Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Logical Fallacy of the Week, Week 10: Quantificational Fallacies

Quantificational Fallacies is another sub-category with one fallacy listed, which I have linked below. I find some of these to be incomprehensible. I would have to assume that taking a course in logic would make understanding possible, but later we will come to some of these that experts seem to be unable to explain properly. So my question is this.  If they are that complicated and incomprehensible, why are they listed at all? Why bother, and who cares? I have come to the conclusion that many of these logical fallacies become listed because philosophers, or whomever it is that comes up with some of this stuff, have too little to do in life that is taking a nap.

This one isn't so bad, but many of these I would put in the same category as those who would argue unendingly over how many angels could dance on the head of a needle. Clearly these are people who are in need of a real job! Later we will get to fallacies that are of more practical value in our day to day lives.   Please follow these links for further links. 

Quantificational fallacies- Quantification has several distinct senses. In mathematics and empirical science, it is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.

In logic, quantification is the binding of a variable ranging over a domain of discourse. The variable thereby becomes bound by an operator called a quantifier. Academic discussion of quantification refers more often to this meaning of the term than the preceding one.

In grammar, a quantifier is a type of determiner, such as all or many, that indicates quantity. These items have been argued to correspond to logical quantifiers at the semantic level.

Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a logical fallacy in Boolean logic while it isn't in Aristotelian logic. In an existential fallacy, we presuppose that a class has members even when we are not explicitly told so; that is, we assume that the class has existential import. An existential fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism is invalid because it has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. In other words, for the conclusion to be true, at least one member of the class must exist, but the premises do not establish this.


With Our Own Values They Destroy Us: Part VI

By Rich Kozlovich

We have to come to the correct understanding that the economic engine that has fueled the American Dream has been the inviolable right to own property. And that right really was intended to be inviolable. That right under the U.S. Constitution has now become subject to the values and ideas of those who are nothing short of modern day Druids disguised in the mantle of environmental concern.

Environmentalism is constantly changing itself into an "angel of light" but remains an international pseudo-pagan religious movement that places man and his needs at the bottom of their list of concerns. They promote the idea of "Earth First" in a way which seems perfectly reasonable, at least until your realize that it really means “man last”. The only way to make that happen is to destroy the U.S. economy and the U.S. Constitution.

This is their ultimate goal and they have worked at this incrementally, thus avoiding exposure of their schemes. And if it hadn't been for the internet they would have succeeded with the aid of their acolytes in government, the media and academia. This is the next video in this series!

Green and Problems of Democracy
Green and Problems of Democracy, Part I
Green and Problems of Democracy: Part II
Green and Problems of Democrcy, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us.
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part II
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us; Part IVWith Our Own Values They Destroy Us; Part VWith Our


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

All That it Takes is Vision and Courage

Rich Kozlovich

J. Johnson from the British Iles again sent some worthwhile links for Green Notes. For those who have been following all of this stuff it isn’t news that Brit society is even more infected with greenies than we are. However, here is an older article from there entitled, Taxpayer Funded Environmentalism, that shows their society may not be any more enamored with the outcome of the greenie’s activities, and the cost they represent to society, than we are.

Worldwide, the green movement takes in more than sixty of the world’s nations. They have so much financial wherewithal that no business association in the world can stand against them. And when they don’t have their way they will turn around and sue; which is what will happen in the case cited in this article that first appeared in Forbes magazine called, The EPA to the Greens: So Sue.

The activists within the EPA can’t always have their way, so they encourage the activists outside of the EPA to sue them in order to gain legislative authority that the Congress never ceded to them or intended for them to have. Does anyone doubt that a huge chunk of the EPA’s legislative authority has been granted to them by the courts? If so…this is a good time to disabuse yourself of that myth.

Massachusetts v. EPA is a classic example of this sort of back door authority. And a Congress that hasn’t the courage to tell the Supreme Court that they have no jurisdiction in this matter. We need to get this! The Constitution says that the Congress sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts. All it takes is courage. In spite of all the pontifications of Supreme Court justices who claim that it is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution means; that was not the founding fathers understanding nor was it their intent.

There are four things that must be implemented to defeat the green movement, and they must be implemented in conjunction with one another and at the same time. First they must have their funding dried up and the rest taxed.

Secondly they must be prevented from suing by either changing environmental laws or specifically stating that they have no standing to sue; thirdly in situations where they can sue they must pay when they lose and not be paid attorneys fees by the government when they win. This has become a big money scam for environmentalist attorneys. Finally they must be sued for the losses companies and industries suffer as a result of their actions. In short; it's the money stupid.

If we really want to fix the economy all it would take is to crush the green movement, and it would surge overnight. All it takes is vision and courage. Then again….that is all it has ever taken for any worthwhile endeavor to succeed. Working to be popular means having no vision! Popularity isn't a quality for real leadership.

How can someone stand for something and be liked by everyone? After all, what real leader who ever accomplished anything worthwhile stood up before humanity as said; “I stand for consensus”? That means they stand for nothing. There is a difference between a real leader versus someone who merely organizes the direction everyone wants to go. Guess which one is popular.

 Guess which one isn’t.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

The American Council on Science and Health, 2011: Week 38

The presence of linked articles here are merely a way of showing what is going on, whether I agree or disagree with the positions presented. Rich Kozlovich


Gasping for common sense
If you're someone who relies on an over-the-counter inhaler to cope with asthma, you should be sure that you have a doctor's prescription for an albuterol inhaler by the end of this year.


For women with BRCA mutation, diagnosis comes earlier in the younger generation
In a new study comparing the difference in the age at breast cancer diagnosis between older and younger generations of women with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer gene mutations, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center found that breast cancer is diagnosed about eight years earlier in the younger women.

American Cancer Society goes after the wrong target
Just last week we reported that the smoking rate in New York City dropped to an all-time low of 14 percent - down from 22 percent in 2002.

Men need to know the facts of life — post-prostate cancer
A study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has found it possible to approximate men's level of sexual function after treatment for prostate cancer.

Surprising uptick in mortality for premature babies when they grow up
It's been shown previously that infants born prematurely suffer an increased risk of adverse health effects, but does this effect continue into adulthood?

BPA is adult- and kid-friendly
Last year, ACSH released a report highlighting breast cancer organizations that relied on flawed science and chemophobia to support the alleged link between environmental chemicals and breast cancer.


BPA not linked to type 2 diabetes: Who said it was, anyway?
As we have often noted,independent and government-sponsored studies worldwide have repeatedly found that normal exposure to the plastic hardener bisphenol-A (BPA) poses no risk to human health.

Diabetes and dementia: Linked through insulin
Systemic insulin resistance is the hallmark of type 2 ("adult onset") diabetes. Studies done over the past several years have also found that a similar mechanism applies in the brain cells of Alzheimer's patients. Now, a study of over 1,000 people in Japan has found that diabetics may be at an increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD).


