Climate Change - WHO Be Crazy? Deniers or Believers?

So the climate-change debate is roaring on thanks to the disastrous increase of tornadoes, flooding, earthquakes,tsunamis and such occuring all over the planet.

While most of what I am seeing lately is what I'll call pro-cc and anti-cc arguments, the topic is whether or not IT (Climate Change) is happening.

The pro-cc folks will say "Hey moron, yes it is happening, can't you see that?" They will then proceed to slam the GOP for promoting the whole Global-warming-aka-climate-change-is a hoax standpoint.

While I will join in with them and be the first to say screw the GOP, what do the Democrats (really) think they can do about it? Let me point out just a few facts.

FACT 1- The earth is millions of years old.
FACT 2- YES. Climate Change is real.
FACT 3- YES. The earth's climate has changed dramatically on its own, over the course of time. Remember the Ice Age?


Scientists say that in the past 400,000 years (only a miniscule amount of time in comparison to the millions of years good ole' mother nature has been around), that carbon has never been present above 300 ppm, except until our lifetime.

Now I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be, but my first question, as a critic thinker is...How exactly do they know what it was 400,000 years ago? Much less, 200 years ago? I mean, the technology to measure such levels surely hasn't been around more than a half-century, right?

One side of the argument is that when we burn fossil fuels (coal,gas) the carbon in the fossilized material that has been locked into the earth for millions of years is released back into the atmosphere in the form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This leads to the position that CO2 needs to be drastically reduced.

FACT 4- Even if carbon dioxide (and methane, which I haven't even discussed) emissions stopped entirely today, climate change will still continue:
A: Due to the length of time that both compounds remain present in the atmosphere, and
B: Because the earth does go through its own, natural, cyclical heating and cooling stages.

So, while the GOP position is to deny that any of this is happening and that man has any role whatsoever in it, The left side argues that we must, must, MUST tax everyone on the planet for their CO2 emissions and that will just solve the whole damn thing.

What's wrong with this picture?. Where is the middle ground? I am not a climate change denier, yet I also don't believe that carbon taxes/carbon credits will solve the earth's woes.

My position: YES it is real, YES it happens naturally, YES, man helps speed it up and makes the situation worse.

NO, denying it won't do anything other than cause this whole back/forth distractionary argument, NO, taxing the entire planet isn't going to stop a damn thing, and NO, consumers (especially Americans) are not going to give up their cars and other shiny little toys that they can't take with them when they die. It's called greed.

Bottom line - the Democrats can go screw themselves right along with the Republicans. Neither one of them have a solution and never will.

Really, there isn't much anyone can do to stop this pattern, other than to live more simply and strive for personal responsibility - to not contribute more to a bad and worsening situation. Is that going to save the planet? No, but it makes me feel a hell of a lot better.

I guess you could say living in the country has given me a new perspective on life. It's like an old country man once said, the earth is like a dog. Every once in awhile, it has to shake off all the fleas.

this blog entry was inspired by Snarkipedia's video (below)

Obama's claim to be "focused on jobs"

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Barack Obama stated, “Although our economy hasn’t been the focus of the news this week, not a day goes by that I’m not focused on your jobs, your hopes, and your dreams."


If this statement is true, then one can't help but wonder why (in between press engagements related to the Bin Laden killing) the president made several appearances around the nation this week to speak about reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The recent hike in gas prices is certainly not the primary source of our country's economic troubles.  Now he is talking about immigration.


In a CNN poll released this week, 80 percent of respondents agreed the economy is in bad shape. The largest problem area according to those surveyed was unemployment. The national deficit, pain at the gas pump, housing costs and taxes rounded out the other important economic issues.
In 2007, prior to the recession, unemployment was nearly half of current levels. The U.S. Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its monthly report on Thursday, indicating 244,000 jobs were added last month. Although this number exceeded economists' expectations, the national unemployment rate rose to nine percent, up from the previous month. The number of unemployed persons currently sits at 13.7 million.
It's important to note this number doesn't include over two million people who are in fact out of work, yet not counted in the unemployment figure. These are people who have been out of the labor force and have looked for work in the past year. These individuals weren't counted because they had not searched for work within the past four weeks. Essentially, they have given up.


Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this week that one in seven people in the country are currently on food stamps. These staggering numbers were the subject of an interactive map and breakdown comprised by The Wall Street Journal.


Nationwide, the number of people receiving food stamp benefits saw an 11.6 percent increase compared to one year ago. The top five states with the highest percentage of its population currently receiving food stamps are:


Mississippi: 20.6%
Oregon: 20.0%
Tennessee: 19.9%
New Mexico: 19.7%
Michigan: 19.6%


So the question remains...when will the president and congress turn their attention away from the global war on terror and quest for oil to focus on the unemployment obstacle that is choking so many American families?

OBL Death Saga: The story keeps changing.

Regardless of whether the Osama Bin Laden death *story* is true, there is one primary advantage (for the Obama administration) to it.



I am very skeptical about this whole report of his death, and here's why:

OBL has been on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list since 1998, when he was added as a result of the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa. Note: there is no mention of 9/11 on OBL's Wanted notice. In 2006, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, Rex Tomb, stated: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." To date, he has not been formally charged, either.

Then there is the statement from former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, in late 2007 alleging that OBL was killed by one of the same men convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl .



Bhutto was assassinated at the end of December 2007.

It does seem bizarre that since 9/11, subsequent video messages allegedly from OBL show a man that looks very different from the inital videos released in 2001. In more recent years, any communications allegedly from OBL have been audio only.

Based on this, I conclude they had not found him previously because he was already dead.