slope, where soon enough even the leftists will turn on their own for not being ideologically pure enough. There's certainly enough historical precedent to show where that path will lead.

Just when I thought the Leftists couldn't get any more brazen ( or stupid), they proved me wrong. The latest round of stupidity comes from the state of New Jersey, where Governor John Corzine signed a bill into law that forces each community to build affordable housing. Never mind market forces, never mind the plans the various towns and cities may have in regards to such housing, the Big Brother of the State of New Jersey has decided for the municipalities exactly what they'll build and how much of it they'll build.

It's central planning at it's worse, and we have plenty of examples just how poorly central planning works.

It is not the government's function to build housing, and local governments are supposed to be run by the people who live in the communities which elect them. The state has no business telling municipalities to build housing at all, much less "affordable" or "low income" housing.

It is nothing less than unadulterated socialism.

And that's the idea, isn't it? That has certainly been the trend in New Jersey since John Corzine became governor.

He helped sell the idea to the electorate that an income tax would create relief from the high property taxes people were paying in order to fund their schools. The income tax was enacted, the state started collecting those taxes, and property taxes went up. The monies collected through the income taxes went to fund programs other than education, giving the state government inordinate control over the peoples' money while saddling them with a heavier burden many can barely afford to pay. How many more social programs were created with those extra tax funds? Will any of those taxes go to build that affordable housing? Maybe. But you know if the state does provide such funding there will be strings attached to them that will end up costing any community foolish enough to apply for them into doing things the townspeople will have to pay for against their will. It's a slippery slope.

It may sound like making sure towns build affordable housing is a good idea. But who has better idea what's needed and where than the individual towns and cities?

We have a problem here in New Hampshire with the lack of affordable housing for the average wage earner. During the last housing boom most of the housing built was for upper-middle and upper income buyers. Not much was built for moderate or lower income families. There wasn't as much money to be made from building that kind of housing during the boom, so not all that much was built. I have no doubt the same was true in the other states.

While demand for the big houses has waned, there's an untapped demand for low and moderate income housing. Starter homes, whether stand alone or condominium style, could open another avenue for housing. There are plenty of people I know that would love to own their own home but have been priced out of the market, even with the declining home prices. They aren't looking for big houses with a three car garage and a couple of acres of land. They want a place that has a couple of bedrooms, one or two or one-and-a-half bathrooms, a kitchen, a living room, and maybe a dining room. That's not much, but it means a lot to a family if it's theirs.

But this is something that should be done by private industry, not by the government. This should be housing built to be purchased, not rented out and/or subsidized by local or state government. The towns know where it's needed. The towns know how much may be needed. This is something that should not be decided at the state level. It is not something that should be "centrally planned" by the state. The last thing any of us need is a government mandate to do something many people at the local level already want to do. We don't need the socialist agenda to tell us to do something we're already doing on our own, and doing it cheaper and better than "The State" could ever do it.

New Jersey has made a mistake, and I believe they will end up becoming yet another victim of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I don't know about you folks out there, but I am just about sick to death listening to all the doomsayers and nihilists, proclaiming that we're all doomed because [Enter favorite cause for predicted annihilation here]. There seem to be 30,000 different reasons why we're all gonna DIE. Don't any of these people talk to each other if for no other reason than to coordinate their doomsday scenarios? All any of this confusion does is panic people unnecessarily or exhausts them to the point where they stop listening, even if there is a 'good' reason to panic.

Me, I'm gonna pull the covers over my head and get some more shuteye.......

I linked to this WSJ opinion piece yesterday, but really should have dug into it a bit more than I did.

As Bret Stephens explains it, the true believers in anthropogenic global warming don't need proof or science or data, because they believe. They want it to be true. They need it to be true.