Dialing up the dialysis
Patients suffering from kidney disease rely on dialysis in order to stay alive. Without functioning kidneys to remove the waste and fluids that accumulate in the body, the majority of the 400,000 Americans with this condition have their blood purified by a dialysis machine three days a week. Yet a major study suggests that thrice-weekly treatment may not be frequent enough...


Soy disappointing: Supplements don’t prevent post-menopausal artery-hardening
The case for soy as a cure-all continues to be called into question.


Bedbugged about insecticides? Just use as advised
In a number of U.S. cities (New York, for instance), bedbugs have become a relatively common concern. Do> you also need to be worried about the insecticides used to combat them? Well…yes and no.


Possible problems with Zofran could be bad news for chemo patients
Nausea and vomiting, possibly the most unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, have been treated for the past twenty years with a drug called ondansetron (Zofran).

Cheaper might not be better
It was just ten years ago when in the face of the AIDS pandemic, wealthier nations and big pharma agreed to give up patent rights and profits in order to provide developing nations with vital treatments.

The problem with big government pharma
What will be the upshot if the federal government sets up its own drug development and commercialization program?


No support for routine ECG screening
When it comes to deciding whether to screen asymptomatic adults for coronary artery disease (CAD) with either a resting or exercise ECG, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not changed its guidelines since its recommendation in 2004 against such routine screening.


Little white lies in stroke research?
Does the proverbial apple a day really prevent stroke, as a Dutch study now in the journal Stroke suggests?


Results of a new snus survey led to misleading conclusions
Upon initially reading the results of new research that found that nearly 30 percent of U.S. male smokers between the ages of 18 and 24 who were living in snus test market areas had tried the product, Dr. Ross thought the study was going to finally reveal the truth about snus and other smokeless tobacco products - that they can help smokers get off deadly cigarettes.


Double dose on vaccine news
We've been saying it for nearly a decade now: Vaccinating infants and schoolchildren against the flu will result in major health benefits.

If there is a health scare today, the American Council on Science and Health will most likely have the answer by tomorrow; and for members it will appear in your e-mail. No effort on your part, except to read the answer. All that the ACSH is interested in are the facts and they are prepared to follow them wherever they lead. Who can ask for more?  Please Donate Now!


With Our Own Values They Destroy Us: Part V

By Rich Kozlovich

I believe you will find this series of videos enlightening and frightening. This is the next in this series.

These videos clearly show what the real issues are and how they play out in the real world dealing with real people. All done in the name of the environment! This series of videos are part of a series that I have been undertaking this year, and probably into next year called, Green and Problems of Democracy, showing how they have worked to undermine the rights of the citizenry as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. If anyone believes the those passing these laws do so believing that the U.S. Constitution is the legal basis for all of their authority please read Alan Caruba’s article, Jobs Bill Forces States to Surrender Sovereignty, wherein the bill states in SEC. 376:
(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act
(b) Waiver of State Immunity-
(A) WAIVER- A State's receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by (123) an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.
Since when can Congress alter rights under the Constitution with a mere spending bill? Make no mistake about this; all of the green legislation that has been passed over the last 40 years is being used to destroy the rights of American citizens in the name of the environment.

This next article with the accompanying video is what is happening in the real world and almost no one is aware of it. Here are ordinary people who have been honest upright citizens and who have done everything in their power to obey the law being confronted by bureaucrats who have done everything in their power to destroy their lives. What is worse is that the courts don't seem to understand that this is clearly a violation of their rights under the Constitution, rights that most of us would assume is Law 101. This whole thing outlines how dangerous the green movement and their embassaries and acolytes in these unfettered bureaucrats at these agencies really are. Another good reason to disband the EPA and repeal the Endangered Species Act, The Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Act, or seriously alter them to prevent bureaucrats from becoming a law unto themselves. 

Green and Problems of Democracy
Green and Problems of Democracy, Part I
Green and Problems of Democracy: Part II
Green and Problems of Democrcy, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us.
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part II
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III With Our Own Values They Destroy Us; Part IV


Logical Fallacy of the Week, Week 9: Prepositional Fallacies

We now will explore those fallacies called;

Prepositional Fallacies 

In mathematical logic, a propositional calculus or logic (also called sentential calculus or sentential logic) is a formal system in which formulas of a formal language may be interpreted as representing propositions. A system of inference rules and axioms allows certain formulas to be derived, called theorems; which may be interpreted as true propositions. The series of formulas which is constructed within such a system is called a derivation and the last formula of the series is a theorem, whose derivation may be interpreted as a proof of the truth of the proposition represented by the theorem.  Truth-functional propositional logic is a propositional logic whose interpretation limits the truth values of its propositions to two, usually true and false. Truth-functional propositional logic and systems isomorphic to it are considered to be zeroth-order logic.

This is another of those fallacies that is unendingly complicated, so it probably will have no value in the real world. This appears to be an attempt to quantify fallacies mathematically. At least that is what I get out of this. Most of us will have no use for this piece, but it is next in line and I have decided to list the fallacies under this subcategory in order to lend understanding to the whole category. Please follow the links for the explainations, which are much easier to understand. RK

Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.

Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Ideology Plus Desperation Equals Folly

By Rich Kozlovich

Yesterday I received an e-mail from Steve Milloy of about a report released by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) outlining how many people had been made ill by pesticide applications over a seven year period involving treatments for bed bug infestations in seven states.

Over that seven year period there were 111 reported reactions with one fatality. Considering that 93% of these cases were caused by inappropriate applications of pesticides by these people themselves, and literally tens of thousands of applications have been made in the last seven years for bed bugs alone; this is a remarkable safety record for pesticides….after all if any product is misused there will be unhappy consequences.

You will notice that most of these problems have occurred in the last couple of years. Why? Because this plague of bed bugs is expanding at a rate that would have been considered impossible a few years ago. In 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency promoted something called the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which was to be a fix for something called the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. For more information on this please go to my article, We Don’t Need No Stinking Badges. As a result whole categories of safe effective chemistry was lost to  the structural pest control industry, and to the general public. 

It didn’t take long before the impact of that action was felt. There were those in our industry that predicted that one of the first major problems we would encounter as a society from FQPA would be the return of bed bugs. They were right. There were those in our industry who predicted all of these issues involving health problems caused by misapplications. They were right, and all of what has occurred was perfectly predictable.

The one thing we have to come to understand is that the finger of blame needs to be pointed at the right party. The blame must be placed at the feet the ones responsible for this plague overtaking the nation, the pesticide misapplications and the related health problems; The Environmental Protection Agency! Through their irrational anti-pesticide agenda we have lost effective products that would have prevented this plague in the first place. As a result people would not have required unending treatments they cannot afford by professionals, which has forced them to attempt to eradicate this problem on their own. As a result of the EPA’s actions people, especially the poor, are desperate for relief. This sense of desperation felt by these people causes them to act with folly in order to rid their homes of these pests.

