Search This Blog

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Global Warming: Sorting Out the Truth

Global warming…defined as, "the gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants."

Global warming has been quite the controversial topic. People have even gone so far as to wonder whether they should believe in global warming or not based on their political or religious views. However, our views on global warming–whether we're for or against the acceptance of it as fact–shouldn't be based from our views on how the government should (or shouldn't) run the country, or what we hold spiritual faith in. Many people simple accept global warming as true or false simply because it is what other influential individuals say they believe (although many times, actions show otherwise). Rather, we should learn to evaluate things based on factual evidence.

It's interesting how we hear about events such as which celebrities are getting married or divorced, what the newest movie is about and why it is so awesome, or how certain cars are flawed, yet we don't hear anything about news that shows itself contrary to views widely expressed by others, in the name of "political correctness." As Adam Hoy (reporter) put it, "the fact that information was leaked…and then suppressed by the media, shows where they're true loyalties lie." Sometimes, it's necessary to be our own reporter and search for the truth, as it doesn't always come to us.

Do I believe in global warming? I don't, but let me show you why I don't, then you make the decision for yourself.

In November 2009, one of the leading global warming advocacy centers in the UK was hacked into, private emails were made public, and these documents were confirmed authentic by the director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones. One of the incriminating emails comes directly from Dr. Jones himself. Here is a copy of the message:

From: Phil Jones

To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@[snipped]

Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit

What is seen here? Well, Dr. Jones talks about a "method" (Mike's Nature trick) where he adds the "real temperatures to each series" for the last 20 years to "hide the decline." Decline in what, you may ask? What else besides the fact that global warming isn't actually increasing–it's decreasing! The email points to the fact that man-made global warming is being made bigger than it actually is. Jones said he couldn't remember the context of "hide the decline" but that the process was a way to fill gaps rather than mislead. The thing is, "trick" usually isn't the word often used to identify a scientific process. Rather, the word is usually intended to mean…well…a trick (a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive)!

That's not all: in another email from Tom Wigley to Dr. Jones, the process of how to delete inconvenient data is discussed in order to emphasize their own ideas. Another email between quite a few scientists shows that they can't even find evidence for global warming:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

[message clipped, talked about January being very cold, 4 inches of snow, new record low for that time]

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Here they are, saying that they can't account for the lack of global warming. Why can't they? The obvious answer is that you can't account for what doesn't exist. Makes enough sense, doesn't it?

People like Al Gore claim to be concerned about global warming, so what do they do? Well, Al Gore went and paid money to global warming institutes to "counteract" the effects of his carbon dioxide output.

So what's the real motive behind the global warming scheme? Power? Possibly. Whatever the motivation, evidential fact should be how we make our decision. Not politics. Not religion. Not political correctness. Fact. Yes, I am sure evidence exists that supports the theory of global warming. But seeing as that "evidence" has been manipulated with "tricks" and that the scientists even admitted that the warming "can't be accounted for," it leads me to wonder…what really is true?

We live in a relative society. Not that our world is relative–the world hasn't changed. What has changed is the people. People believe what feels best for them, or what brings the most pleasure for them, not what is absolutely true. As a debater once put it, "ideas don't have action." In order for truth to be uncovered, it has to be defended. Truth is constantly under attack. Truth is always true, through any circumstance, and it is our duty to defend the freedom of knowing that truth. In order for our nation to truly maintain its founding principles of freedom, we have to be free to know the truth. If our media suppresses that truth, it is our duty to bring it to light. We must take a stand for truth, for freedom, for the things our nation was founded on–principles that our Lord commands us to follow and uphold. If we want to stay strong, we the people must be strong, must be free and not allow others to control our knowledge and perception of reality.

