Editor's note: At the end of the video there will be some links to other speakers. Please click the link for Paul Driessen. This talk clearly outlines how this Global Warming madness impacts us in real life terms....to our detriment. RK
Search This Blog
De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Editor's note: At the end of the video there will be some links to other speakers. Please click the link for Paul Driessen. This talk clearly outlines how this Global Warming madness impacts us in real life terms....to our detriment. RK
The RENIXX® (Renewable Energy Industrial Index) World is the first global stock index, which comprises the performance of the world´s 30 largest companies of the renewable energy industry
The RENIXX Index of the 30 largest renewable energy companies in the world is trading at an all-time low today and has lost over 90% of its value since 2008.
A partial listing of green energy companies that have already filed bankruptcy or are teetering on the brink is below. Many of these companies were financed by taxpayers.
Solar Trust of America
Olson's Crop Service
Energy Conversion Devices
Teetering on the Brink:
The Bard Group
Enel Green Power
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
This appeared here.
I learned from Ron Arnold today that Henry Lamb has passed away. Another leader of the freedom movement has left us.
Henry was one of the first conservative opponents of radical environmentalism I met in the early 1990s, when Heartland started to address environmental issues. He was deeply concerned about the threat posed by the United Nations and its allies in the U.S. to traditional American freedoms and prosperity, and spoke out with great courage and conviction.
Henry was constantly organizing, writing, speaking, and networking with allies. He was a font of ideas for new projects, and not infrequently was ahead of his times. He was videotaping presentations back when it was considered quite a novelty in the movement, and was talking about sustainable development and smart growth as major issues when they were dismissed (and are still dismissed) an a minor or fringe issue by movement leaders. He was the embodiment of the idea that “there’s no limit to what we can achieve if we don’t care who gets the credit.”
Henry operated outside the world of “official” think tanks, partly by choice and partly because most beltway think thank leaders were afraid to associate with a man who spoke so openly and frankly about threats to American sovereignty. He lacked the pseudo-credentials of the pseudo-experts who populate the ranks of think tanks in Washington DC, and was too interested in working with the grassroots instead of “elite opinion leaders.
Henry was founder and variously president or chairman of at least three organizations, Sovereignty International, the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc. The Heartland Institute, at various times, partnered with each of these organizations to cosponsor events and publications, most notably publication of The Freedom 21 Agenda for Prosperity in 2007.
I hope you’ll take a minute to reflect on the legacy of a fine man, maybe visit some of the sites linked above, and rededicate yourself to your own efforts to protect freedom and prosperity.
Monday, May 28, 2012
This has been an issue for so long and it has been fought over so passionately it amazes me that almost no one except "newsies" like me has heard of it. Why? The media has been so silent on this contentious issue for one reason and one reason only. They don't want anyone looking too closely at this. Its kind of like Pelosi telling everyone that they had to pass Obamacare in order to see what's in it. Now....does anyone really think that's very bright? Does anyone really think that's sane? This 'we can't wait...pass it now' phrase is another insanity and for the same reasons. Someone doesn't want everyone looking too closely at reality.
The last time this came up was during the Bush administration (Bush and Condi Rice support this by the way) I linked a bunch of articles in my old newsletter. I may have missed it in the articles I linked here (I linked information from the past here deliberately in order to fill in the reasoning against LOST), but in the 95 treaty the ISB also had the authority to alter the treaty in order to attain their goals without permission from the signatories, and as stated below there is no appeal. They also have the right to tell everyone what can be in the fresh river and stream waters flowing into their 'clean' ocean...and it will be their ocean, don't doubt that for a minute. However, the thing that fascinates me the most is how any sane person could reasonably want the most corrupt organization the world has ever known overseeing the administration of the world's oceans and the commerce taking place there? That is really stupid….unless there is a hidden agenda…of course we know that there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
Obama’s Land of the LOST
The stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar's, R-Ind., bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington's internationalist lobby. A former Rhodes scholar, Lugar has spent his career promoting a globalist agenda since succeeding the late Jesse Helms as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue….. Like the Kyoto Protocol that pretended to be an effort to save the earth from the poisoned fruit of the Industrial Revolution…..Like its Kyoto cousin, LOST is an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, the embodiment of the progressive dream of the end of the nation state as we know it and the end of political freedom by giving veto over all of mankind's activities to a global body — in this case something called the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica…… the power to regulate 70% of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy. It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop the resources in and under the world's oceans…..Elisabeth Mann Borgese, an admirer of Karl Marx and a socialist who ran the World Federation of Canada…. views the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind" and in a 1999 speech declared, "The world ocean has been and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."