Reports such as this from CDC amount to unnecessary scare mongering as they admit themselves that “Although the number of acute illnesses from insecticides used to control bed bugs does not suggest a large public health burden, increases in bed bug populations that are resistant to commonly available insecticides might result in increased misuse of pesticides.” This report is scare mongering with no solution to the problem. They go on to say;
Public health recommendations to prevent illnesses associated with insecticides used to control bed bugs include media campaigns to educate the public about bed bug--related issues, including nonchemical methods to control bed bugs, methods to prevent bed bug infestation (e.g., avoiding the purchase of used mattresses and box springs), and prudent use of effective insecticides. Persons who have a bed bug infestation should be encouraged to seek the services of a certified applicator…If they had stopped there they would have at least offered something of value, but they continue…. who uses an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) approach to avoid pesticide misuse. And finally they supply the answer to these misapplications; “Persons applying insecticides should follow product instructions for safe and appropriate use. Insecticide labels that are easy to read and understand also can help prevent illnesses associated with bed bug control.”
None of this changes the fact that bed bug numbers are expanding at an outrageous rate throughout the nation because of this foolish IPM mentality. In point of fact there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control. The EPA has an irrational desire to eliminate pesticides, including pyrethrins and pyrethroids, no matter what they say publically, and so they have promoted IPM for years as an alternative. The reality is that IPM is an agricultural concept that is based on a logical foundation of threshold limits. What is the logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control? There isn’t one! Since there is no logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control IPM doesn’t exist in structural pest control except for the fact that the government says it exists. Please see The Pillars of IPM.

This whole report is nothing more than anti-pesticide scare mongering with no solutions, no insights and little value to society. Here is the whole story in a nutshell; the EPA’s ideology created the desperation these people feel and this desperation generated the folly of their actions; and folly has consequences; unfortunately the penalties of green activism is always paid for by an unsuspecting public; it is never paid for by the perpetrators.

The answer to this problem in 1946 was effective, inexpensive, easy to use chemistry that was available to everyone.  If that isn't the answer to our current problem there will be no answer. 

I have written extensively on this subject. Please read My Bed Bug Series.


Thursday, September 22, 2011

With Our Own Values They Destroy Us: Part IV

By Rich Kozlovich

On August 30th, 2011 I published the article, With Our Own Values They Destroy Us. This series of videos is extension of the concepts presented there. This should be considered part of the "Green and Problems of Democracy Series". This is another one of those projects I set for myself that I have come to regret because it has become far more complicated than I originally envisioned by outlining the Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as opposed to the green movement. I soon realized that to do this properly would take volumes of substantial size and I simply became overwhelmed as to how to finish what I started.

None the less, this is part of a long term work on my part dealing with the green movement and the rights of the American people as most would normally understand it under the U.S. Constitution, which has become problematic.

I will attempt to present a broad outline of how dangerous the environmentalists are to humanity and how environmentalism real goal is the elimination of the rights outlined under the U.S. Constitution. This has been a progressive goal since the beginning of the last century. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed that the U.S. Constitution was an impediment to human progress and subscribed to the idea the President of the U.S. should not be strapped with these impediments. They both subscribed to the idea, L’etet c’est moi. I am the state! Some of this will appear out of order in the coming weeks, but it will all eventually be organized and linked topically versus chronologically.

We have to understand just how much land is controlled by the government and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The goal of the green movement is to destroy the very fabric of life in America in order to impose total control over humanity. The only thing that stands in their way is the U.S. Constitution and the American economy. Both of which they work diligently to destroy with regulations and legislation. And then there are the foreign treaties; which the U.S. Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled took precedence over the Constitution. It starts with destroying personal property rights.

This is the next installment of this video series.  Environmental Master Plan

Green and Problems of Democracy
Green and Problems of DemocracyGreen and Problems of Democracy, Part I
Green and Problems of Democracy: Part II
Green and Problems of Democrcy, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us.
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part II
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Climate Lies on Page One

By Alan Caruba

As always I wish to thank Alan for allowing me to republish his work. This originally appeared here. You will note that this was in 2007 when it was popular to call someone who disagreed with this nonsense a "skeptic" or a "denier", with a certain sneer of self righteous contempt. Well, things are changing so fast that they won’t be able to worry about or sneer at the “deniers” much longer. Prison is what some of them will be much more concerned about. As for those who don't end up court or prison; their careers will be in shambles and their credibility will be non-existent. RK

It was the lead story on page one of my November 16 daily newspaper. “A little time left on global warming” was the headline and the sub-headline said, “U.N. draft report seen as world ‘how-to guide.’”

Yes, but it is a guide on how to mislead people into believing that the world is warming dramatically or just about to. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been at this since 1988!

For the record, the earth has warmed only a net 0.2 degrees Centigrade of net warming since 1940. Human-emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) is estimated to represent only half of that or 0.1 Centigrade of warming over 67 years!

There has been no warming since 1998 and, in the United States, the warmest year occurred in the 1930s at the height of a historic drought that affected the nation’s heartland. What warming has occurred began with the end of the last mini-ice age in 1850, so it should be understood as a natural response to that climate event that began in the 1300s.

In 2001, the IPCC predicted that human-emitted CO2 would likely drive the planet’s average temperature upward by 5.8 degrees Centigrade. This is would constitute a greater average warming than the planet has experienced in the last 100,000 years.

The new IPCC report, just six years later, has scaled back, predicting that, “For the next two decades, a warming of about (1 degree Fahrenheit) per decade is projected for a range of emissions scenarios.”

“Beyond the next few decades, projections increasingly depend on future greenhouse gas emission scenarios.” You know what a scenario is? The dictionary defines it as “a possible situation or sequence of events” and as “an outline of the plot of a play or opera.”

In other words, the IPCC is inventing, forecasting, projecting and predicting something it cannot possibly know. It is doing so based on seriously flawed computer models programmed to confirm the misleading assertion that the earth’s atmosphere will be critically affected by the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity.

Moreover, that water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin, as is the case of the other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases with the exception of CFC’s. All the gases other than water vapor play such a small role that the IPCC’s demand constitutes criminal nonsense.

I have long since despaired that science reporters or other so-called journalists in this capacity will ever report the truth about the IPCC’s reports or the truth about any of the other utterly specious claims made in the name of global warming.

How many world-class climatologists have to publicly denounce the IPCC’s reports before any journalist will begin to exhibit the slightest skepticism?

How can real science compete with the totally politicized Hollywood Oscar awards to Al Gore for the collection of lies that passes for being a documentary? How does real science compete with five Swedish politicians—not scientists—who decide to give Gore and the IPCC a Nobel “Peace” Prize as if climate has anything whatever to do with advancing worldwide peace? This is the same group that gave an award to the father of all modern terrorists, Yasser Arafat.

This is theatrics, not science. Just as the “scenarios” of the IPCC are more worthy of a movies’ science fiction plot. End of the world scenarios have been around since the earliest recorded history of civilization. Virtually all major religions include their own version.

