 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG
You can write to me at
blog2-at-tallrite-dot-com |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| “Ill-informed and Objectionable” Comment by an anonymous reader | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For some reason, this site displays better in Internet Explorer than in Mozilla Firefox | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
March 2008 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #173 - 24th March 2008 [476+1250=1726]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global Warm-mongers Keep on Scamming Let's pretend there is an argument, about science say, which is funded by interested parties on both sides. The opponents manage to gather a tidy sum - $19 million - to carry out research and demonstrate that they are the ones who are right. But the proponents collect, from governments, the UN, industry, foundations and other sources, no less than $50 bn - yes, billion - ie 2,600 times more.
These are interesting questions, and not hypothetical. For those $19m/$50bn figures are the sums raised globally to rebut and support, respectively, the case for man-made climate change. And that's according to the august US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, so the (unbelievable) figures should be believed. With that kind of disproportionate financial muscle, it is perhaps little wonder, then, that nearly all the media coverage, not to mention the majority of politicians, celebrities, industrialists, scientists and other worthies, choose to support the curious notion that six billion people in a tiny dot within the universe control the climate of that dot, to the exclusion of the contribution of that universe. By cosmic proportions, the sun is also a dot - albeit 333,000 times heavier than the earth - but as a permanent, massive, violent, nuclear explosion, it is the primary source of all our energy. Nevertheless, according to climate changeology cultists, the power of those six billion puny people to steer and control our climate is apparently even greater. How astonishing it is, therefore - and embarrassing for cultists - that measurements of climate change - and the associated physics - persistently fail to follow the cultists' script. Some reputable examples -
More than “fishy”, I'd say. For the “greenhouse effect” that “causes” man-made “global warming” does not stand up to the most rudimentary examination of the molecular physics involved. And you don't need to be a physicist to understand this. An Ångstrom is 10-10 metres long. Fundamental physics tells us that a molecule of carbon dioxide measures 2 Ångstroms across, and that in a 100% concentration at everyday temperature and pressure the molecules are spaced 33 Ångstroms apart. But the concentration of CO2 in air is less than half a percent, which places each one some 7,000 Ångstroms away from its neighbour (33/.005). And at an altitude of 5,000 metres, the air density is halved so the spacing is doubled to 14,000 Ångstroms. It is electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range, reflected off the earth's surface, which causes CO2 molecules to heat up. This is what constitutes the phenomenon people call the greenhouse effect, being CO2-induced global warming. Yet physics shows that only 8% of the infrared spectrum can actually do this; moreover it only actually excites a CO2 molecule when it manages to actually collide with it. Thus, CO2 can cause global warming only to the extent that just 8% of infrared rays - which themselves have no “width” - can hit targets 2 Ångstroms wide but spaced 7,000 Ångstroms apart. You don't have to be a physicist to see that this is a pretty long shot. But it gets worse. Of that half-percent in the atmosphere, human activity contributes only 3% (the rest of the CO2 comes overwhelmingly from the oceans, but also from things like volcanoes, rotting vegetation and, interestingly, gases emitted from both ends by animals). So, for the infrared rays to cause man-made global warming, 8% of them first have to bulls-eye onto the few (3% of ½%) man-made two-Ångstrom wide CO2 molecules. This calculates out (7,000/.03) that they are spaced a whopping 230,000 Ångstroms apart - and 460,000 Ångstroms at 5,000 metres elevation. If I pick up my But that is, essentially, High Priest Al Gore's hypothesis about the greenhouse effect - that those infrared bullets are colliding with minuscule yet vastly-spaced man-made CO2 molecules, so consistently that the earth is warming up. No wonder he screens out hostile questioners and audiences whenever he proselytises in public, and stays silent about atomic physics. James Peden has written a really excellent layman's guide to the relevant atomic physics, which Mr Gore would do well to study. So if the global warming hypothesis collapses at the first scrutiny of the science, not to mention the contradictory observed evidence, how on earth can Mr Gore be so worshiped that he has made himself into an Oscar-winning Nobel peace laureate multimillionaire, simply by giving the same “inconvenient [un]truth” lecture over and over again, for an appearance fee of $180,000? Well, we're back to David and Goliath: $50 billion trumps $19 million. The emperor may have no clothes, but the hordes still want to jump on the bandwagon that has all the filthy lucre. But enough of the metaphors and clichés. There are those who are ignorant or incurious of the facts. But there are also those who deliberately hide, disregard or obfuscate the facts. They are the global warm-mongers, led by Mr Gore and the IPCC, who should know better but choose to keep on scamming for the most dishonourable of reasons: money and fame. They will eventually learn that even they cannot alter the laws of physics.