God bless America,


Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Google & Freedom: China's Ultimatum

I'm sure we all love Google. While various other search engines offer competition for Google's search indexing service of the internet, we all know and use Google regularly. Just recently, the American Dialect Society named 'Google' word of the decade, meaning "a generic form of Google, meaning to search the internet." Google has recently released a phone operating system called Android, and even more recently, a smartphone produced by Google: the Nexus One. Point being, Google is huge. Besides being America's top search engine, Google has numerous branches of it's search engine in other countries, like Canada, Spain, China, etc.
Today, on January 13th, Google publicly announced that there had been a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google." Google went further to say that the attacks primary targets had been Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, as well as "other large industries." We all know that China is a country where the government is very much in control–freedom is very limited. However, the interesting thing that happened following these announcements is that Google took it a step further by giving the Chinese government an ultimatum: find a way that you can legally allow Google China's search engine to be uncensored, free, or else Google is going to end Google China. By declaring this ultimatum publicly, Google has taken an incredible stand for freedom. Google China's results have (since 2006, when Google China was created) been censored, due to demands of the government, however recently, Google has began to let users know when material has been censored–a gutsy move, as it has been put. Google's chief legal officer talked of Google's discomfort regarding censoring information, but recently has said that if they are unable to find a legal way to stop having to censor information, they will "not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China." He went on: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down, and potentially our offices in China." Wow. Google stands to lose millions to billions of dollars by taking this step, and while they are very well off financially, this struck a note with me. Google is choosing to value freedom over profit. Yes, I am sure Google has weighed the financial losses and found that they won’t severely hurt the company if they ended Google China, but this is an incredible stand for freedom. As I’ve said before, China now has an ultimatum: allow uncensored search results–admit that they were wrong, and accept Google’s demands–or refuse, and choose to end Google China, something that would also cause embarrassment to the Chinese government. China talks a lot about its goals, what it wants to do, its desire to improve human rights, yet it’s not taken any real action. This ultimatum provides the ability to take that action, and show the world China’s true colors (although they are, for the most part, widely visible). Another possible reason for these actions is because of the chance that the “highly organized attacks that originated from China” could have been those of the Chinese government. Yes, there are many anti-human rights activists in China, but none more against these people than the Chinese government itself. Is Google withholding more information that we don’t know about? Did the Chinese government initiate this attack? We don’t know. We may never. It doesn’t really matter. Google has drawn the line: allow freedom, or its over. 
 As humans, we are entitled to freedom.
As Americans, we know this to be true, considering the amount of freedom we do have today. The boundaries of our freedom can be debated, but overall, we’re the freest country on the planet. We are truly blessed. God has given us a wonderful nation, valuable freedom. And when we stand up to defend the rights of our fellow humans in countries where our God-given freedom is persecuted, we can be a blessing to not only our brethren, but to our Lord. 

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divide his sheep from the goats, and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the shall King say unto them on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungry, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in, naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you water? When did we see you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? Or when did we see you sick, or in prison, and visited you? And the King shall answer and say unto them, “Verily I say unto you, because you have done it unto one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me.” ~ Matthew 25:31–40
What beautiful words. I usually end my posts by saying, “God bless America.” How about this: what if we, as Americans, tried to bless God? Let’s all make an effort to serve our Lord Jesus who sacrificed all for us, selflessly. Let’s be selfless and give ourselves wholly unto Jesus. So…on that thoughtful note,

America, bless God.


Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Rights of the American People and the Rights of the Federal Government

Life, liberty and property…three things that the Founding Fathers believed are essential to a truly free people. America was founded with the desire for everyone to have liberty of speech, liberty of religion, and control over government–something that wasn't possible with Britain. Sadly, today we no longer have the right to speak out against things that we believe to be wrong, or else get branded as "right-wing fundamentalists" or "religious bigots." Today, we no longer have the right to show our faith in public–well, actually, that's not entirely true. If you are an Muslim, or a Hindu, or an atheist, you can talk about whatever you want wherever you want. But if you are a Christian, oh no! Heaven forbid that Christians push their bigoted views on everyone else. If Christians are allowed to pray in schools, it will hurt the feelings of other students that aren't praying! We can't make people feel bad! Ask yourself this: today, who is in control of your life? Obviously we, ourselves, control what we do, but who controls your life? Who else is spending money so quickly and furiously–much of which has somehow, mysteriously "disappeared"–and then creating new taxes for you to have to pay off when you get older? Who–what, I should say–is in control of what we say, what we do, and even what we listen to and watch and learn about?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us." Americans, we are the government. At least, we should be. The American people have the right to choose how we are governed and who governs us. FDR continued, saying, "The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country." We don't have government to rule us. The government has us to protect. The first purpose of a government is to serve the people, and thus the people's duty to create a government that will do so. We have rights. So does the government. The Constitution specifically lays out the power of the government, and doing anything more than that is breaking the law (yes, the government can break laws). Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution says that ""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"" The Constitution goes on to list specific powers that the government has:

–to regulate commerce with US states/foreign countries/Indian tribes,

–to establish "uniform rule" of becoming a natural citizen, and "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies through the United States."

