Global Warming vs. Caring for the Environment

Global warming is a real issue, Earth's average temperature is getting warmer. This is caused by several factors.

• Solar activity


• Urbanization


• Deforestation


• Pollution


• Green House Gases

Man contributes to 4 of these 5.

Urbanization creates "heat bubbles". This effect can also lead to suspect data readings as land based temperature sensors tend to be located near urban centers the average temperature will always be warmer. The larger the area and the more concrete and buildings the more skewed the reading can be. Plus that also means more electricity for the infrastructure and the concentration of pollutants is generally more than the local environment, with reduced natural resources, such as trees and vegetation, can bear.

Deforestation is reducing the earth's natural cooling mechanism, as well as contributing to massive pollution due to burning huge expanses of forest every year. And since forests remove not just CO2 but also serve to help filter particulates form the air the effect is multiplied. Plus bare ground heats faster and retains the heat longer than trees.

Pollution is perhaps man's worse contribution to the environment. Snow contaminated with particulates falls onto permanent snow caps, but since that snow is not pure white it no longer reflects the majority of the sun's energy but absorbs it, making that snow melt faster. The particulates continue to gather on the snow cap absorbing heat continuing the process. Particulates, along with VOC's and ozone combine to form smog. Air pollution contributes to respiratory distress and negatively impacts the quality of life of many people. Particulates also absorb heat in the atmosphere allowing the air to heat up leading to the chemical reactions that cause haze and smog. Nitrous oxide and ozone also contribute to respiratory problems for millions of people.

Green house gases are a wide variety of gases that all contribute to a theory called the green house effect. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and groups of fluorocarbon containing gases make up the bulk of green house gases. For millions of years water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases formed the natural green house effect that allowed life as we know it to flourish on Earth. Without this atmospheric phenomenon the average temperature would be about 40 degrees F.

The problem is in determining how each of the 5 major factors I've listed have worked together to create the problem we are now experiencing. The biggest contribution to the increase in earth's temperature is due to solar activity. The rise in temperatures of our neighbors in the solar system bears testament to that fact. But the other four factors also play a role in warming the environment.

And here lies the crux of the problem. Developing countries and the UN have said that they will not address urbanization, deforestation or pollution as they will pose impediments to the developing nations and give an unfair advantage to the nations that developed their economies prior to the recognition that those practices on a global scale are bad. So the US will not address 3 of the 5 issues, 4 of the 5 since they cannot do anything about solar activity.

That means the UN has to focus on green house gases. Of the green house gases they can do little about the major contributor, water vapor, so the IPCC doesn’t list it as a green house gas. They don’t want to address methane, the next worse contributor, because while already developed nations can address the primary sources of methane (farms and landfills) developing nations do not want to direct any resources to pollution control. That leaves nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and the fluorocarbons. Like CO2, NO2 is primarily formed as a byproduct of combustion, especially of fossil fuels. Nitrous oxide is associated more with air pollution than global warming so to avoid muddying the waters of global warming vs. air pollution they don’t address it except as tail pipe emission from cars although that is a negligible source on modern vehicles.

That leaves the UN with little choice than to declare carbon dioxide as the main cause of global warming. And in doing so they arranged a group of scientists to validate faulty science and declared the debate over.

Unfortunately for the UN there are a huge number of respected scientists (and rational thinking people) that have declared the debate far from over. They have pointed out that carbon dioxide may be one piece of the puzzle but it not the defining issue.

As long as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia and other countries spew forth so much pollution their countries are enveloped in a brown haze that is often visible from space the issue of global warming is moot as far as I am concerned. The potential effects of air pollution, particulates and gases, are a much more serious threat to the health of the globe and it’s inhabitants than a random and meaningless carbon dioxide theory that is based more on economics than science.

We don't need more nanny state, we need more liberty

Once again the government of several states have discovered something we need to be protected from... this time it is texting while driving.

A little insight... drunk driving laws, seat belt laws, child seat laws, air bags, cell phone and now texting (it's really the same thing!) laws, are all courtesy of your friendly insurance industry. The same with bicycle helmet laws and most other laws that are in place to protect us, the truth is they are to protect the insurance industry's profits and give the government more control over your basic liberties. The tell tale signature of the insurance industry is that they associate the activity with drunken driving. Because we all know how dangerous DWI/DUI is since MADD has been telling us about it for 2 decades. And where do you think the major funding for MADD came from?

Nine in 10 Americans say ban texting while driving

But there is no need to legislate against texting while driving; there are already distracted driving laws and careless and reckless driving laws on the books. If you're swerving in traffic the police have reason to stop you, if you cross the line while texting and don't signal it is an unsafe lane change, if you have an accident because you are texting it is careless or even reckless driving.

The most telling and frightening part of the published study is that 89% of the respondents said that they think the government needs to pass laws against texting and driving, while 66% admit to reading messages and 57% admit to ending them. I find it amazing that 66% of the people surveyed lack the basic self discipline to put down the damn phone while they are driving after admitting it is a dangerous act, but I am astonished that they feel that they need the government to pass a law to control them and prevent them from doing it.