Let Spectators Boycott Beijing Olympics The Irish Times
kindly printed a
column
by me Periodically, China hits the headlines because when faced with dissent, the approach of its illegitimate undemocratic Politburo and of that body's close friends is simply to kill a lot of awkward people and bystanders. Sufficient death and fear usually cause the trouble to subside. The last public occasion was last October when China looked on benignly whilst the undemocratic military junta that illegitimately rules Burma/Myanmar arrested, suppressed, tortured, killed and secretly cremated thousands of Burmese protesting against fuel increases, in the best traditions of Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Chinese Politburo's other ongoing crimes include
The latest Tibet crimes are part of an ongoing pattern that began when mega-murderer Mao Tse Tung sent in the Red Army in 1950/51 to steal - or as he would have it “liberate” - Tibet from, well, the Tibetans. And having taken control, the Chinese politburo for the next five decades have systematically used military might and terror to
Simultaneously, it has fostered massive immigration of ethnic Han and other Chinese settlers so as to dilute the Tibetans. To further promote this nefarious cause, the politburo recently opened a $4 billion thousand-kilometre direct railway from Beijing which snakes sometimes 5,000 metres high till it gets to the faraway Tibetan capital of Lhasa. This admittedly outstanding engineering feat is entirely uneconomic and has nothing to do with trade or tourism, but everything to do with making colonisation easier and if needed bringing in troops and police quickly. As a result of immigration, Tibetans have now become a besieged, discriminated-against minority in their own country, much as the Koran demands that infidels become dhimmis in Sharia-ruled lands. So the surprise is, perhaps, not that sometimes - such as this month - Tibetans rise up in anguish, but that they don't do it more frequently. On the other hand, faced with the Politburo's brutal crack-downs and vengeance, I don't suppose I would dare stand up very often either. Human rights will not improve by much until there is regime-change within China.
So what can ordinary people do to express their disapproval with the behaviour of the Chinese thugs in a manner that might encourage better conduct? Not much. But not nothing. The Beijing Olympics represent a unique opportunity to apply pressure, though not by way of a conventional boycott by participating countries. The boycotts of Moscow (1980) and Los Angeles (1984) punished the athletes yet had absolutely no influence on the offending country - the USSR for invading Afghanistan and the USA for revenge. The respective games were still great successes. As I have argued previously and else-where, there is another much more democratic way. The games should go ahead as planned, but it is the spectators who should be doing the boycotting, in their droves. From the perspective of the Chinese politburo, nothing could be worse than TV pictures, beamed across the world, of empty stadiums whilst the contests proceed, and everyone knowing why. This would be the ultimate, unthinkable humiliation for the leadership in China, where “face” is such an important part of national culture, history and psyche. And it would be made grimmer by the knowledge that no Government had done it; just ordinary free people with honourable principles. If the Chinese become convinced that a popular boycott of the Beijing Olympics is in serious danger of happening, they will move heaven and earth to prevent it. Otherwise, they will continue happily supporting fellow-dictators in Burma and Sudan, suppressing Tibetans and their culture and routinely harvesting transplant organs from healthy Falun Gongers. Each of us potential Olympic spectators has a personal choice. I have cancelled my own plans to attend.