Claiming that “Human activities could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts”, as the IPCC report suggests, is the worst kind of fear mongering, but it is consistent with the kind of lies the environmental movement has engaged in since it metamorphosed from the socialist movement to one based on pseudo-science.

It’s enemies remain the same, corporations, industrialization, the greater use of energy resources by developing nations, and the sovereignty of individual nations.

That’s why many of the two thousand scientists whose opinions are sought by the IPCC have joined in opposition to its report because they know their objections and corrections to its text have been consistently ignored.

The report is not about science. It is pure propaganda intended to further the utterly false “theory” of global warming. If you want to read something comparable, read the history books published by the former Soviet Union.

You want to know what will cause a real catastrophe that could kill millions of people? Think of Iran, run by a handful of lunatics, having nuclear weapons. Don’t expect the United Nations to do anything about it.

Alan’s work has a sense of timelessness about it, so anyone perusing these articles in the future will find them equally insightful as they were when originally written. For Alan's latest thoughts go to his blog, Warning Signs. For his past works go to The National Anxiety Center. I would also recommend reading his last book, Right Answers.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Observations From the Back Row: 9-19-11

“De Omnibus Dubitandum”

Green or Alternative Energy

Quotes of the Day

1. The only valid definition for green is that it is a mixture of blue and yellow.  Any other definition deminishes a perfectly good color. - I think this one is mine
2. Often the choice is not between what you want and what you don't want. It's between what you don't want and what you REALLY don't want. - Unknown
3. Put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert and in five years there'd be a sand shortage. - Milton Friedman

A UN report has calculated last year's investment in so-called "clean energy" at a staggering 243 billion dollars for technology that basically doesn't work in real energy systems. One quarter of a trillion dollars could solve a lot of the world's problems in feeding and housing the poorest, providing education and medical care and bringing hope and opportunity to those who have none but instead the money will fund every loony project these onanists can dream up and call "clean energy".

Germany's decision to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022 has rapidly transformed it from power exporter to importer. Despite Berlin's pledge to move away from nuclear, the country is now merely buying atomic energy from neighbors like the Czech Republic and France. The nuclear power plant in the Czech village of Temelin, barely 100 kilometers (62 miles) as the crow flies from the Bavarian city of Passau, has a reputation for being particularly prone to malfunctions. Over the years, there have been 130 reported incidents here. Sometimes it's a generator that fails; at others, a few thousand liters of radioactive liquid leak out of the plant. "The entire facility needs to be shut down immediately," says Rebecca Harms, a member of the European Parliament representing Germany's Green Party……….The German government's 180-degree turn in nuclear policy has helped breathe new life into Europe's energy industry -- though not always to Germany's benefit. The country has gone from being an energy exporter to an energy importer practically overnight, which brings along with it a number of negative consequences for its economy, consumers and security.

With the scandalous bankruptcy of Solyndra (a shady California solar power company that received $535 million in stimulus funds and is now under investigation by the FBI) hanging overhead, President Obama wisely whitewashed any mention of "green jobs" out of his latest address to Congress. But buried in the details of his latest government jobs bill released this week -- Spawn of the Spendulus, Porky's II, Night of the Keynesian Dead -- are yet more big green boondoggles that will reward cronies, waste taxpayer dollars and make no dent in the jobless rate.

Jon Stewart skewers the Obama administration on Solyndra. Was Solyndra actually looking at getting another loan from the federal government?.... So should taxpayers' count themselves lucky that Solyndra went bankrupt when it did - before the feds sank another $469 million into its solar power enterprise? Perhaps. Solyndra's SEC filing - dry reading for sure - can be read in its entirety by clicking here.

As the Solyndra scandal continues to dominate headlines, it looks like the Energy Department is continuing its program of giving out loans to clean-technology companies. However, as the Washington Post recently reported, payments to energy companies are now taking place at a FASTER rate than they were before. The Energy Department, under fire over its management of a program that offers loan guarantees to clean-technology companies, has been finalizing additional multimillion-dollar loan guarantees in the program at a rate of more than one a week since the beginning of August. It now has just two weeks left to commit the program’s remaining $9.3 billion. Since the start of August, the Department of Energy has closed seven loan guarantees, at a rate of more than one a week — after approving just 11 in the previous 26 months of the program.

....Emails released Thursday night show that Obama administration privately worried about the effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on the president's re-election campaign. "The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," an official from the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a Jan. 31 email to a senior OMB official. "The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up." The email, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as part of its investigation into the Solyndra loan, showed that Obama administration officials were concerned about Solyndra's financial health even as they publicly declared the solar panel maker in good shape.

Well, well, well. It seems Solyndra isn't the only company to have crashed and burned, despite a massive injection of stimulus money. FoxNews reports that at least four other companies received government funding, and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Adding insult to injury, two of these companies were supposed to create (or was it save?) "green jobs."
Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.
SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 compaines to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes. The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive "considerable government and financial support."
Oh yeah, and there hasn't been substantial demand for solar panels, so no one is buying the commodity we're producing expensively anyway. Minor detail.

My Take - For a fraction of the cost I could have predicted this disaster for them. Certainly not the details but the outcome was absolutely sure. Why? That is the simplist answer of them all. One of my favorite lines is that if you tell me the entire history of an issue I will give you the answer. We have gone through all of this before. From the economic boondoggles of the FDR administration to the complete and utter incompetance of the Carter administration. This green energy foolishness was another one of his many failures, which includes the creation of the Energy Department in 1977. But at least these guys could claim some degree of ignorance because these ideas hadn't really been tried before. This administration has no such excuse.

All of a sudden we expect people who have never in their lives had real jobs or run successful businesses tell those who have what they should be doing to be more successful.  People who have embraced economic philosophies that have failed consistently worldwide, and hate capitalism, are then expected run an entire economic system successfully.   Why would we expect these people to be successful? 

We need to get this. You can't fix stupid, and when someone ignores the obvious facts of history in order to push an agenda that has failed over and over again they are either stupid or  _____________.(fill in the blank....this is a test!) 

Also, you may wish to review last week's article, Warmers and Wilders.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -
Of cabbages and kings,
And why the sea is boiling hot,
And whether pigs have wings."


Saturday, September 17, 2011

With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III

By Rich Kozlovich

This is part of a long term work on my part dealing with the green movement and the rights of the American people as most would normally understand it under the U.S. Constitution.  That has become problematic. Here is the second video in a series.

We have to understand just how much land is controlled by the government and Non Governmental Agencies (NGOs). The goal of the green movement is to destroy the very fabric of life in America in order to impose total control over humanity.  The only thing that stands in their way is the U.S. Constitution and the American economy.  Both of which they work diligently to destroy with regulations, legislation.   And then there are the foreign treaties; which the U.S. Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled took precedence over the Constitution. It starts with destroying personal property rights.