Sunday, May 27, 2012
I would like to thank Jennifer for sending this to me. RK
We have written before about the Pebble Mine, which is under threat of a preemptive shutdown due to an absurd power grab by the EPA. These threats came to a head in the late afternoon last Friday (the perfect time to try to sneak underhanded tactics by people and hope no one notices), as the EPA “released a draft scientific study of the Bristol Bay watershed and its natural resources, conducted solely to form the basis for preemptively vetoing the Pebble Mine in Alaska.” Keep in mind the Pebble Mine owners haven’t even applied for a permit, let alone gone through the permitting and vetting process, yet the EPA is already trying to block them. So much for an honest and fair chance. Mineweb, a leading online publication covering the mining industry, writes:
Never mind that the U.S. Corps of Engineers has been the primary permitting authority for dredging and filling permits for mining projects impacting watersheds. Over the opposition of the Alaska attorney general [Michael Geraghty], Ranking Senate Energy & Resources Committee Member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and others, the EPA is determined to wrest the permitting authority for itself, using the power it believes was granted by the Clean Water Act.You can read the EPA report here [PDF].
Let us be clear: This is a pure power grab by unelected, unaccountable EPA bureaucrats. This report could mean that the EPA can kill any project that could potentially impact water, without the project ever going through the permitting process, and without input from state, local, or other federal agencies.
In fact, Wizbang Blog reports:
An article from Inside the EPA (subscription required) shows that environmentalists couldn’t be happier, and want the EPA to use this plan to kill other projects…How can you help?
“Environmentalists are now calling on the agency to conduct a similar assessment of mining activity in the Great Lakes region. The Bristol Bay study “is comparable to what we’d like to see” in the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation (NWF) attorney Michelle Halley said on a May 10 conference call.”
1. Let EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and members of Congress know what you think about this unprecedented power grab.
2. On Twitter? Follow @ResourceEarth for updates and tweet your thoughts using the hashtags #YesPebble and #GivePebbleAChance
3. Comment on news articles, saying why you support Pebble Mine and oppose this expansion of EPA power.
For further reading:
Has the EPA overstepped its bounds with Pebble Project assessment? (Mineweb)
The EPA is annexing Alaska (Wizbang Blog)
EPA finds mining could affect fish, water as residents fight prospect near Alaska fishery (Washington Post)
EPA: Mining Could Affect Quality of Water, Fish (Associated Press)
Alaska AG says EPA’s actions ‘unlawful’ (Legal Newsline)
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Chavez Decrees More Castroism -- then Backs Off
By Humberto Fontova
Last week Hugo Chavez took his aping of Castro's regime to a frightening new level by decreeing the Ley del Sistema Nacional de Inteligencia y Contrainteligencia, (The National Intelligence and Counter-intelligence Law). No more pussyfooting, this law seemed to declare. Venezuela's two traditional intelligence services, the Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP) and the Directorate for Military Intelligence, have been abolished and replaced by a General Intelligence Office staffed strictly with Chavez loyalists.
More ominously, this "law" essentially abolished the government's separation of powers. Judges and prosecutors were to be required to co-operate with the newly-decreed secret police...
There is a way to stop the EPA's abuse of science and prevent their continued aggressive regulatory activity that destroys the economy and causes harm to Americans. Primarily, we have to hold the EPA to good scientific principles and stop the EPA's overreaching and panic-mongering.
The method that will work is a well-established judicial and legal demand for good scientific evidence as described in the Daubert supreme court opinion, explained in the book by the Federal Judicial Center -- the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.
The Supreme Court opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow,509 U.S. 579 (1993) set out rules on assessing the reliability of scientific evidence. To educate judges on how to conduct judicial affairs consistent with the Daubert rules, the Federal Judicial Center published the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (RMSE) in 1994.
