Year: 2011

Bill Maher Using Heat Index as an Actual Temp (Language Warning)~Biofuels MAY Be Behind Heat Index

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters has this critique of Bill Maher… good stuff!

….Not so funny was how Maher was doing exactly what Limbaugh spoke about Wednesday:

Part of the Cause
Meteorologists have determined that large fields of corn raise the dew points in surrounding areas because corn “sweats” on hot days.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: They’re playing games with us on this heat wave again. Even Drudge is getting sucked in here, gonna be 116 in Washington. No, it’s not. It’s gonna be like a hundred. Maybe 99. The heat index, manufactured by the government, to tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there, 116. When’s the last time the heat index was reported as an actual temperature? It hasn’t been, but it looks like they’re trying to get away with doing that now. Drudge is just linking to other people reporting it, he’s not saying it, I don’t want you to misunderstand, but he’s linking to stories which say 116 degrees in Washington. No. It’s what, a hundred, 97, 99. It’s gonna top out at 102, 103. It does this every year. There’s a heat dome over half the country, the Midwest, it’s moving east. And it happens every summer.

Indeed. Maher likely got this 123 figure from a CNN.com piece reporting such a heat index in Hutchinson, Minnesota, Tuesday.

If folks like him were honest, they would first make clear that heat index is not temperature. It’s temperature including the impact humidity has on it.

And that’s the real news this week that global warming obsessed media members have downplayed – record humidity.

As Conservation Minnesota reported Wednesday:

Tuesday evening, around the dinner hour, the dew point at Moorhead reached 87.8 F, making this the most humid reporting station on the planet. The heat index peaked at an almost incomprehensible 134 F. at Moorhead.

Yet, as Minnesota Public Radio reported Wednesday, it was only 93 F when that record-breaking heat index was recorded in Moorhead.

What was responsible then? As the Bemidji Pioneer reported Saturday, it was the unprecedented humidity:

Meteorologists have determined that large fields of corn raise the dew points in surrounding areas because corn “sweats” on hot days. When the humid air mass that originated over the Gulf of Mexico passed over the sea of green that is Iowa, sweating corn likely added to the humidity levels.

…(read more)…

I found this VERY funny!, WHY? I will tell you why… renewable fuel!

Cause of the Problem
Farmers are replacing wheat fields with corn to meet the demand for alternative fuel

Starvation Station (2-29-08)

“Farmers are replacing wheat fields with corn to meet the demand for alternative fuel, but that means higher flour prices – and in one Pennsylvania pizza shop, more expensive pies,” NBC News correspondent Chris Jansing said on the February 27 “NBC Nightly News.”

Perhaps no one drew a stronger correlation between the politics of alternative energy and the rise in inflation than Jim Cramer in a February 27 interview with Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) on his CNBC show “Mad Money.”

Enviro-Nuts! (4-16-08)

Ethanol is killing children around the world… Democrats! It takes 450lbs of Corn to fill one SUV tank… that is a years worth of food for a child.

Ethanol Worse than Gas – Sorry Greenies! (4-24-07)

  • Research found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others — formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
  • As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline; However, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.
  • The simulations revealed that E85 would increase ozone-related mortalities by about 4 percent in the United States and 9 percent in Los Angeles.
  • In addition, the deleterious health effects of E85 will be the same, whether the ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products.

”Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol,” Jacobson said. ”But we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter.”

Source: “Ethanol Vehicles A Health Hazard,” Science A Go Go, April 18, 2007.

And finally, an old post at NewsBusters dated 8-20-07. I would be remiss not to mention Walter Williams post on the subject, Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax

New Study Recommends Against Burning Biofuels to Solve Global Warming

By Noel Sheppard | August 20, 2007

A new study published in the journal Science last Friday concluded that the continued burning of oil-related energy products combined with the planting of additional forests is better for the environment than the manufacture and use of biofuels such as ethanol.

In fact, the authors suggested that governments across the globe move away from biofuels as a global warming solution completely, and instead focus moneys and energies on reforestation and increasing the efficiencies involved with the burning of fossil fuels.

Of course you didn’t hear about this because no major American press outlet thought it was newsworthy despite media’s fascination with anthropogenic global warming.

Fortunately, several British outlets covered this interesting study, including the Guardian (emphasis added):

Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.

Biofuels – petrol and diesel extracted from plants – are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.

The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.

New Scientist elaborated (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

The reason is that producing biofuel is not a “green process”. It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make “green” fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – “it’s essentially a zero-sums game,” says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon footprint of biofuel – or is it?).

What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane. “When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare],” says Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve rainforests.