Green and Problems of Democracy
Green and Problems of Democracy, Part I
Green and Problems of Democracy: Part II
Green and Problems of Democrcy, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us.
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part II
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us, Part III


American Council on Science and Health, 2011: Week 37

The presence of linked articles here are merely a way of showing what is going on, whether I agree or disagree with the positions presented. Rich Kozlovich


Gates Foundation embraces GM foods, despite some foolish opposition
Though most of her recent article for the online magazine Fast Company is dedicated to criticizing genetically modified (GM) foods, writer Ariel Schwartz does bring up some poignant facts.

Dr. Tu honored for her marvelous malaria medication
About fifty years ago, Dr. Tu Youyou began her research in China, which led to the discovery of an improved treatment for malaria.


Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Dr. Oz is at it again. On Tuesday, his "Dr. Oz Show" warned parents that the apple juice they're giving their children may be harmful.

Dr. Oz compromises his medical ethics to promote his arsenic quackery
As we reported in yesterday's Dispatch, TV's Dr. Oz has been under fire for his season-opening publicity stunt, in which he claimed that the arsenic levels found in apple juice may be cause for concern.

See My Take on the Land of Oz.


Women and the wild west lead the nation in decreasing lung cancer rates
As the nation works to curb smoking, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) presented some statistics on lung cancer rates that serve as inspiration for all who work in the trenches of public health: National lung cancer rates have declined, particularly among women, who witnessed a 2 percent decrease between 2006 and 2008.

Intrauterine devices found to decrease risk of cervical cancer by almost half
The results of an international study - comprised of data from 10 case-control studies of cervical cancer and 16 human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence surveys - show that women who used an intrauterine device (IUD) had a 50 percent lower risk of cervical cancer, as compared to women who never used one.

HPV vaccine may be as easy as just 1-2 Proven to be the leading cause of cervical cancer, the human papillomavirus (HPV) has recently been linked to anal and oral cancer as well.


Dinner hour is of the essence for those with heartburn
Traditionally, doctors have been advising patients with heartburn to avoid eating a meal within three or four hours of bedtime - but is this just a medical old wives' tale, or is the recommendation founded on real scientific evidence?

No simple solution to solving the complex obesity problem
Fed up with the public's misperception that consuming high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy, the corn industry launched a new ad campaign last year with a catchy tag line informing people that, when it comes to HFCS or regular sugar, "Your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar."

High fructose corn syrup by any other name would be just as sweet
Fed up with the public's misperception that consuming high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy, the corn industry launched a new ad campaign last year with a catchy tag line informing people that, when it comes to HFCS or regular sugar, "Your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar."


Foodborne illness stats not as sickening as we thought
The results of a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - just published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - have corrected a long held misconception of the number of fatalities associated with foodborne illnesses.

CDC’s foodborne illness stats subject to interpretation
In yesterday's Dispatch, we reported on new statistics from the CDC on foodborne illness, noting that the latest numbers of such illnesses were far lower than we expected.


Take a deep breath: COPD is worse than you thought
Every year, about 36 million people die from non-communicable diseases worldwide.

One pill, two pills. Old pills, new pills
When it comes to pills, newer is not always better, though according to a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the majority of Americans still think so.

Patients seeking help with depression shouldn’t fear approaching their doctors
In a survey of 1,000 adults in California, 43 percent expressed some reservations about talking to their primary care physician about depression symptoms.


U.K. public health team “nudges” smokers to use smokeless cigarettes
Finally a bit of sound science and common sense seems to be percolating from an official governmental agency - unfortunately, not in our country.

Smoking rates continue to decline in the Empire State
More good news on the anti-smoking front strikes closer to home, as the latest statistics reveal that adult smoking rates in New York fell to a record low of just 14 percent in 2010, compared to 22 percent in 2002.

Russian federation initiates cold war against smokeless tobacco
Unfortunately, not all the news is good news: A recently proposed measure in the Russian Federation, much to our (and all others devoted to reducing the toll of smoking) chagrin, aims to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of smokeless tobacco products.


HPV vaccine may be as easy as just 1-2
Proven to be the leading cause of cervical cancer, the human papillomavirus (HPV) has recently been linked to anal and oral cancer as well.

HPV vaccine: Safe and necessary
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been getting a lot of press lately, largely due to infighting among Republican presidential

Employee vaccinations up, flu outbreaks down
It would come as no surprise to us to learn that the number of flu outbreaks has decreased in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities whose workers have higher rates of vaccination.

If there is a health scare today, the American Council on Science and Health will most likely have the answer by tomorrow; and for members it will appear in your e-mail. No effort on your part, except to read the answer. All that the ACSH is interested in are the facts and they are prepared to follow them wherever they lead. Who can ask for more?  Please Donate Now!


My Take on the Land of Oz

By Rich Kozlovich

This week Old Doc Oz finally went all the way over to the dark side. The American Council on Science and Health noted that he “was at it again” by warning “parents that the apple juice they’re giving their children may be harmful.” His show staff, crack toxicologists all I’m sure, “arranged to have several samples of store-bought apple juice tested for arsenic, and found that the arsenic levels in some brands were higher than others.” Apparently the man from Oz decided that the level was too high and dangerous in spite of the fact that the amounts were “miniscule”. The FDA immediately refuted this piece of junk science noting that there was a difference between organic and non-organic arsenic, and organic arsenic is harmless. Who knows what kind of damage he has done to the apple industry.

I have some questions.

Why didn’t Ole Doc Oz know this? He presents himself as a medical scientist doesn’t he? Why was he investigating arsenic in apple juice in the first place? What events took place that caused this concern? Is there a connection between Ole Doc Oz and the insane activists that infest the green movement? Good questions….don’t you think?

When I first started watching this guy I thought he had some value and was a bit interesting, but he became uninteresting very quickly. After all, how many times can you watch this stuff? Perhaps he and his producers concluded the same thing and decided they needed him to jazz up his presentations. As I would see parts of some of his shows it became obvious to me that he was pretty much selling the same kind of junk science and scare mongering as the organics, the greenies and the all natural crowd. At this point I snorted and told my wife that this guy is a loon. My wife didn’t see it that way at all, and I found that most others didn’t either. She says I think everyone is a loon. Well, actually, no I don’t, but unfortunately there are so many out there, and since I am more than happy to point it out, it may appear that way.

Dennis Prager noted this last week that one of the most important aspects of a happy society is being trustful of each other. I agree with that analysis, but I believe that is how people like Ole Doc Oz get away with this stuff. Until now that is. Now he has gone so far off base that he has finally been caught because he went into the realms of provable science, and he became lost.

So why doesn’t everyone see the same reality that I do, especially when it is so obvious to me? I have concluded that if you aren’t reading or writing about these things you miss the nuances of what they are actually up to, and most people just want to live their lives without spending large amounts of time researching information about greenies, junk scientists, demagogues and liars. That is completely understandable.

Perhaps what disturbs me a bit is that those who know me best know that I am fascinated by everything. Being insatiably curious is its own reward and its own punishment. The reward is that you know the truth. The punishment is that you know the truth. My friends also know that I understand it all; and when I finally come to a conclusion about something I am very rarely wrong. So why do they disagree with me over whack jobs like Oz? I have no idea. Oh wait….I forgot one answer! He’s so nice! Then again isn’t that true of all cult leaders.