Properly used, the RMSE and Daubert will stop the scientific misconduct of the United States EPA and refute their claims that air pollution regulations and other pollution laws save thousands of lives. In fact, the environment of America is safe and low-risk, and the EPA is promoting unjustified concerns and panics.
A challenge to EPA science and claims used to justify aggressive regulatory actions will also restore rationality and sensible scientific inquiry to environmental policy-making.
RMSE Content and Acceptance
Based on the Daubert evidentiary dicta, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) has published 3 editions of the RMSE (1994, 2000, and 2011) to educate judges on how to be gatekeepers for good science testimony and evidence in the courtroom.
TheSE introductorhapters are on the Daubert opinion and how it affects the federal rules of evidence (1975) and testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 ("Testimony by Experts")
The first and second editions of the RMSEare similar -- legal introduction, then science of statistics, multiple regressions, survey research, economic damages, epidemiology, toxicology, DNA evidence. The second edition added chapters on how science works, medical testimony, and civil engineering. The third added chapters on exposure science, neuroscience, and mental health evidence while expanding and improving the content and discussions of all the chapters of the second.
The National Research Council (of the National Academies of Science) committee to evaluate the first and second editions of the RMSE commented in 2009 that the RMSEwas an "extremely effective tool for judges, practitioners, and scholars interested in gaining a better understanding of the underpinnings of various scientific disciplines." One hundred thousand copies of the second edition were sold. The FJC sponsored workshops on Daubert and the Manual, video programs were broadcast to courthouses over the Federal Judicial Television network, and CDs were sent to judges by request.
Problems with Jon Samet
Jon Samet, M.D., M.S. (Epidemiology), chair of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, served on the National Research Council Review Committee on the first and second editions of the RMSE. Dr. Samet is chair of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,and a well-paid consultant, reviewer, and basic researcher for the EPA. His financial and professional conflicts are alarming, since he has received millions in grant funding and consultancy fees from the EPA, but he is proposed to be an objective reviewer of EPA research and policy-making.
Worse than the obvious financial conflicts, Dr. Samet's research and the research he reviews and approves that is sponsored by the EPA violate the scientific rules outlined by the RMSEchapter on epidemiology in the book that he and others praised as members of the National Research Council review committee.
The irony is that one of the authors of the chapter on epidemiology in all three editions of the RMSEwas Dr. Samet's predecessor as chair in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, Leon Gordis, M.D., Dr. P.H. So Dr. Samet in his professional work alternately praises and then ignores the guidance of Dr. Gordis on basic epidemiology in the RMSE.
RMSE guidance on Epidemiology
The second edition at page 375 recites the Bradford Hill rules of toxicology:
The factors that guide epidemiologists in making judgments about causation are:
- temporal relationship;
- strength of the association;dose-response relationship;
- replication of the findings;
- biological plausibility (coherence with existing knowledge);
- consideration of alternative explanations;
- cessation of exposure;
- specificity of the association; and
- consistency with other knowledge.
The relative risk is one of the cornerstones for causal inferences. 116 Relative risk measures the strength of the association. The higher the relative risk, the greater the likelihood that the relationship is causal. 117 For cigarette smoking, for example, the estimated relative risk for lung cancer is very high, about 10. 118 That is, the risk of lung cancer in smokers is approximately ten times the risk in nonsmokers.
Page 384 exposes Dr. Samet and EPA scientific error on observational air pollution studies:
When the relative risk reaches 2.0, the agent is responsible for an equal number of cases of disease as all other background causes. Thus, a relative risk of 2.0 (with certain qualifications noted below) implies a 50% likelihood that an exposed individual's disease was caused by the agent. A relative risk greater than 2.0 would permit an inference that an individual plaintiff's disease was more likely than not caused by the implicated agent[.]
No study by the EPA or Dr. Jon Samet has ever demonstrated a human health effect from air pollution with a relative risk of two or more, which means that Dr. Samet and the EPA researchers he approves and works with produce unreliable science with weak associations that could easily be false positives in the range of confounders or even background rate of events (noise). That is not the way to do good science, and no one can claim that such science informs rational regulatory policy-making.