Jews Annoyed at Catholic Prayers The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of formalised prayers, in Latin, that have been said through the centuries, though these days they're usually recited in the vernacular. I am sure other churches and religions also do, but as a Catholic I only know about our own. They reach a climax during Holy Week, the highlight of the religious calendar, which this year fell on 17th to 23rd March. The solemn service practised on Good Friday, which commemorates the actual Crucifixion, includes prayers drawn up during the 17th century, in which God's favour is sought for a hierarchy of people: the Pope, state rulers, those studying to become Catholics, actual Catholics, the unification of Christianity, Jews, other non-Christians, atheists, civil servants (yes!) and finally the oppressed. Here's the prayer for Jews, as recently tinkered with (translations vary):
This has suddenly enraged the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo di Segni, who complains that it is “an explicit declaration of [the Church's] desire that the Jews accept Jesus”. The rabbi is obviously a fast learner. He also thinks it shows “lack of respect” for the Jewish faith. Rabbi David Rosen, Chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations agrees, saying it represents a “regression” on relations between Catholics and Jews. They protest too much. By all means, anyone can dismiss the Catholic faith as being anachronistic, false, the anti-Christ, devil-worship or just plain wrong. But such people in turn need to recognize - albeit without agreeing - that Catholics believe that theirs is the one and only true faith, established by God through the agency of his Son whom he sent to earth two thousand years ago, and who in turn urged his followers to proselytise the world. Pejorative and malign as that word sometimes sounds to contemporary ears, proselytisation is in fact a great act of love to your fellow man if you believe you are showing him God's chosen route to Heaven. That prayer is absolutely, and unapologetically, a call for Jews to abandon Judaism and become Catholics. For Catholics to urge otherwise would be to say that Jews should be abandoned to their (post-mortem) fate in the knowledge that God will not be well pleased. In an age of resurgent and virulent anti-Semitism, both overt (think Hamas, Iran et al) and covert (whispers about neo-con conspirators such as Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle), you would think that prominent Jews would be glad that Catholics genuinely and benignly care about their eternal welfare, however (in their view) mistakenly. They represent one less enemy to contend with. Surely their Rabbis have more pressing things to worry about, such as the very survival of the Jewish race under credible threats of nuclear genocide.
Petrol/Gasoline Prices Around the World Crude Oil is currently selling for around $100/barrel, or $2.38 per US gallon. Refining costs brings the cost of petrol/gasoline to about $2.80 per gallon excluding transportation, handling, marketing and profit. The difference between cost of providing the customer with the product and the price he/she pays for it is the government tax, or in some cases subsidies. A year ago, these figures were roughly half what they are today. It is interesting to see what your car fuel would have cost you then in different cities around the world. Anything less than $1½ a gallon represents a state subsidy.
Clearly, Venezuela's the place to fill up your car and your boat.
- - - - - - - - - - J I H A D - - - - - - - - - - Quote: “The attack at the yeshiva was a barbaric murder of eight children who were engaged in religious study ... This odious and inhuman terror attack exemplifies the extremist and inhuman path of the terror organizations Hamas and Hizbullah ... There is no link between a murderous terrorist act and the inadvertent killing of civilians in response to the firing of rockets by Hamas.”
Incredibly and creditably, this was how Quote: “If the terror stops, if the Qassams stop landing on residents of Sderot and if Grads stop landing on Ashkelon... Israel will have no reason to fight the terror organizations there.... We will have no reason to retaliate.”
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert states the obvious.
Even the Egyptian press is reporting this.
Interestingly, Mahmoud Abbas
says that Quote: “We decided [my wife] Nadia should go out first, with [our] baby – they would be less likely to shoot her. Now my first photo of my smiley baby is when she is dead.”
Gaza taxi-driver Mohammed Abu Asser
Israel had issued a warning to evacuate the house
The way he recounts the incident to a foreign reporter, - - - - - - - - - - U S A - - - - - - - - - - Quote: “God damn America!”