–to coin money and regulate it's value, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

–to provide punishment for counterfeiting US money

–to establish post offices and roads

–to promote science and arts by securing (for limited times) the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries

–to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court

–to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on high seas and offenses against the law of nations

–to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.

–to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

–to provide and maintain a navy

–to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces

–to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

–to provide for training and arming the militia and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of America

–"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

–to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In order that there wouldn't be any confusion, the Founding Fathers added the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So you see, our country's government was designed so that the people would be in control. The definition for government, by the way is, "the group of people in office at a particular time; administration."

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten this. Our government has slowly taken control, changed this definition of government as the Fathers intended it to be. I would regretfully have to say that our government is "the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people." We as Americans have lost grip of that control, however, it is still ours. The government is not our king. It is a group of people in office at a particular time. Their job is to serve and protect us, the American citizens, not to steal our property and our money and use it for their own private luxuries. We must take back control of our government, Americans. Our country needs our prayers and our action. We must not let ourselves get slack with the power that we hold as citizens of the United States.

God bless America.


Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Three US Navy Seals Charged with Assault

"Three US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air, Land special operations) who captured a top terrorist in Iraq are being rewarded not with medals and commendations but with a court martial to answer criminal charges stemming from allegations that they assaulted their prisoner.
The three non-commissioned officers -- Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertos and Jonathan Keefe -- captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is alleged to have been responsible for ordering the murder and mutilation of four contract workers, two of whom were later hung from a bridge in Fallujah. The incident shocked Americans in 2004 and a special operations team was dispatched to capture the killers and their leader.
According to Fox News national security correspondent Catherine Herridge, the SEALs succeeded in capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber." Abed reportedly later told investigators he was punched by his captors causing his lip to bleed.
"The three suspects, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial," according to Fox News Channel.
"Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers," states the report.
Charges against the three SEALS include dereliction of duty, failure to safeguard a detainee, assault, and making false statements. The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on December 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged, according to Fox News.
"All clear thinking Americans should be outraged. Is this how we treat our protectors? Is this justice?" asks a former NYPD detective and US Marine.
"Let me get this straight: we're trying a guy -- a foreign terrorist -- who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 in a civilian court, but we're going to try three war heroes in a military court over a bloody lip?" adds political strategist Mike Barker.
The SEALs' court martial is scheduled for sometime in January, 2010.
The four civilian workers murdered by Abed were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Abed's terrorists then burned the bodies and dragged them through the city streets. Finally, they hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.
SEALs are superbly trained in all environments, and are the master's of maritime special operations. They are required to utilize a combination of specialized training, equipment, and tactics in completion of special-ops missions.
A tactical force with strategic impact, their training includes unconventional warfare, direct action, combating terrorism, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, information warfare, security assistance, counter-drug operations, personnel recovery and hydrographic reconnaissance.
Although personnel comprise less than one percent of U.S. Navy personnel, they offer big dividends on a small investment. SEALs' proven ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict and in operations other than war in a controlled manner, and their ability to provide tactical intelligence offers military and political decision makers immediate and virtually unlimited options in the face of rapidly changing crises around the world.
The most important trait that distinguishes Navy SEALs from all other military forces is that SEALs are Maritime Special Forces, as they strike from and return to the sea. Their stealth and clandestine methods of operation allow them to conduct multiple missions against targets that larger forces cannot approach undetected."
Pray for our country.
God Bless America,

About This Blog

This evening I was helping my friend set up a Blogspot account, and I thought, wtl, why not create a new blog–one dedicated to…well…random generic thoughts! So here it is. Being busy with school, I will try to post as often as I can, probably at least once a week.

So beware! Random generic thoughts may occur in this blog! Enjoy.

God Bless America,