All the EPA studies (including those done by Samet and his associates) used to claim that the EPA is saving lives or to justify air pollution regulations have weak associations that prove nothing and are unreliable -- i.e., they are within the "noise" (normal variability) range for the premature death endpoint that they report. Samet and his EPA researcher colleagues are harvesting "deaths" from the normal variability of day-to-day events and calling them deaths from air pollution. It's nonsense, and they must know it.
Now the EPA and Dr. Samet assert the theory of "no threshold" to air pollution toxicology. Chemical toxicology still is based on thresholds. "No threshold" chemical air pollutant toxicology turns the Clean Air Act on its head and nullifies and abandons the Clean Air Act strategy intended by the Congress.
The EPA human health effects on science cannot be defended, and the aggressive air pollution regulatory regime is based on a scientific house of cards that can be brought down by an effective legal and political/legislative challenge.
-Steve Milloy, MHS, J.D., LLM and John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D.
These are Steve’s picks for the last couple of weeks. Steve posts them by date; I have waited to post them to see how some things play out in order to organize them by topic. This gives a better picture of what actually happens; as in the issue regarding the state of Arizona and Agenda 21. After the first two links you will be taken directly to Junkscience.com which will have further links if you wish to follow them.
I would like to point out that a few years ago everyone was laughing at the idea that this is a worldwide socialist conspiracy. After all….we know there is no such thing as a conspiracy...right?
However, if the groups promoting all of this are socialistic in nature, including the environmental movement….actually especially the environmental movement; if the end result of imposing all of these regulations and policies will be overseen by the U.N. (clearly a socialist organ) and this will impose socialistic central planning worldwide; then why is it irrational to assume this is anything but a conspiracy to impose socialism worldwide? Apparently there are a great number of officials that believe this is what is actually happening.
As you read these articles that try to claim that there is nothing sinister about Agenda 21; that it is all some conspiracy nuts imagination; you may wish to ask yourself; is humanity being Keyser Sözed into believing no villain actually exists?”
Rep. Dennis Hedke, R-Wichita... noted that most U.S. citizens are unaware of the agenda or the implications of what he called a, “Massive attempt to restructure human activity on the planet.” “There is no other way to put it — this is the most aggressive attack on individual liberty and the foundations of our country we have ever seen.”
Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theory or Threat
The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers. The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:
Local planning is a local idea.Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.....
Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
The UN has no enforcement capability.
There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
There is no hidden agenda.
“I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”
And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”
Agenda 21 Links.
Agenda 21 and the impact on personal property rights and land rights content, This page is updated often, last update was November 19, 2011. The most recent updates are first, but the foundational video series are below. (under the Taking Liberty Video Documentary.) We have had several hundred thousand visitors to this page due to its in-depth resources on Agenda 21 and property rights. You can also search our database of over 15,000 content news and commentary articles for more information. Use the search box in the upper right corner above the donation button.
Hood Richardson: Property rights…who needs them?
Government regulatory agencies, environmentalists, liberal politicians, courts and proponents of the “common good” have worked hard during the past 30 years to make property rights less important if not eliminate them all together where they could.
Karel Beckman: “Replace emission trading scheme with a carbon tax”
If the European Commission wants to stimulate “green growth”, as its official policy states, then the Emission Trading System (ETS) is the wrong instrument.
Michael McGuire: Indonesia, UK, Liberia in charge of UN’s Agenda 21
The leaders of Indonesia, the United Kingdom and Liberia will lead the effort in planning the implementation of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the UN announced Wednesday in an emailed news release.
Warnings against SDG ‘rush’ ahead of Rio+20 Summit
The setting of internationally agreed sustainable development goals (SDGs) has emerged as a dominant likely outcome of next month’s Rio+20 Summit in Brazil.
U.N. Fails to Finalise Rio+20 Plan On Sustainable Future
After two weeks of closed door negotiations, a U.N. preparatory committee (PrepCom) has failed to reach consensus on a global plan of action, titled “The Future We Want,” to be adopted by a summit meeting of world leaders mid-June in…
Ileana Johnson Paugh: The Global Warming/Globalist Crowd is on the March Again
The globalists are on the march and quite busy in the month of June 2012. The Rio +20 is meeting in Brazil to check on the progress of United Nations Agenda 21 twenty years later.