The answer to these silly claims by Ole Doc Oz that I prefer is Dr. Josh Bloom's when he says that, “Dr. Oz should follow the yellow brick road back to the cardiac surgery department at New York Presbyterian Hospital. At least he knows what he’s talking about there.” Then again maybe someone in that great wasteland known as television will follow Dr. Ruth Kava’s recommendation when she says, “I wish the media would give as much coverage to the debunking of other food scares (for example, the ‘dangers’ of pesticides on fruits and vegetables, and of high-fructose corn syrup) as they did to this apple juice scare by Dr. Oz.” Me too!

What I would really like to see is the nation’s apple farmers sue him for any drop in the sale of apples, whether it is for eating, for juice or any other use. Perhaps this kind of claptrap would end if this was done on a regular basis. Oprah was the one responsible for getting him on the air in the first place. Oprah was sued years ago over her comments about beef, and even though she won, she never did that again. Dr. Phil was one of the ones who helped her win this case. I have come to think he is a loon also. My wife says that I think everyone is a loon. Once again….no I don’t…’s just that I can’t help it when there are so many and so little time to point it out.


Friday, September 16, 2011

Logical Fallacy of the Week: Masked Man Fallacy, Week 8


Think about this for a while. It may seem unrelated to anything you deal with, but as you work this around in your mind you will find that this fallacy, or variations of it, fit many of the issues we face today.

Just watch the news, especially these news show panels. Once you begin to realize what the logical fallacies are you will begin to spot them on the talk shows regularly. When you see these shows such as "The Five" shown on Fox News featuring people like Bob Beckel espousing nonsense and outright lies that should have been easily overcome by his colleagues you begin to realize that these talking heads have no clue. As a result even the ones holding the right views and concepts are intimidated by the Beckels of the world.

The masked man fallacy is an illicit substitution of identical: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. This fallacy is a of formal logic in which substitution of identical designator in a true statement can lead to a false one.

One form of the fallacy may be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: I know who X is.
Premise 2: I do not know who Y is.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is not Y.

Please follow the link for the explanation.  RK

The Warmers and the Wilders?

By Rich Kozlovich

As I have been watching this Global Warming farce play out I have come to notice that the Green Movement has become broken down into two main categories. Warmers and Wilders.

Warmers are those who subscribe to all the fantacy that is part and parcel of Anthropogenic Climate Change. They demand dramatic changes from industrialized societies because they claim the world is at a tipping point to disaster if we don’t stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere. As David Hansen claimed in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren” that we were facing a "sweltering Earth devoid of life”.

All of this in spite of the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is a good thing for plants and animals, of which mankind’s total contribution is insignificant to the overall volume, especially when compared to one volcanic eruption.

Wilders is my term for those who insist that more land be devoted to wildlife, especially wildlife that may be endangered. This includes animals and plants. They believe, irrationally, that every species must be saved at any cost in order for life to continue to exist. These modern Druids would have us believe that all life is so interconnected that the loss of one species would cause overwhelming disaster. History of course shows that this is blatant nonsense because over 95% of all species that has ever lived has gone extinct.

What I find fascinating about this is that many of these people are Darwinian evolutionists and supposedly believe in survival of the fittest. Why then do they attempt to save species that are clearly biologically incompetent?  Is it possible they are holding two diametrically opposing views in their heads at the same time and believe that both are correct?

Thomas Sowell once said that there were three questions that must be answered by those who demand change.
  1. Compared to what?
  2. At what cost?
  3. What hard evidence do you have?
I don’t think that those are unreasonable questions since most of what the greenies promote is unworkable, expensive and has serious problems with the facts. Let’s take a few examples.

The greenies had always been against nuclear power. Then, when this CO2 issue came up regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there were some who changed their views and decided that nuclear was acceptable to save the planet. They were promptly vilified by the rest of the green community.  At this point the wilders and the warmers decided to agree that nuclear was still evil.

Previously the greenies touted the idea that everything should be changed from nuclear, coal and oil based energy sources to natural gas. However the warmers decided that natural gas is bad because it emits CO2 into the atmosphere. So now they are all on board with the idea that nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas energy based sources are evil.

What about hydroelectric? No exhausts, no pollution of any kind! Good, right! Yes, if you are a warmer. But not if you are a wilder! You see hydroelectric alters the natural flow of rivers and changes the environment for so many fish and plants. So hydroelectric is out too.

All the greenies were absolutely in love with bio-fuels at one time. An all natural energy source! The warmers think it is the cat’s pajamas. However, the wilders are against it because they have discovered that everything their adversaries have been saying right along is right. Bio-fuel from food is driving up the price of food worldwide.

As a result more and more land mass is being devoted to growing corn and other commodities thereby eliminating forest areas for wild animals. So then we have another conflict between the warmers and the wilders! The wilders have also pointed out that forests are being stripped around the world to provide organic material for cellulose based fuels. So now the wilders want the government subsidies stopped for biomass fuel production, and without those subsidies biomass cannot exist.

Wind energy is one of the most beloved sources of energy by the warmers. However the wilders point out that these gigantic fans are killing birds and bats at such an alarming rate that wind energy is wreaking havoc with those populations, including endangered species…..and in large numbers. If a small fraction of that number was killed by any traditional energy program they would be put out of business by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act.

Solar energy has been one of the great promotions of the green movement. Only it takes untold acres to supply the nation with the needed energy to live our lives in the manner we have become accustomed. The warmers are willing to do this, but the wilders point out that this amount of acreage will disrupt way too much habitat, which will affect wildlife and of course, way too many tortoise, some of whom are endangered.

Something that isn’t mentioned nearly enough is that even if the world changed from traditional sources of energy, i.e., power plants, to solar and/or wind we would still have to build and maintain traditional power plants as a back-up. You see, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. That means we will be paying for energy we don’t use in order to pay for energy we don’t need.

The greenies are against every know source of energy production known to mankind, so here is my question; what are their answers to Sowell's three questiongs?

Q. As opposed to what?
A. They are offering nothing that is better than what we have, and what they are offering is opposed by many in their own camp.
Q. How much will it cost?
A. The financial costs are completely unsustainable and the social costs are morally unsustainable.
Q. What hard evidence do you have?
A. Everything they tout ends up being so full of holes that for all practical purposes their "evidence" is a lie.

Tell me; how long should we have wait for them to come up with a viable solution to any of these imaginary issues they are constantly caterwauling about? How long before we come to the realization that the green movement is terrific at finding fault, but they don't have a clue when it comes to finding solutions? How long will it take for us to realize that all these modern advances they decry has been wonderful for humanity? How long before we realize that everything they offer as solutions has left dystopia in its wake?