The reason that we are losing our basic liberties to the state is not so much that they pass laws to curtail our freedom without our consent but rather because many people lack the personal responsibility to control their own actions and have to ask the government to be their mommy to tell everyone not to do it. Even those of us capable of identifying a dangerous act and exercising the self discipline to not do it.

Every time we allow (or ask!) the government to enact a law to protect us we are giving up another basic liberty and the state gains just a little more control over our personal lives. Why do we need more restrictive laws, why can't adults be expected to exercise personal responsibility and not do stupid and dangerous things?

Be a responsible adult... just say NO to the nanny state!

Notify the next of kin: The NYT is circling the drain

The New York Times, the venerable “Old Gray Lady”, formerly known as ‘The Paper of Record”, is shrinking. First in July of 2006 they announced a host of cost saving strategies, including mass layoffs, reducing the number of news pages, shutting a state of the art printing press facility, increasing newstand price, and reducing the size of the paper from 13.5 inches to the “industry standard” 12 inches.

Today began the new NYT 12 inch format. It is telling that the paper that all others aspired to be is resorting to follow “industry standard”; the NYT was the standard the industry tried to match. This reduced size paper is being rolled out a year ahead of schedule but the estimated cost savings have dropped from $30 million to $10 million a year. The cost of newsprint hasn’t dropped; in fact it has gone up so the savings should increase… unless of course the circulation has dropped in which case the projected savings indicate that reduction in circulation.

The New York Times has even resorted to a practice it once derided, giving deep discounts to subscribers in order to boost circulation costs. The Old Gray Lady was once above such obviously desperate tactics to generate ad revenues.

The NYT claims ad revenues are streaming out of the print papers and finding its way to “new media” sources. They are of course full of crap, their cross-town quasi-tabloid cousins, the NY News and the NY Post, are raking in cash. Across the Hudson River The Star-Ledger is setting the standard for paper circulation and profitability. There is money in print journalism and newspapers; the argument that it is disappearing is just plain wrong.

The reason for the NYT ignominious downfall is their editorial slant, which has bled over from the editorial page to affect the news content of their paper. Over the last decade or so the paper has allowed their left-of-socialism editorial stance affect the quality of their reporting. Once the paper’s bias was too blatant to ignore they started to hemorrhage customers and revenue. It used to be de rigueur for businessmen to be seen carrying their New York Times under their arms on, and under, the streets of The Big Apple. It was posited that a large percentage of the NYT was for posturing purposes and were never opened.

But rather than learn the key lesson from the failure of Air America, the NYT has actually picked up the pace on it’s leftist views, rebuking the proof that ultra left media is not a profitable venture. The ultra left accounts for a mere 5% of the population and it does not carry over well to moderates who are squeamish about extremism. Nor does it attract advertisers, which are the lifeblood of any media venture.

Unfortunately the publishers of the New York Times allowed their leftists beliefs to bias their reporting of the news. And it is impossible to be a virgin again, the NYT, or more likely the next owner of the NYT, will have a hard uphill battle to regain the credibility that the “Paper of Record” once had. Until then it is just another leftist tabloid, like the Village Voice, just not as entertaining.

Hate Crimes: The state knows what you are thinking

I’ve been kicking around ideas for this blog for over two months. The problem is I always get stuck on one thing… a corroborating main stream media story to tie things together. In this case the “Paper of Record” not only served as that source, but made it a slam dunk.

No Hate Required for Hate Crime in Gay Man’s Death, Judge Rules


Hate crime statutes vary from state to state and they are not equally applied. First point, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this basic issue, all crimes are driven from some form of disregard for the rights of another. It is too easy, and sometimes false to say all crime involves hate, because there are cases where people rob for medicine for a loved one and others who are sociopaths and don’t hate anyone, they don’t recognize them as equals. Hate for the victim doesn’t apply in either of those cases.


My main reason for disliking hate crime statutes is that they invoke shadows of the dreaded “Thought Police” rounding up those who don’t share the same ideas as the state. The original hate laws were passed to be used as mitigating circumstances for use at sentencing but have since morphed into being a crime in and of itself. And now, bringing the statutes full circle and making my fears a reality, a NY judge ruled that you can be guilty of a hate crime even without hate being involved in the crime. In other words, the state will decide if your crime involved hate or not.


Yes, the state has the obligation to protect its citizens, but to decide what the offender was thinking when he committed the crime exceeds the constitutional mandates of protection and borders on enslavement. Besides, using the judge’s logic in her decision that the criminals targeted their victim because of his sexual orientation then rape would almost always be a hate crime since the rapist almost always targets women.


Hate crime statues began to get passed due to knee jerk reactions to unusually brutal acts of violence. But it is the acts of violence that should be against the law, not what people think. It could be argued that it is someone’s inalienable right to dislike another person, race of people, or anyone they want to dislike, based upon totally subjective criteria that they alone set.

Hate crime statutes bordered on infringing upon free speech and freedom of expression prior to Judge Konvisor’s decision, she just knocked over the shaky house of cards these statutes were built out of when she declared the state can decide your frame of mind when the crime was committed.

Once again it is political correctness and liberalism that bring us closer to George Orwell’s Big Brother The left always screech that conservatism is gunning to take away your rights, and yet it is the liberal policies that are turning our constitutional rights into legislated permission and privileges.