Henry Lamb: Agenda 21′s Role in America’s Financial Breakdown
For more than 20 years, now, the most powerful word in advertising has been “sustainable.” This term sells everything from toilet paper to spark plugs. This same term is even more powerful when applied to public policies such as: “sustainable” energy; transportation; agriculture; development; housing, and almost every other policy considered by government. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a product, the product will be more expensive and less efficient than it has to be. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a public policy, the policy will not only be more expensive and less efficient, it will be controlled by the government, and it will ultimately fail.
Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State
As nationwide opposition against the controversial United Nations Agenda 21 “sustainability” plan continues to build, a popular bill in Arizona that analysts say looks set to pass would prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions from implementing or supporting any …
Agenda 21: Arizona close to passing anti-UN-sustainability bill
Arizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents say would stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state …
Bill to Ban Sustainability and Climate Change Action Fails in Arizona
This Week in Clean Economy: Five states fail to pass anti-Agenda 21 laws, with Arizona being the most high profile. Bills remain alive in three states
Michael McGuire: UN weighs in on California politics
The Arizona legislature’s passage this week of a bill to prohibit the state and its subdivisions from participating in United Nations Agenda 21 has been dismissed as an act of paranoia, but the UN has shown an increasing interest in …
Haslam Opts Not to Sign Resolution Against Agenda 21
Governor Bill Haslam has chosen not to go along with conservative lawmakers in condemning an international environmental program. Tennessee’s House and Senate both voted overwhelmingly to oppose the United Nations sustainability blueprint called Agenda 21. Haslam left the resolution unsigned.
United Nations on trial in KS Legislature
It sounds like the theme of a sci-fi terror flick, or an action film involving computers and a secret government plot to enslave the world…
Kansas Lawmakers Seek Resolution Against “Insidious” UN Agenda 21
Lawmakers in Kansas are considering a strongly worded resolution condemning a controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as Agenda 21, saying the global plan is a “dangerous” attack on private property rights, individual liberty, and national sovereignty..
House passes UN conspiracy resolution
The House advanced a resolution Thursday demanded by lawmakers fearful about covert infiltration of U.S. environmental policy by socialist ideals espoused by the United Nations.
Larry Greenley: EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21
One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.
Agenda 21 Update: Labor Dept. Withdraws Child Labor Restrictions In Farm Bill
The Department of Labor (DOL) has apparently heard the voice of the American farmer (and the American people) and backed off its plan to restrict or severely limit family members under the age of 16 from working on family farms.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
By Rich Kozlovich
Recently I spoke against an anti-pesticide ordinance at the April Cuyahoga County Council meeting in Cleveland, Ohio. The basis for this ordinance was that pesticides were “toxic” and “carcinogenic”. None of that is an explanation for understanding whether they represent an inappropriate ‘risk’ or not, and since those are both trigger words the ordinance was based on scare mongering. One of the council members claimed that they had the studies to show the health risks caused by pesticides. Baloney! If this was true then the EPA would be required by law to remove those products from the market place; and we need to understand that the EPA is not a pesticide friendly organization, but there are even limits to the kind of junk science they can heap on society. However, I do think it is important for everyone to know how risk evaluations are properly done, or in this case an explanation of how they are done improperly.
Statistics aren't science and cannot alone prove the existence or absence of risk. One of the problems with using statistics to determine risk is 'data dredging'. If you drag up enough data you can come up with any explanation that suits the particular issue you are trying to promote. “Statistics are being looked to more and more as explanations for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes." “Statics can’t prove cause and effect associations because they don’t provide biological explanations. Without such explanations, statistical associations are hollow numbers.” Biological explanations, not mere possibilities or conjecture, are a necessary component of determining the existence of risk.
Epidemiology alone isn't science because epidemiology is statistics and alone cannot prove the existence or absence of risk. Mice aren't little people. The results of tests on laboratory animals do not necessarily pertain to humans. Mice aren't little rats either. Very often reactions to a substance that occur in mice do not occur in rats and vice versa. The American Council on Science and Health petitioned the EPA to stop declaring substances ‘carcinogenic’ on rodent testing alone because that violated the principles outlined in the Information Quality Act. “Finally….EPA replied with a dodge, claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” One would think that policy would be based on science, so if it isn't we must ask; just what is this policy based on? So if the EPA can't find a reason to remove these products from the market place we can be assured some local council has nothing to offer that could ever begin to look like 'valid science'.
