I am ending my subscription to National Geographic this year because of the magazine’s insistence on shoving global warming down my throat.

Today’s article about global cooling by National Geographic Online caught my attention:

A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, between 1645 and 1715, has been linked to a deep dip in solar storms known as the Maunder Minimum.

During that time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid. Glaciers in the Alps engulfed whole villages, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695.

To summarize, the first part of this article explains how the Little Ice Age corresponds to a lack of solar activity. Then this:

But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.

“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. []

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.” (emphasis added.)

Since when do real scientists form “preemptive” conclusions? The scientific model requires hypothesis, followed by experimentation to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Moreover, a hypothesis is only good until a single a single counterexample is found, at which time a new hypothesis is formed to account for the new observation.

For example, in the 17th century Newton proposed a set of laws of physics termed, appropriately, Newtonian Physics. The laws were based on observation. However, Einstein’s work disproved the Newtonian laws. Turns out, Newtonian Physics are a reasonable approximation for low speed mechanical systems. At high speed (i.e., approaching the speed of light), Newton Physics break down and do not behave as Newton’s model predicts. Einstein revised the Newtonian hypothesis and suggested that the Newtonian model needed to account for relativity. In the face of conflicting evidence, Einstein revised the hypothesis.

Compare that to these so-called researchers. In the face of conflicting evidence, they are standing by the old model and preemptively coming up with reasons (not experimental results) to support the old hypothesis. Is that how we conduct science now? This activity is referred to as data mining by honest researchers. Data mining starts with the conclusion and builds evidence to support it (real science works the opposite direction). In so doing, a data miner typically throws out data that doesn’t support the conclusion or rationalizes why the data understates or overstates their desired position.

What is the evidence that these researchers are missing? The article spells it out in a simple syllogism. First, the article points out the lack of solar activity over the last few years (see my prior post in support of this hypothesis). It is then pointed out that a solar minimum likely contributed to the Little Ice Age. The logical conclusion then, is that because low solar activity is observed now, then we should observe a period of cooling (which we are), supporting a reasonable hypothesis that the sun has a strong effect on global climate change.

Note, the so-called National Geographic researchers point out that the sun’s activity is only “a few hundredths of one percent down,”  compared with the doubling of CO2. They fail to mention that CO2 in our atmosphere makes up 0.0383% of the atmospheric gasses. Double that, and you get an astounding 0.0766% of our atmosphere, an increase of a few hundredths of one percent!

Notice that by framing the decrease in solar output in terms of “a few hundredths of one percent” and the purported increase in CO2 in terms of “double,” it seems as thought the CO2 phenomena is a more pronounced change, even though the relative amount of both the purported change of CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in solar output can be reduced to the same, meaningless pile of words that don’t say anything about anything unless they are placed in the proper context, together with other influencing variables.

To wit, these researchers should spend more time in the lab revising the global warming hypothesis and testing it, than arguing why the prior hypotheses are still valid in the face of evidence that appears to be providing the single counterexample to invalidate the old hypothesis.

Of course, the real motivation is money. Without money they can’t do science, and the money doesn’t flow freely to those who question the religion of global warming, especially now that it appears our Federal Government is pushing the pro-global warming agenda wholeheartedly. As I have said before, science and politics arewater and oil — if we are going to do science like this, let’s make up whatever scientific conclusions are politically expedient in the day and save the money that would otherwise be used to produce the data-mined results that support whatever preconceived conclusions that put the most money and influence into the pockets of the pols.

Liberalism: Mortgaging the future to feel good today.

More of the same :

[President Obama] cited the worst U.S. economic conditions in 70 years and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as having placed the country in crisis and said it was time to "proclaim an end to the petty grievances " that have long divided Americans.

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly," he said.

Why now? Why not two years ago? Why not six months ago?

Liberals mistakenly think that merely proclaiming that the age of partisanship is over, it is over. I’m sorry, but Obama’s statement just reeks of disingenuous. If liberals were committed to "ending the petty grievances," they wouldn’t be clamoring for Bush’s head on a pike today. They wouldn’t have waited until the first day they are in charge to offer the olive branch.

The time for sincerity has long passed. If you are really serious about ending this sort of squabbling President Obama, you liberals will have to take the first steps. And let me clarify, merely saying "let’s be friends" doesn’t count. You will be judged on what you do , not what you say .

To all the liberals, the ball is in your court now. Let’s see what you do with it.

UPDATE

The headline says it all:

Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

Yes, let’s put aside our petty grievances…

Today is the inauguration of President Obama. I hope he has his Presidential Seal ready.

This morning’s reading was a little hard to stomach, mostly due to the smugness underlying the articles I read. Two headlines caught my attention. Unfortunately, I think these headlines paint a somewhat accurate picture of the way liberals think.

1. The first is an article by Robert Shrum entitled "Battered Liberal Syndrome ." He explains that Barack Obama will succeed because he is reaching across the aisle in an effort to end partisanship.

He writes:

I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.

…

Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground . . . . Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum . At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.

What bothers me is this: why did liberals have to wait until their man was in office and they control the legislature to have "a more respectful, less angry, more open" discussion? Over the last eight years, hasn’t nearly all the vitriol from the American public come from the left? What I take away from these sorts of statements is that liberals will only play nice when they are in charge. If liberals really wanted to extend an olive branch (which I don’t believe they do… see below), the time to do it is when the other guy is in office. Liberals have had eight years to play nice, but they haven’t.  It simply doesn’t look genuine when, after winning, you say, now things will be different. Now we won’t be angry. Now we will have a respectful conversation.

2. The second is a pair of articles about prosecuting George W. Bush. Did I mention that there isn’t an olive branch? Here is case in point.