The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore - population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations - and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

These are the "watermelon" environmentalists - Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Any excuse to exert control over the great unwashed masses (that's you and me, folks) is just fine with them. If they can't sell outright overt socialism, then they can use global warming as a back door entry into the lives of the world's population.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Hmm. Where have we heard this line of reasoning before? Could it be from folks like the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other militant fundamental religious cults of a number of faiths? They want us to return a few centuries into the past, eschewing the modern conveniences all in the name of saving the earth. But it wouldn't surprise me that they would exempt themselves from such restrictions because they would need much of that technology to keep an eye on the rest of us, right? Of course it would also mean we would then fall prey to illnesses and diseases we rarely see anymore because the means to treat them would be against God's will...except for them, of course.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

This last one ties in closely with the second one, and makes me wonder what our ancestors from 100 or 200 years ago would say about this foolishness.

I have little doubt the Founding Fathers would be walking around dope-slapping the lot of these AGW believers. They would see it for the foolishness it is, as would anyone from back then. This need to 'voluntarily' dismantle a society based solely upon an over-hyped and unproven theory would be seen for what it is: stupidity.

In response to this post about anthropogeneic global warming, a commenter suggested I visit their blog and read their take on the issue of global warming. It is something I could have responded to immediately, but decided to hold off for a short while in order to gather my counter to the 'fact' of AGW.

My biggest problem with the whole AGW claim is that we are solely responsible for the climate change over the past 150 years or so, with too many of the so-called 'warmists' using temperature recordings over that period to prove what's happening and that it's all our fault. They conveniently ignore the previous 850 years of climate during which the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred. During the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 700 through 1300 A.D.) global temperatures were warmer than they are today. The old canard about Leif Erikson conning Viking settlers to Greenland by calling it "Greenland" was disproved years ago. Greenland was actually green, with a temperate climate not unlike New England or the northern Mid-Atlantic states of today. It wasn't until the Little Ice Age descended upon mankind around 1300 A.D that Greenland became a cold and inhospitable place to live. The settlers finally had to abandon their homes when agriculture was no longer possible and fishing was too poor to sustain them.
 
How do we know this? Part of it is in written records kept by the Norse and part by archaeological research at the sites of the settlements, showing hundreds of years of agricultural work done by the settlers of the kind only possible in a temperate climate.
 
Looking back even farther in the past one must take into account the Roman Warm Period, when there was a lengthy time of well above 'average' temperatures. It was even warm enough for vineyards in northern England/southern Scotland. (The Romans never really tamed the rest of Scotland. The Picts saw to that.) Some vineyards were also prevelent during the Medieval Warm Period, but not to the extent seen during the earlier Roman Period.
 
Work done by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute has postulated a direct tie in with the solar activity during those two periods as well as the cold periods between them and from the Medieval Warm Period and today. There are those who disagree with Svensmark's conclusions, but also plenty of climatologists that see there is something to Svensmark's theory.
 
I think my biggest problem is that too many are more than willing to ascribe climate change to a single cause, particularly the AGW proponents. Far too many people on both sides of the debate are willing to cast aside data or additional theories that are in direct conflict with their beliefs or try to minimize factors that may have as great or even greater affect on climate.
 
One chart used by my erstwhile commenter shows changes in the CO₂ and changes in temperatures. Does anyone else notice the same things I did?
 
First, it shows a somewhat regular cycle from the beginning of the chart to the end. Second, it shows both increases and decreases in both CO₂ levels and temperatures. What is driving those cycles? It sure as heck isn't likely to be human activity, is it? Obviously not. Could it possibly be driven by the sun's change in activity in a combination of the 11 year, 23 year, and 178 year solar cycles?
 
Regardless of the mechanisms driving climate charge - warming or cooling - there's far too much hysteria out there making debate difficult, if not impossible. The AGW folks seem to driven to neurosis, their cause taking on the characteristics of obsession, or worse, a religious cult.

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited.
 
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
 
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

This WSJ opinion piece goes on to claim that too much of the environmental/climate change movement has been hijacked by those with a political or ideological ax to grind, leaving the actual scientists out of the debate, except for those who are willing to trade their scientific objectivity for personal gain, political or monetary. (Let's face it, there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars out there for grants and research, particularly if you'll use the money to prove climate change, specifically warming, is All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans™. That's one hell of an incentive.