Exposure isn't toxicity. Just because someone is exposed to a substance or condition doesn't necessarily mean that they've been exposed to a harmful level. I often read that articles that deal with bio-monitoring to see just how many synthetic chemicals we have in bodies. That number has consistently been over 200. We are also living longer and healthier lives. Does that mean that having more synthetic chemicals in our bodies increases our life span and quality of health? The dose makes the poison. All substances are poisons in sufficient amount. Below that amount, exposures are not harmful. At some point the molecular load of any substance will be so small that cells will not respond to it. This is called the threshold principle.
There is always a safe exposure to a substance or condition.
- Junk Science Judo, by Steve Milloy
- We Should Expect More from the EPA
- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Amendment Signed
- Ecological Sanity, by Claus and Bolander
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption, e.g., a presumption of guilt.
Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.
Editor's Note: Please follow the link for further discussion.
Che Guevara's Rendezvous With Justice
By Humberto Fontova
41 years ago this week (Oct.9, 1967) in Boliva, Ernesto "Che" Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine. Without trial, he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall and shot. Historically speaking, justice has rarely been better served. The number of men Che's "revolutionary tribunals" condemned to death in the identical manner range anywhere from 400 to 1,892. The number of defenseless men (and boys) Che personally murdered with his own pistol runs to the dozens.
"Executions?" Che Guevara exclaimed while addressing the hallowed halls of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1964. "Certainly, we execute!" he declared to the claps and cheers of that august body. "And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the Revolution's enemies!"
I know a lot of time that has passed since the world became afflicted with the madness of Global Warming, so most have probably forgotten the hysterical claims made by the greenies. Their big thing was that we were running out of “fossil” fuels so we needed to dump oil, coal and natural gas and adopt "renewable" energy sources. I know, I know....you’re about to say….no, no, no…it was about the world becoming too hot because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and those energy sources were the cause. Baloney! If there wasn’t concern about an end to those resources this wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. That was the reason for promoting wind, solar and bio-fuels as energy sources. All of which are a disaster.
I know that no one will remember, but many years ago I said that I thought it was a wonderful idea for the Euro-nuts (who, with smug arrogance, denigrated the U.S. for not jumping on board with them in their lemming like approach to economics) to adopt these green policies. Why? Because I knew it would be good for our economy. Green is expensive and ineffective. Green, as outlined by the environmental movement, is a death wish to any country that adopts it, and this includes the rich and the poor nations.
Now we see that Germany has fired its Environmental minister who was “responsible for the implementation of the green energy transition – one of the most important projects of this country,” because he presumably “botched” the whole thing leading to losses in an election. Don’t you love it? It’s just like the Soviet Union under Stalin. Do you remember the five year plans that all failed? They failed because the people running them were flawed; not “the plan” mind you, because ‘the plan’ was flawless. It was the people running "the plan: that were flawed; so he shot them… and appointed others (who must have really been happy about that) to run “the plan”! Now we know "the plan" had to be flawless because Stalin liked “the plan”, so any “plan’ approved by Stalin was flawless. Of course they eventually dumped all “the plans”. Why? Is it because these “plans” were all stupid? No…of course not. They just couldn’t find anyone to master these planned pieces of brilliance (that kept failing) so they dropped them. Please read "Let Me Tell You About Trofim Denisovich Lysenko".
However, I am inclined to believe that the real reason Merkel fired her friend is based on “a recent study estimates that the Germans will soon have to reckon with dramatic price rises in their electricity bills. According to the study, electricity cost for households will doubled in ten years. The rising costs are due to the expansion of renewable energy as well as the necessary grid expansion and the subsidisation of solar and wind power.” “Electricity prices in Germany will rise by 70 percent by the year 2025 according to a study.” But “the plan” was flawless….it just didn’t work...and they need a scapegoat! He's it!
Now we find that the Brits are going to review their “Green Deal” just because a paltry 8.5 million people can’t afford their energy bills. Imagine that! Another arrogant group who criticized us for our insane idea that the world wasn’t warming beyond anything that was normal and that CO2 wasn’t a problem after all.