Any questions as to why American media will ignore this study? Well, there’s more:

Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK, calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial emissions by burning biofuel instead of gasoline. The answer is between 50 and 100 years. “We cannot afford that, in terms of climate change,” says Righelato.

The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on the land instead of gasoline.

They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline (see bar chart, right). “You get far more carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by producing biofuels on the same land,” says Righelato.

How’s that for an inconvenient truth? Or this:

He and Spracklen conclude that if the point of biofuels policies is to limit global warming, “policy makers may be better advised in the short term to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food.”

Something to bear in mind is that Righelato is not a climate change skeptic. Far from it. He’s the Trustees Chairman of the international conservation charity known as World Land Trust which “has been working to preserve the world’s most biologically important and threatened lands, and has helped purchase and protect over 350,000 acres of habitats rich in wildlife, in Asia, Central and South America and the UK.”

Furthermore, this organization’s chief patron is Sir David Attenborough who is widely considered to be one of the fathers of the television nature documentary.

As such, these are greens through and through who just don’t feel biofuels are the answer to the problem. In fact, the Guardian quotes Righelato:

“Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications…It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels.”

…(read more)…

Norways Oklahoma~What are some past examples that would cause one to question the Christian Fundamentalist Label in this case (92-Dead)~SEE UPDATES!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Deeper Thinking Here at RPT
“The progressive sees racism and other evils as stages to move beyond; they are national problems to be solved, not human problems to be guarded against and punished. In fact, these evils are often made possible by the odd progressive belief that man will stop being bad if he is no longer restricted from being bad.” Dale A. Berryhill, The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy (Lafayette LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1995), 31.

Photobucket

I would be interested to hear and see more of what this young man was into. I have been told by many, for years now, that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist. This is not the truth. So if “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” as the Left like to always say. Couldn’t “one man’s Christian Fundamentalist be another’s radical cult member?” First, from the AP:

SUNDVOLLEN, Norway (AP) — The 32-year-old man [Anders Behring Breivik] suspected in bomb and shooting attacks that killed at least 91 people in Norway bought six tons of fertilizer before the massacres, the supplier said Saturday as police investigated witness accounts of a second shooter.

Norway’s prime minister and royal family visited grieving relatives of the scores of youth gunned down in a horrific killing spree on an idyllic island retreat. A man who said he was carrying a knife was detained by police officers outside the hotel, as the shell-shocked Nordic nation was gripped by reports that Norwegian gunman may not have acted alone.

The suspect in police custody – a blonde blue-eyed Norwegian with reported Christian fundamentalist, anti-Muslim views – is suspected in both the shootings at Utoya island and a massive explosion that ripped through an Oslo high-rise building housing the prime minister’s office two hours earlier, killing seven people. He has been preliminarily charged with acts of terrorism.

Oddny Estenstad, a spokeswoman for agricultural material supplier Felleskjopet, confirmed Saturday that the suspect in custody purchased six tons of fertilizer 10 weeks ago. Artificial fertilizer is highly explosive and can be used in homemade bombs…..

Firstly, Christian means Christ like. A fundamentalist Christian takes what Jesus said to be literal truth (the Bible, Jesus’ Resurrection, creation, and the like). So

John 18:33-38:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

So what would a fundamentalist say of this verse? This is not to say that one should not defend oneself against attacks or criminals, it is to say however that actions of violence toward a political end — like saving what many thought was their political leader prophesied about in the past — is forbidden. There are, however, liberal fundamentalists that like to rip from a historical time-period an event in the Old Testament where the Hebraic agrarian society [farmers] have to defend themselves against people (the Assyrians for instance) that would fillet their enemies alive and display their mangled corpses as a warning to those who opposed them. These liberal fundamentalists extrapolate that violence they perceive as unjust onto all Christian fundamentalists as normative. Please. But I ingress.

So what are a few things already making my head tilt? The Telegraph has this:

On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down. Police chief Svinung Sponheim said that internet posting by Breivik suggested he has “some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views”.

I know of no conservative Christian that would be keen on Freemasons. In fact, most Christians have wild eyed conspiracies involving this gnostic sect. Continuing they say,

Police officials have also said that the suspect appeared to have posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies.

What does this sentence mean? Do they consider Christian Identity or KKK type sites, Christian fundamentalism? More info will come out, I am sure… but this is what I am use to (and most of this comes from my old blog under the tag, Crazed Gunmen Bios). And please keep in mind the following which was believed around the time of all these happenings:

And also keep in mind the tendency of the media:

The media called John Patrick Bedell, the Pentagon Shooter, a right-winger, probably a Tea Party member. However, one can rightly as what Tea Partier would believe the following:

 

  • – Shoot at the Pentagon and hate the military?
  • – Are registered Democrats?
  • – Hate George Bush and the whole Bush family?
  • – Think 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims but by Republicans?
  • – Grow and smoke marijuana?
  • – Read left-wing anti-Bush books?
  • – Are anti-war?
  • – Talk about “economic justice”?
  • – Think the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were not merely mistakes but were part of a government conspiracy?