Will Congress actually do something about energy prices, or will they continue making bleating noises while pointing fingers, and in the end, accomplish nothing? Unfortunately it appears the former is more likely than the latter. At least on Republican knows this and is trying to do something about it.

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) brings up some interesting points about what's really needed, reminding us of what's come before and how little has changed over the years since the last energy crunch.

I remember the oil spikes of 1973, 1980 and 1990. Time and circumstances may have changed, but families and small businesses in New Hampshire feel it just the same. Higher prices for heating oil, gas, and propane drain budgets and hurt the economy. This challenge, like those past, can and must be overcome.

While the date has changed, the proposals from the far left have not: Increase energy taxes, start a lawsuit, ignore the potential of nuclear power, and above all, oppose all new production of American oil and gas.

And to top it off, they'll try to convince us it's for our own good, but not actually get around to explaining why, other than to say we wouldn't understand. I guess that shows us what it is they think of the rest of us. You know...the un-enlightened. Never mind that most of the so-called un-enlightened are far more intelligent than they are because we actually understand the problems most of us face and know how to solve them without the help of the government and, most important, without them.
 
Maybe it's time to give them a dose of reality.

On more than one occasion I've had people ask me bout the use of certain phrases or words used by the Left when it came to them describing an event or the actions with which the Left agrees or disagrees. Far too often they'll use terms that sound like they mean one thing when they really mean something entirely different. It was while reading this comment to this post on Just One Minute that I found just what was needed.

At some point there needs to be an English-Leftist dictionary so that you can look up words and phrases used by the Left and find the conventional meaning of them.

Such a dictionary would help lessen the confusion when reading a diatribe or holding a one-sided "conversation" with a Lefty blogger, politician, or brainwashed drone.
I'm willing to give it a try, starting with a few of the more overused terms or phrases that fall from the lips of the anointed. Feel free to add a few of your own, or if need be, pull a few from George Orwell's 1984.

"Progressive" - this term sounds like it means the idea or the person(s) are for making progress on social and economic issues. Unfortunately this term often means the opposite, with Progressives usually standing for reversing two centuries of progress made in political and economic freedom in favor of their idea of freedom, which usually means the freedom to hold one's tongue should you disagree with them.

"Freedom" - Anything but. The Left believes the average person is incapable for making their own decision, therefore they will make them for you, "freeing" you from the burden.

"Free Speech" - You can say anything you want....as long as you agree with them. Otherwise, shut up.

"Fascist" - Anyone disagreeing with Progressive ideals, particularly Republicans and libertarians.

"Nazi" - See Fascist.

"Political Correctness" - An idea or thought that meets the approval of Progressives.

"Politically Correct Speech" - a more modern term for NewSpeak, a term coined in Orwell's 1984, which removes any negative connotation or terms from the language. It's purpose is to ensure that Progressive ideas cannot be described in anything but positive terms, even if the idea engenders horrors not seen since the Holocaust or the Inquisition.

"ChimpyMcBushHitler" - a rather poor attempt at satire by the Left, showing they really have no sense of humor at all.

"Obscene Profits" - profit of any kind is bad, therefore all profits are obscene. These obscenities are easily cured by taxing them out of existence.

"Rich" - anyone with a job making more than minimum wage.

"Racist" - any white male, particularly if he is a Republican. Men and women of other races cannot, by definition, be racists, even when they are.

"Multiculturalism" - placing other cultures before American/Western cultures, even those odious misogynist theocratic tyrannies who believe freedom is just a word in the dictionary.

"Green" - adheres to the AlGorista dogma that all climate change (warming or cooling) is All-Our-Fault. Has nothing to do with real environmentalism.

These are just a few of the terms and definitions I was able to come up with on the spur of the moment. There must be hundreds of others just as twisted and misdirecting as the few I've listed above. Feel free to contribute any you may have come across.