Canada,under the previous government, was a big supporter of global warming initiatives, and the current leaders were also on board. Then reality stepped in as “the global economy melted down, public concern about climate change plunged. At the same time, and to the same extent, the prominence of climate change in government communications also plunged.” “In December, 2009, in Copenhagen Canada [agreed to cut] emissions by 17 per cent from the 2005 levels by 2020. It later formally scrapped Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which had committed this country to much steeper reductions.” I guess the price of energy really is the beginning of wisdom.
Now we have a bunch of nitpickers fighting over the “Duration Of ‘Kyoto 2′ Threatens Rift At UN Climate Talks”. They are disputing “over the length of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has threatened to fracture a coalition between the EU and some of the world’s poorest countries at the latest round of U.N. climate talks….” This is all horse sweat. They don’t want an agreement because the world isn’t warming any longer and the ‘World Is Running Out Of Energy Scares”! It turns out that “methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond.” Let's face it....Kyoto agreements are an economic disaster for any country that adopts them....and for what? The world isn't warming and CO2 wasn't the cause of the small amount of warming that did occur over the last 150 years. Get over it!
So in conclusion we now know we have enough oil and coal to last at least 200 years and the amount of natural gas that has become available is so large that the vastness of that quantity is virtually unknown. Now we find that there is so much energy in another resource that we are now energy independent worldwide. We just need to go and get it. So why do we need another Kyoto? We don’t need another one any more than we needed the first one. There is one catch to this though. Since the scheme to impose worldwide emissions standards, which Jaques Chirac called 'the first step in global governance', has clearly failed, the next effort is, and has been for decades, to give the United Nations authority over the world's oceans by way of the LOST treaty. (Editor's Note: Please follow this link. This is an article that needs to be read! RK)
We need to really get this. There were those who knew this was inevitable from the beginning of these scares. There were those of us who knew this as a gigantic fraud from early on. There are those who are finally realizing it now. And then there are those who still think that Stalin wasn’t really a bad guy after all. He just needed another plan!
The planners are always with us. What I find particularly appalling is that none of them seem to have ever done anything except plan….other people’s lives.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
"that the lady with the rifles, the inexperienced ex-governor of Alaska, could became U.S. President. We observe that she knows absolutely nothing about anything."
Malaria surge feared:
WHO releases action plan to tackle the spread of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes
By Amy Maxmen
The war to bring malaria to heel has made slow but steady progress during the past decade, with the overall mortality rate dropping by more than 25% since 2000. A key factor in this progress has been improved control of mosquitoes, which transmit the Plasmodium parasite — a potent killer that claimed an estimated 655,000 lives in 2010 alone. But health officials fear that the spread of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes could bring about a resurgence of the disease. To help combat this threat, on 15 May the World Health Organization (WHO), based in Geneva, Switzerland, issued a strategic plan to curb the spread of resistance.....
The WHO report says that insecticide-resistant mosquitoes already inhabit 64 malaria-ridden countries. The problem is particularly acute in sub-Saharan African countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Ethiopia and Uganda, where mosquitoes are frequently resistant to compounds known as pyrethroids and even to the organochloride DDT, venerable tools of mosquito control. Because they are extremely safe for children, effective against mosquitoes and affordable, pyrethroids are the only insecticides used to treat bed nets, as well as the first choice for household spraying.....
Using Earth’s Blessings To Better Mankind and Planet
By David Legates
When a country is in dire need of food, clothing, shelter and other necessities for life, it cannot possibly be concerned with environmental issues.…. Unfortunately, some so-called environmentalists wish to keep Africa and other developing nations in perpetual underdevelopment. They pay them off to be “environmentally conscious,” by giving them handouts – food and monetary aid – to keep them alive and perhaps have little solar panels on their huts. But they also ensure that those poor families never prosper or become middle class – so as to perpetuate environmentalist notions of “noble natives,” supposedly “at one” with their environment and living a “sustainable” existence….much of that money is lost to corruption, while the people are forced to continue living in a state of poverty, disease, malnutrition and deprivation, as technologies that could enhance their length and quality of life are denied to them. Among the technologies denied are modern seeds, fertilizers, and high-tech, high-yield farming methods to increase food supplies; natural gas and electricity to heat homes and cook food, instead of cutting down forests and burning wood, thereby degrading indoor air quality and causing lethal lung infections; refrigeration so that people do not have to choose between eating spoiled food and going hungry; and the use of insecticides, including the powerful insect repellant DDT, to spare them from the agonizing illness and death brought on by malaria…… I fail to understand how anyone thinking rationally can argue that poverty and economic hardship will enhance environmental stewardship, or that the planet is more important than the people who live on it.