The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken. Not your typical Tea Party member, eh? Or, there was Joseph “the bomber” Stack. Another immediate member of the Tea Party (hence a conservative and/or Christian) according the media almost immediately after the attack. Interestingly enough, his written manifesto lines up well with Michael Moore movies.

 

  • Anti-health care system= Sicko
  • Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
  • Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One
(lots of debate here at the above quotes source) For a well thought out story string of stories, see Verum Serum’s insights: Here, here, as well as the excerpt you see here:
One – Joe Stack was a liberal. As I pointed out recently, Stack:

 

  • Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
  • Hates Big Pharma
  • Hates Big Insurance
  • Hates GM executives
  • Hates organized religion
  • Refers favorably to communism
  • And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

…(read more)…

Another person said to be a Christian Fundamentalist was James von Brunn, the Holocaust museum shooter. This first part is a post I did on him that counters fundamentalism:

Now isn’t this fascinating. James von Brunn , the white-supremacist suspect in the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He’s obsessed with “genetics.” He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America. (Here’s the PDF version of Von Brunn’s “manifesto.”)

This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162)

One must keep in mind that this militant atheism is harmful and needs to be countered with Biblical principles. For instance, one article points out the following:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” (G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30)

From another post of mine:

While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates,

 

  • Rupert Murdoch
  • Fox News
  • George W. Bush
  • John McCain
  • Weekly Standard
  • Iraq War
  • believed that 9/11 was an “inside job.”

Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson. It’s not Charles Lindbergh’s Republican Party any more. And it hasn’t been for more than a half-century. But don’t tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN.

I need to point out here that most violence comes from the Left. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc., were all trying to find violence at Tea Parties, even the signs people carried were less violent than union or Democratic political marches. When violence was found to be done in the name of Islam, hosts would say they wished it was from a Tea Party member, or, after realizing many blacks supported the Tea Party, they even manufactured racism when they couldn’t find any!

(Much of the “violence” politically tuned is from the Left [see here, and here]):

(On this next video, watch your volume level)

UPDATE, he does seem very Christian (minus the violence and belonging to a Gnostic organization)… here are his own writings, translated (thanks to Reason.com). Much of it could be written by a conservative commentator, minus the violence:

UPDATE

The Other McCain has some good UPDATES

From the BBC (via The Other McCain):

Mr Breivik was a member of a Swedish neo-Nazi internet forum called Nordisk, according to Expo, a Swedish group monitoring far-right activity.

Here we get a definition forming of “Christian” Fundementalist. B.S.!

ALSO ~ Libertariam Republican is up to dat with the UPDATES!!

 

Also from LR:

Anders Behring Breivik might prove to be less of a conservative, and more of a populist.

This from FoxNews Twin Cities:

“He recently claimed that politics today was not about socialism vs. capitalism but nationalism vs. internationalism.”

Blogger Doug Sanders has contacts in Norway. They have offered a rough translation of some “collective writings” on the internet of Anders Behring Breivik.

There are some references to libertarians and conservatives which could be interpreted as him expressing positive viewpoints on both groups. At one point he even mentions the US Tea Party.

However, there’s also this passage which suggests that he may have been more socially conservative yet economically left-liberal, i.e. Populist.

From DougSanders.net:

The main axis is the economy and culture. They were right-wing culturally but leftwing economically. Liberals like of course to tag them as right wing as well as anti-socialists refer to them as leftextreme.

The third axis authoritarian vs liberal is inappropriate to use as a marker.

Quite bizarrely, he seems to have a knowledge of American politics, and at one point makes the statement “a Republican in the U.S. is a libertarian…”

…(read more)…

 

Philosopher Glenn Peoples Discusses Science, God, and the New Atheist (Serious Saturday)

Published by Papa Giorgio

If you want to hear a debate with the above man, here is the synopsis:

Torturing children for fun – is that absolutely wrong?

The Moral Argument for God states that there are such things as objective moral facts, and that objective moral facts must have an immaterial source – namely God.  Therefore God Exists… Simple right?

However, atheist Cambridge Philosopher Arif Ahmed disagrees with the first two premises.  He debates with New Zealand’s Christian philosopher Glenn People’s on whether the argument proves the existence of God.

So, are moral beliefs nothing more than our “preferences”? What do we do with the intuition that certain things are absolutely wrong?  Are atheists who affirm moral facts but deny God, being inconsistent?

The MP3 file is here.