These shouldn’t be difficult questions for the most casual observer. Their misanthropic history should make the answer to these questions axiomatic.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

With Our Own Values They Destroy us! Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

On August 30th, 2011 I published the article, With Our Own Values They Destroy Us. This series of videos is extension of the concepts presented there. This should be considered part of the "Green and Problems of Democracy Series". This is another one of those projects I set for myself that I have come to regret because it has become far more complicated than I originally envisioned by outlining the Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as opposed to the green movement. I soon realized that to do this properly would take volumes of substantial size and I simply became overwhelmed as to how to finish what I started. However, I will attempt to present a broad outline of how dangerous the environmentalists are to humanity and how environmentalism real goal is the elimination of the rights outlined under the U.S. Constitution. This has been a progressive goal since the beginning of the last century. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed that the U.S. Constitution was an impediment to human progress and subscribed to the idea the President of the U.S. should not be strapped with these impediments. They both subscribed to the idea, L’etet c’est moi. I am the state! Some of this will appear out of order in the coming weeks, but it will all eventually be organized and linked topically versus chronologically. In this video series we will start with:

How much land is owned by local, state and the national governments? How has this happened? Who is behind it and what are their goals? For those of us who have been reading and writing about the dangers, the lies and desceit of the green movement this will not be shocking, although the magnitude of the information you will hear in the coming days is new to me also.

Green and Problems of Democracy
Green and Problems of Democracy, Part I
Green and Problems of Democracy: Part II
Green and Problems of Democrcy, Part III
With Our Own Values They Destroy Us.


The Science of Homeopathy?

By Rich Kozlovich

A few years ago this article entitled, "Scientific Proof that Homeopathy Works", appeared on the Natural News web site.  I think a lot of it is looney, but occasionally there's stuff there that's worth reading.  The rest challenges you to develop the intellectual tools necessary to justify your own views.

However, the article states:
Most scientists would state categorically that homeopathy is a scientific impossibility. Who would disagree, as the explanation that is currently provided to support homeopathy makes very little sense. How is it possible that a solution that contains no chemical atoms causes a biological reaction? All of our basic understanding of science screams out that this is patently impossible."   
 The article later goes on to attempt to refute this by saying: 
"As an example, in one experiment, if you treated a cup of water with a specific vibrational frequency the water would change itself to that specific vibration and it would stay like that forever. It would only change if it came across a different vibration. This vibrated water if ingested directly and instantly affects our body's biological functions. Depending on the vibrational frequency of the water, different illnesses can be treated.  
This is their "proof" for accepting for what passes as science among the “All Naturals”. I am inclined to think they need a whole lot more than this before they call this "proof".

I am more than happy to believe pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to alter their perceptions and actions because of financial concerns.

I am also willing to agree that doctors are among the most hardened when it comes to making changes, especially in today’s litigious climate.

I also willing to accept the medical and scientific communities will cling to concepts that have been largely failing for two reasons.
  • One, they just don't know enough yet.
  • Two, they continue to fail because they refuse to look in other directions, especially when dealing with cancer.
I am also willing to acknowledge those who have promoted alternative medical procedures such as treatments based on nutritional therapy have made significant headway with medical science. I believe that we must be open to new concepts if we are to progress in any area of science.

I am also completely convinced that we could fill the Grand Canyon with the things we don’t know.

What I don't like, and I am not open to, is the idea that our collective ignorance justifies collective acceptance.

Ignorance is nothing more than a lack of knowledge. Acceptance must be based on an abundance of knowledge. Knowledge that had to fight and brawl its way into our collective database before it becomes known as truth. That is what science is all about. Otherwise it is called faith.

Finally, I find it difficult to understand why so many fail to recognize that much of what these people believe is based on mysticism with its hidden auras of power, or in this case “vibrations”!  Vibrations only they understand.

The Druids of ages past would have been very comfortable among them today.  Green, All Natural and Organic is a pseudo-pagan religious concept with some actual science thrown in to give it credibility to the honest hearted who are unaware and unsuspecting. There is little difference between them and the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear.

Is it any wonder that so many believe that undetectable, or almost undetectable levels of pesticides cause ___________(fill in the blank)? Is it any wonder that no amount of actual scientific evidence can alter their view? The wonder is the media, the political leaders and the bureaucrats, who are supposed to be only concerned with the facts, are just as enamored with this kind of thinking as these Kool-Aid drinkers. Their positions are based on emotion and a desire to "believe" and that is almost impossible to alter with mere facts.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

To Be Green is to Be Immoral

By Rich Kozlovich,

J. Johnson is has been a long time Green Notes reader from the British Iles. I would like to thank her for sending a number of articles to me, including this article by Jim Lacey, who decries the idea that the left, particularly the green left, occupies the moral high ground. He states clearly:
"The day has long since passed when the Right needs to concede the moral high ground to the Left on any issue. Yes, we may be able to win most of the great debates on the merits of our ideas; but as a wise man once explained to me:
"What I believe rationally is open to debate and change. What I believe emotionally cannot be changed by reason. An emotional belief can only be changed by an emotional argument.”
The Left has known this for decades. That is why the those on the left never misses a chance to brand those on the right with the most contemptible slurs they can think of. We need not descend into the gutter and trade personal insults, but we should never miss a chance to point out the vile results of the policies the Left is pushing. In every sphere of public debate, the moral high ground belongs to the Right. Claim it!”
It is gratifying to see someone support something I have been saying for some time. This is a war that is being fought on two battle fronts. We win the battle of facts; we always have. They win the battle of emotion; they always have. Emotion will trump facts and logic every time. In order to win the war we must win the battle of facts and the battle of emotion. Admittedly we are at an disadvantage because when your position is based on facts and logic you have to stand by those facts, and you have to wait for them to emerge before you can develop a logical argument.

When you win on emotion you aren’t necessarily concerned with logic or facts, nor do you have time constraints. This gives the greenies the ability to say anything that will advance their cause. Truth not withstanding! In short; they lie. The goal of the green movement is to get the “truth” out and they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to do it. Including their lies about pesticides.

They have falsely claimed for years that pesticides cause cancer based on high dose rodent testing.
Dr. Bruce Ames defends the broad use of pesticides from a number of angles in this article and believes that the lack of pesticides is the real cause of cancer because of poor nutrition.  The theory is "that, as a result of recurrent shortages of vitamins and minerals during evolution, natural selection developed a metabolic rebalancing response to shortage," he said. "Rebalancing favors vitamin- and mineral-dependent proteins needed for short-term survival and reproduction"

If one has any doubt that the green movement is devoid of any claim to the moral high ground please take note that Greenpeace has now turned forty years old and here is their legacy.  One of the writers outright asks why these people aren't charged with crimes against humanity.

Please follow the links as their is so much more in these three articles. RK


Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Observations From the Back Row: 9-13-11

“De Omnibus Dubitandum”

Everthing we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!