Originally I found this on ….where else…. Steve Milloy’s Junkscience.com. Steve and his editor Barry are amazing. I can’t imagine how much work it must take for them to find and read all of this stuff in order to link it every day. I subscribe to a number of news services to avoid having to spend so much time finding the news that I think is important. I even have some Google alerts based on certain topics, such as DDT and the Endangered Species Act; and I just can’t keep up with it all. It’s difficult when you have a job that interferes with your life.
But….back to the point. This article, “Caffeine: Is there really A Welcome Lift In Every Cup"? By Michael D. Shaw was really worth the time and effort. He starts by saying;
Readers of a certain age might recognize this tag line from a 1950s era promotional campaign, ran on behalf of the Pan-American Coffee Bureau. Back then, the stimulant effect of caffeine was regularly touted, along with an equal number of commercials in which taste was the most important thing. (Mountain grown...the richest kind!)I never really thought about caffeine as a ‘psychoactive’ drug, but that is how it has to be defined. This lays foundation for two points; toxicity and reaction; all issues related to the potential impact of all chemicals. Regarding studies showing the impact of caffeine on the body he states;
It should hardly come as a surprise that caffeine is by far the most widely consumed psychoactive drug in the world. In his 2005 article in New Scientist, science fiction/fact writer and Renaissance man Richard A. Lovett notes that "In North America, around 90 per cent of adults report using caffeine every day." The major dietary sources of this compound are coffee, chocolate, and cola drinks.
Perhaps the best known scare study came out in 1980, and was done by FDA scientist Thomas Collins (no relation to the cocktail). Collins said to be equivalent to 200 cups of coffee in one gulp. Not surprisingly, a large number of birth defects appeared in their offspring. However, when Collins redid the study in 1983, he simply added the caffeine to the rats' drinking water, and the dose was spread out through the day. This time, the birth defects returned to whatever the normal level is for lab rats.Did you get that? Being “force-fed pregnant rats ridiculously high doses of caffeine” causes an adverse physiological reaction but when exposed to normal doses the impact is meaningless. That is basic science. The dose makes the poison, yet when it comes to pesticides these types of studies are touted as definitive proof that pesticides cause _____ (fill in the blank).
When the dust settled, the consensus became nothing more than common sense: Caffeine taken in moderation, via conventional dosing methods, poses no danger to most people. This viewpoint is echoed by respected holistic physician Wayne R. Bonlie, MD of Timonium, Maryland. But then, folks don't always have common sense.
The reality is that we need to have society become better scientists because we can’t trust those who have a battery of letters behind their names. Scientific integrity has been made an oxymoron by government grant money. Global warming has exposed them for what they are. This became obvious to those of us who watched university researchers promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for structural pest control.
I have stated over and over again that if the only government grant money available to them was to prove that there was no such thing as IPM in structural pest control they would do an about face so fast that you would think they were a color guard in a military parade. The same is true of Global Warming, chemicals and carcinogenicity, ADHD, autism….and oh well… you get the picture.
In the real world versus the lab, where real life takes place, the universe works on certain principles such as threshold effects and the reality that when the molecular load of anything is too small cells will not react to it. The greenies would have you believe otherwise and they have plenty of ‘scientists’ on their side who are so corrupt that they will say anything in order to attain grant money and recognition for the things they spout, which brings them outside financial rewards by way of speaking fees. This, in spite of the fact that so many of them almost have a monopoly on being wrong; from Malthus on population to Rachel Carson on DDT to James Hansen on global warming. So why do we listen to these people?
As I see it we have four options. Ignorance; which is fixable; stupidity; which is ignorance coupled with complacency; insanity which is unavoidable if you accept their conclusions; or clear rational thinking which means accepting the reality that to be green is irrational and misanthropic and everything the greenies say are lies of commission and lies of omission.
As Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 C.E.) once noted; "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."