(I have to be honest. I am not a huge G.W. Bush fan. I am conservative mostly from a fiscal standpoint, and he has been anything but a fiscal conservative.)

From Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials

I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it ," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities ."

From Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions

Activists who have spent years protesting President Bush admit their chances are slim of seeing Bush or any members of his administration face legal recourse for what they say are "crimes against humanity."

While Shrum tells everybody that partisanship and vitriol are over, his friends are busy setting up the gallows for President Bush. What’s even more ironic here, is that according to Conyers, a "criminal probe" needs to be set up to see if any laws were broken. In other words, Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest have no concrete evidence of any wrong doing.

They want a witch hunt.

Pelosi justifies herself with the "we don’t have a right to ignore it" mantra. Ignore what , Madame Speaker? Moreover, since when does the legislative branch enforce the law ? Since never. That is the job of the Executive branch, which is exactly why Pelosi et al. need Obama to be on board with their lynching of Bush, and the source of the frustrations for the lack of prosecution for the so-called crimes against humanity.

Here we have liberal retribution at its finest. Why are these people so bent on prosecuting Bush for war crimes? Where is the outcry against the terrorists for their crimes against humanity? Are you angry at Bush because he kept us safe for the last seven years? Because he stumbles over his words? Because he took us to war and actually used our military for more than just funding the college education of our troops?

No,  this goes back to the Monica Lewinsky scandle. The liberals have waited a decade for some payback for impeaching President Clinton. It is their turn to loudly proclaim "off with his head." And in so doing, they show their true colors.

On one hand we have Mr. Shrum’s smugness, and on the other we have the balance of the left’s hatred. Sorry, Mr. Shrum, but I don’t see the conversation in Washington becoming any more civil now that Obama is on the beat. The problem is largely with yourselves. A civil discussion doesn’t work when you are only willing to be civil when your guy is in the house and when you are getting your way. It doesn’t happen when you are turning the leader of the other party over to the liberals in the Hague for prosecution of war crimes. The truth is that even now that your guy is in the house, your people still aren’t civil.

One of the many drafts that for some reason never got published (I think because I needed to go back and find the goldfish link). I am glad the election is over, but post election thoughts still linger.

---

Today, I read yet another article on the registration of fraudulent voters. This time, the registrant was a dead goldfish in Illinois. Which begs the question, how and why did the goldfish get registered.

Originally, the only people eligible to vote in the United States were land owners. In other words, you got to vote if you could show title to a parcel of land. Then blacks got the right to vote, followed by woman’s suffrage, which are both positive societal advances.

Voting is a privilege that every citizen of our country enjoys. But why do we need groups running around registering everybody? If a person wants to vote, they ought to figure out how to get themselves registered and do it of their own volition?

Critics might argue that certain segments of the population don’t feel comfortable dealing with the government and feel they will be discriminated against. Fair enough, but I can’t alter how these people feel when dealing with the government. (Shoot, I don’t know anybody who enjoys dealing with the DMV.) Perhaps there are other similar arguments.

Nonetheless, if a person wants to vote, that person should take the initiative to get themselves registered. Period. No ACORN. No other groups reaching out to register these folks. One vote per person, and each person takes it upon themselves to vote.

Moreover, each person, in registering to vote, should have to show some sort of identification. Again, critics might argue that some people don’t have identification and don’t feel comfortable going to get it. To which I answer: then that person shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Period.

Our system must have safeguards built into it to ensure that each person get one and only one vote. So far, this election cycle shows that the absence of safeguards is fertile soil for gross abuse and voter fraud. On balance, what is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of false registrations or requiring a extremely small portion of the population, who don’t have picture identification, to get identification before they vote?

If ACORN et al. wants to be useful, I propose that rather than register people to vote, which obviously they cannot do ethically, they help these people get their picture identification and then give them detailed instructions on how to get themselves registered to vote. The so-called "disinfranchised" then get their ID’s and get to cast their ballots.

The only people who lose in this situation are Mickey Mouse, dead goldfish, and the Dallas Cowboys.

Definition of modern elitism: expecting the government to pony up $85,000,000,000 in tax dollars to bail out your company due to your mismanagement, then spending $440,000 on a retreat to a posh resort for your top executives days later.

Why do these people think that they are entitle to wine and dine themselves at our expense? Perhaps the average American who is paying taxes would like to use some of their tax money for a massage. Perhaps these sorts of expenditures are what made the bailout necessary.

In every socialist regime the world has ever seen, a select group of important people used the collective’s money to fund their own luxurious lifestyles. We call those people elitists — the rules don’t apply to them. They say all the right things, but what the do and how they live conveys a different message.

Just like the executives at AIG, who think our tax dollars should be spent on them for pillow mints and massages.

Gosh, I wonder who these sorts of executives support politically? Perhaps other elitists who think middle America clings to guns and religion…

(Uses without permission, but as a fair use, from The Homa Files)

[UPDATE...] To be fair, I wanted to see to whom the greatest percentage of AIG’s contributions went to. Because the title listed on campaignmoney.com is fuzzy, I am unable to drill down on the executives. According to campaignmoney.com, 62% of the AIG employees donated to the Democrats (many had multiple donations, but each was counted only once).

Caveat: No casual relationship can be gleaned from the above stats. All that can be said about the data is (1) those who have the means to donate are more likely to be executives; and (2) approximately 2/3 of those who donated lean liberal. However, all of this is conjecture from shoddy data that doesn’t give rise to much more than casual inferences that I would be hesitant to rely on (unless you are a global warming scientist).

The majority of AIG donations went to the American International Group Inc. Employee Political Action Committee (AIG PAC). Listed below is where the $$ goes. Notice that none of the money goes to Obama or McCain. 15 of 77 donations are to Republicans, which means 81% of these donations went to Democrats.

(more…)