Rev Jeremiah Wright, Senator Barack Obama's
pastor
Mr Obama, who claims to be a habitué of the
Church
Mr Obama describes Rev Wright as his
“pastor”,
Quote: “If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. If he was a woman (of any colour) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Geraldine Ferraro, Democratic vice-presidential
nominee
Of course she herself would never have been
selected
She was working on Hillary Clinton's campaign,
Quote:
“I have acted in a way that violated the obligations
to my
New York governor Eliot Spitzer,
He had been very proud, when he was New York's attorney general, - - - - - - - - - - F R A N C E - - - - - - - - - - Quote: “France [has] essentially Christian roots ... A man who believes is a man who hopes. And the interest of the Republic is for there to be many men and women who hope ... In the transmission of values and in the teaching of the difference between good and evil, the schoolteacher will never be able to replace the priest or the pastor.”
President Nicolas Sarkozy enrages - - - - - - - - - - R U G B Y - - - - - - - - - - Quote: “[The] Ireland [rugby team] are desperately in need of a Kidney transplant, a Matt gloss, a White wash or a Howard's way.”
Rugby correspondent Gerry Thornley wittily laments
That he remained until this month in his job,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See the Archive and Blogroll at top left and right, for your convenience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click here for PDF Version of Issue #172 (213kb) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Its title, “50 years later, CND is still on the march in a nuclear world”, aptly and with unintended irony, summarises CND’s principal, if not only, achievement: that, like the Duracell bunny, it just keeps on marching. For, whilst the article attempts to show what a force for good CND has been over the past half-century, it blithely and innocently recounts a litany of failure and irrelevance. Principal among these is that, despite CND’s relentless efforts, no country has actually abandoned its nuclear arms and ambitions, except for two. South Africa did so as part of its disavowal of Apartheid, and Libya because its president feared America after Saddam was toppled. CND had nothing to do with it. Indeed, the list of nuclear states has ratcheted up under CND’s watch from just three (the US, Soviet Union and Britain) to nine (France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea), with Iran and Syria desperately trying to join the expanding club, and perhaps also Venezuela through the Ahmadinejad/Chavez rapport. Contrast this non-performance with a couple of other iconic do-good drives, whose resounding victories made them effectively redundant.
I remember the young CND from my teenage years, because of its annual four-day Easter march of protest from London to Aldermaston, home of Britain’s Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, which happened to be very close to my boarding school. I didn’t understand what they were fussing about about then, and frankly, I still don’t. But Canon Comerford reminds me that CND was backed by very many luminaries of the day, including JB Priestley, Kingsley Martin, Bertrand Russell, AJP Taylor and assorted church leaders. And yet, decades of annual Aldermaston marches, of which the last was in 2004, had no effect at all on the AWRE, which is still operating happily. Meanwhile, CND sponsored numerous protests, court cases, debates etc in Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and in other countries throughout the 1960s and 1970s, which likewise had precisely zero effect on Britain’s nuclear policies (and those of America, France, China etc). As if CND did have something to do with it, however, Canon Comerford points out that the Soviets removed their missiles and nuclear warheads from Cuba in 1962. Yet this was not because of CND but because they were afraid America would nuke the Kremlin if they didn’t. Similarly, the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the subsequent arms reduction treaties were signed by the Americans and Soviets not due to CND but because of the mutual fear of nuclear attack and annihilation. Paradoxically, the existence of nuclear weapons was itself a reason to reduce them.
CND were invigorated in the 1980s when, to counter the
Soviets’ deployment of nuclear-armed SS-20s in its Eastern Europe vassal
states, aimed at Western Europe, the US deployed
Pershing and Cruise nuclear missiles in Britain and West Germany.