Quote of the Day

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. - Ross McKitrick

As a boy growing up on a farm I would lay on my back on those great moonless summer nights and see stars everywhere. It saddens me that I can't do this any longer. The majesty of the universe in full bloom never leaves you. I used to see untold numbers of shooting stars in those days. They aren't seen in the city; at least I haven’t seen any. I can't help watching this great video without feeling nostalgic.

In April 1990, Al Gore published an open letter in the New York Times "To Skeptics on Global Warming" in which he compared them to medieval flat-Earthers. He soon became vice president and his conviction that climate change was dominated by man-made emissions went mainstream. Western governments embarked on a new era of anti-emission regulation and poured billions into research that might justify it. As far as the average Western politician was concerned, the debate was over.

It is no secret that federal agencies incrementally expand their regulatory power by adopting statutory interpretations that go beyond the underlying legislation’s plain meaning and purpose. Unfortunately, courts — the branch of government charged with checking such overreach, even in the age of the modern administrative state — increasingly defer to agencies’ own “discretion” in exercising their authority. One case that recently made it to the U.S. Supreme Court’s doorstep, National Corn Growers Association v. EPA, is a case study of this alarming trend.

Stuff You Won't See on the News
The cause that sent 170 million to their graves
Agency forces amputee to prove leg still gone

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -
Of cabbages and kings,
And why the sea is boiling hot,
And whether pigs have wings."


Monday, September 12, 2011

A Little Schadenfreude on the Side Please

By Rich Kozlovich

Today I posted another one of Alan Caruba’s articles that is a harbinger of the eventual obituary of Anthropogenic Climate Change. There are those who have taken pride in the fact that they were "deniers" and "skeptics" from the very beginning.  Alan was one of them and I am happy to say that I was also. It turns out that there was a lot more of us than the media would have you believe. I am watching this unfold with a degree of schadenfreude.

What is really interesting is to watch those bloggers and writers who have been the most arrogant, most obnoxious and the most adamant that we all accept this "theory", lie and contort logic to maintain their position. If you analyze their arguments you find that they are full of red herring fallacies and the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. That has been their real position from the start and it failed; yet they continue to toot that horn because they have nothing else.

When I hear leaders toot this horn I have to wonder at their intelligence and integrity. Especially when they quote the idea that over 95% of all scientists agree on this.   That has been shown over and over again to be based on a small number of scientists and a further twisting of truth and logic.  Why in the world do they cling to that?  Lack of intelligence, lack of integrity or both.  Both are disqualifying qualities to be a real leader.

Recognizing the lack of validity on this issue wasn’t all that hard. You didn’t even need all that science that shows how false it was. AGW failed the test of history. In times past it was substantially warmer than it is today. Why? There was very little in the way of “industrialization” then! Then we have to ask; did all the things they are predicting for today occur then? The answer is a resounding NO! So why should we believe that these things would occur today? We shouldn’t! The final piece of information everyone should have been looking at from the beginning was who was supporting this scientific fraud? The irrational and misanthropic green movement, socialists, grant chasing scientists, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats (well, more corrupt) and businessmen  (also corrupt) who would profit from all of this.

Years ago I predicted that this issue was going to be the turning point for the green movement's credibility with the public. They put all of their eggs in a basket that was full of holes. If the internet had been in existence during the Montreal Protocol days it would have suffered the same fate as the Kyoto Accords are now. Now the green movement has lost all credibility with a large segment of the public, the media is thought of more contemptuously than ever in the past (hard to believe) and scare mongering doesn’t work so easily any more. At the end of this story careers and reputations will be destroyed, and the professional devastation will be in the camp of the warmers. It just bothers me that they won’t be prosecuted for fraud. That would be a gigantic step forward in stopping future actions such as this.

The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory

By Alan Caruba

Once again I thank Alan for sending this to me and giving me permission to pepublish his works. RK

I have been predicting the death of the global warming theory since late in the last decade when it became obvious that the Earth had entered into a cooling cycle. By 2009 the leak of thousands of emails between the “scientists” whose computer models the claims were based upon revealed they were in a state of panic regarding this obvious phenomenon.

Employed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming (IPCC), those “scientists” have since been protected by the universities who benefited greatly from the huge grants of public funding they received. The issue of whether such men should be prosecuted for deceiving the entire world remains to be decided.

The lead player, Dr. James Hansen, still on the payroll of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the man who told Congress in 1988 that global warming threatened mankind and the Earth. He has since switched to lying about coal and oil, two of the fossil fuels on which the economies of all nations depend, claiming they are deadly pollutants that must be abandoned in favor of “clean energy”, wind and solar.

Former Vice President Al Gore, the most public face of “global warming”, has become a public joke. Recall, however, that he received a Nobel Prize and an Oscar in additions to the millions earned from the sale of “carbon credits” to offset “greenhouse gases.” Some exchanges devoted to these credits have closed their doors. The proposed Cap-and-Trade legislation based on them lingers in Congress.

One need not be a climate scientist or meteorologist to conclude that humans have nothing to do with the climate or the weather. Watching huge hurricanes wreak havoc, along with other weather-related events should be enough for anyone to conclude that humans do not “cause” such things.

Occam’s Razor is the ancient principle that the simplest explanation is the most likely the correct one, but billions in public funding, taxpayer’s dollars, have been diverted to the “research” that corrupt scientists have used to justify the global warming fraud.

MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those courageous scientists that stood their ground against the global warming fraud. Recently the Heartland Institute, in concert with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project, published “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report.” It is 430 pages co-authored by Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Robert M. Carter, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, all of whom have been among the scientists repeatedly slandered as “global warming deniers” and “skeptics” for their efforts to educate the public.

The report, in careful documented, scientific language identifies the way the warmist’s computer models over-estimated the amount of warming, ignored the fact that increased carbon dioxide benefits plant growth, that there is less melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and on mountain tops than claimed, and that there is no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades.

A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that upwards of 60% of Americans have concluded that humans have nothing to do with “global warming” or any other aspect of the climate. This is extraordinary when one considers how the mainstream media, the curriculums in the nation’s schools, and the unceasing efforts of major environmental organizations have tried to impose the global warming claims on the public.

In a similar fashion, “The Other Climate Theory” by Anne Jolis, an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe, describes how a project of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has put what may well be the final nail in the global warming coffin. The work of physicists using particle beam technology, CERN confirmed that the Sun’s cosmic rays enhanced cloud formation. The IPCC’s 2007 report had peremptorily dismissed this possibility, but then the IPCC’s reports have been the basis for the global warming fraud, asserting a “consensus” among scientists that never existed.

Thus the scientific method of describing a phenomenon, formulating a hypothesis to explain it, and performing tests to confirm or reject a hypothesis, has once again demonstrated that “global warming” is just so much hot air.

This is not stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from doing everything in its power to destroy the energy sector of the nation based in part on the global warming fraud.

Universities across America have entire departments and units devoted to keeping the global warming fraud alive. The mainstream press is heavily invested in it. Schools continue to frighten children with its claims. All this and other efforts will fail because science—real science—does not support it.

© Alan Caruba, 2011