Climate Change and Ignorance

As much as I respect science too often it is the science media that makes scientists look like idiots and scientific research silly. Look at the following from sciencedaily.com.

The third sentence of the article states: ”To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius.”

For this sentence to make any sense whatsoever three unstated assumptions would have to be true. First the temperature of the globe was constant until the industrial revolution; second the industrial revolution started in 1900; and third that there are no other factors to be considered.

All three assumptions are false.

The full quote from the article is below:

If CO2 emissions are halved by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be stabilised below two degrees. This is shown by two studies by a co-operation of German, Swiss and British researchers in the journal Nature.

To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius. Although, according to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no specific temperature threshold for dangerous climate changes, and the negative effects are gradually increasing, over one hundred countries have adopted this “2°C target”. Scientists have used a new probability model to calculate how much CO2 our atmosphere tolerates under these target specifications. This and another study2, recently published in Nature, produced similar results: From 2000 to 2050, a maximum of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 may be emitted into the atmosphere. Roughly speaking, today, around one third of this wad has already been shot.

Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming

Hmmm. I guess these researchers, writers, and editors convenietly forgot that the earth has been around for a while and that life -- including mammalian life and primate life -- has thrived with CO2 levels far higher than what exists today.

Aphorisms

ALL UPDATES WILL BE AT
Classical Liberal Aphorisms

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

Man is not free unless government is limited.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

We the people tell the government what to do; It doesn't tell us.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

If you want something done, assign one person to the task. If you don't care if something gets done, assign two people to the job. If you absolutely do not want something to be done, assign it to a commitee.

Reclaim The Name

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important
They don’t mean to do harm
But the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
T. S. Eliot

coming soon - sorry folks, but I do have a job :-)

A New Spirit of Sacrifice: Obama

“It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.” — President-Elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist

Right to ones own body - abortion

I find few, if any, liberals believe in the right to one’s own body. Oh yes they mention it with great enthusiasm when it comes to abortion but if one tries to apply it anywhere else they run from it.

OBAMA'S FUNDAMENTAL DISLIKE OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Transcript (to the best of my ability and time constraints)

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had this same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and it to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Notice that he refers to the constitution in the past tense. To me this is the scariest and most disturbing aspect of this statement. What is the fundamental flaw of the US Constitution that continues to this day? Certainly not slavery that was taken care of with the 13th Ammendment.
 
I think it has everything to do with the fact that it is a pro-individual document which limits the power's of the government  and hinders the quick restructuring of society. Obama, I feel, is in love with the concept of the power of the state as a force for good and thinks that the proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." does not apply to him or other "forward-looking" progressives.

EDIT 10/28

I was bothered by Obama calling the US Constitution a "remarkable political document" but didn't fully flesh out my objections. I just read Kim Priestap's excellent post at the wizbangblog (October 27th).

Second, he calls the Constitution a "remarkable political document." I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way. The President of the United States is required to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. However, by listening to what Obama said in this interview and the 2001 interview that Steve posted earlier it's clear: he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/more-obama-audio-constitution-reflects-fundamental-flaw.php

Beautifully put.

That post led to another clip on Obama that I think ends once and for all any debate on what Obama means when he says that the constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Speaking of the Warren Court Obama said

"It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Anybody who thinks we have "positive" liberties -- an oxymoron in my opinion -- is a socialist. If you don't understand the above statement please read more philosophy and history books.

Hear Obama discussing the Warren Court below:

Obama and Iran

If Obama did say that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat to the US then it is hard to imagine how anybody could vote for him to be President of the United States. Such inane reasoning would be laughable in a State Senator. It is dismaying and repulsive in a US senator and would be dangerous beyond belief in a president.

This would be like saying in the 1930s that Japan and Germany weren't threats to the US because they were tiny countries.

It is true that the relative might of the US versus Iran is greater than the relative strengths of 1940 Japan and the US. Nonetheless we are not concerned about Iran launching traditional attacks on US soil. Iran is not going to send over its Air Force and bomb US cities. However there can be a co-ordinated series of attacks (snipers, bombs, suicide attacks and the like) by infiltrated Iranian soldiers.