This
gave rise to the never-ending,
*I have toned down the original adjectives which were unnecessarily gratuitous and ungallant. The target of the ladies’ ire was - incredibly - America and Britain, rather than the baleful Soviet enemy that had already swallowed half of Europe and now wanted the other half. The women were backed up by massive protests in London, some addressed by Canon Comerford himself. But, once again, it was all for naught. The missiles stayed; and eventually the rotten and corrupt Evil Empire began simply to collapse in 1990 under the sheer economic weight and madness of trying to outgun and outnuclearise the US. In everything that it has ever done, CND has found itself on the wrong side of the argument and been comprehensively defeated. Canon Comerford claims a CND success in that the Pershing and Cruise missiles were eventually removed in 1991, which he thinks proves that “the nuclear arms race can be reversed at any stage”. It proves no such thing, as the Soviet threat had disappeared by then so the Pershings and Cruises were no longer needed. Rather, it demonstrates that wars, in this case the Cold War between the US and the USSR, can be won by the superior side, which fortunately was America. That is the only reason the nuclear arms race ceased. As usual, CND had nothing to do with it. In fact you can argue that CND prolonged it, by encouraging the Soviets to think that the West was irresolute and would never fight back.
CND would be better off thanking God for the USA and its nuclear arsenal.
For without American arms, soldiery and backbone, not only would the
Japanese empire not have been crushed and then democratised. Neither
would Nazi Germany. And democracy would not have been restored across
West (and – eventually – Eastern) Europe, and without American troops and
(nuclear) missiles stationed in Europe the Soviet Empire would not have been
kept at bay and eventually caused to implode. This created the space for
the Europeans to rebuild, to work together, to construct the EU, and since
America took care of their defence against the Soviets, left spare cash to
You would have thought CND would be delighted at such beneficent outcomes, even if they were achieved via means that CND disdains. It’s not, of course, and still the Duracell CND Bunny marches on. Canon Comerford tells us that nowadays CND worries
The one thing he can’t bring himself to mention is the existential nuclear threat of the moment: namely, Iran’s efforts to acquire a bomb in order, in President Ahmadinejad’s words, to wipe Israel from the map, thereby completing the Holocaust that he (ie President Ahmadinejad, certainly not the Canon) denies ever happened. CND’s website is typically mealy-mouthed: “CND opposes both the use of force against Iran and any acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities by Iran,” even relegating Iran’s nuclear threat to second place. Moreover, as far as I can tell its is planning no mass rallies to the Iranian Embassy in London or elsewhere. But it’s all irrelevant anyway. One thing is sure: CND will persist in having absolutely no effect whatsoever on any of these problems; yet it is “still on the march” (to nowhere). No doubt it makes its members feel righteous and virtuous. Deluded more like. Ronald Reagan once said that “a [nuclear] freeze ... would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength”. CND would do well to ponder this wisdom. Happy 50th Birthday, CND. If I were you, I wouldn’t bother with a 51st.
America’s Strong-Horse Weak-Horse Choices Not everything the late Osama bin Laden said was wicked; it was sometimes wise. For example, in December 2001 a translated transcript of him chatting to others included this gem: “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse”. It’s true: everyone wants to back a winner. The US presidential shenanigans have sometimes reminded me of this universal truth, as they transfix and fascinate not just Americans but the rest of the world as well. For the first time in two generations, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a pre-ordained candidate, and this has provided an object lesson in open, competitive democracy. (Compare with Russia’s presidential “election” last week). No other candidate for any governing position anywhere in the world is subject to such rigorous, merciless public examination and attack as the would-be nominees have been undergoing. Regardless of what you think of their politics or personalities, you have to be filled with admiration at the sheer doggedness and toughness under fire of each one of them. John McCain’s campaign is developing particularly well for him. He has secured the Republicans’ nomination with a string of decisive victories in primaries and caucuses, which means that the many anti-McCain Republicans who hate |
![The Economist's take, though it also claims (falsely) that the science of climate change [is] no longer widely disputed](http://media.economist.com/images/20080315/1108FN2.jpg "The Economist's take, though it also claims (falsely) that the science of climate change [is] no longer widely disputed")
