Considerettes

Is global warming to blame for the increase in number and strength of hurricanes? Nope, says an article in the journal Nature. It’s a normal cycle.

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught “is very much natural,” said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950’s and 60’s. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

“We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out,” Dr. Gray said.

But shouldn’t global warming have some effect on them?

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

Global warming is only as much of a problem and as urgent an issue as your computer program says it is.

This big-picture view, however, is something that some folks would rather ignore, preferring the short-term myopic zeal

Seems like everything is President Bush’s fault. One day after Katrina hammered the Gulf Coast, German commentators are laying into the US for its stubborn attitude to global warming and Kyoto.

Hurricane Katrina is big news for German commentators, whatever their ilk. For some, the powerful storm which slammed the Gulf Coast on Monday, is a symbol of the sort of environmental terrors awaiting the world thanks to global warming and proof positive that America needs to quickly reverse its policy of playing down climate change. For the more conservative, it is simply another regrettable natural catastrophe.

The key word being “natural”.

(Cross-posted at Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

I’m on the road again for most of this week, so blogging will again be light.

Pray for the folks in New Orleans and the surrounding areas. My hotel in Tennessee is full of Katrina refugees, as was my waitress at supper.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Sunnis in Iraq are upset with the proposed Iraqi constitution, calling it “fit only for the bin”. The political process is stymied again. Why?

As night fell, the government’s official spokesman, Laith Kubba, announced that a final version of the document had been decided and compromise reached on three issues, although he did not say which. Sunni leaders said that no consensus had been reached.

Hussein al-Falluji, a Sunni member of the drafting panel, said: “If this constitution continues to include federalism, it should be put in the bin and done again.”

It’s the concept of “federalism” that the Sunnis have an issue with; the power-sharing between “a central authority and constituent political units”. Those who are against federalism would be folks who:

• Want more and more central control over all aspects of governing (national speed limits, health care, abortion law, etc.)
• Approve of federal judges legislating from the bench rather than giving state/provinces more say in how they’re governed

And of course, some anti-federalists seek to redefine the term “federalism” to fit their objectives. (Full comparison between the two Executive Orders referred to can be found here.) George Orwell would have been proud.

So essentially what we’re seeing in Iraq is that the possibility of civil war is increasing all because of…liberal values. A stronger and stronger central government is what liberals need to get their agenda through, and federalism is a key element blocking that here. America’s Founding Fathers knew the trouble that a strong central government would bring, and instituted a distributed form of government. (Oh, and how did they make their case to the people? Via a set of articles called “The Federalist Papers”.)

What I find ironic is that anti-war folks–mostly liberals themselves–have been predicting (after all their previous predictions have failed to materialize) that we’d cause a civil war in Iraq with our invasion, and yet, should that happen, it is the very values they espouse that would, in fact, be a main cause of it.

Popularity: 3% [?]

A thanks to Erik Larson for pointing out this latest breakthrough in stem cell research.

A Harvard University advance in generating embryonic stem cells may have the unintended consequence of hindering congressional efforts to lift research restrictions imposed by President Bush four years ago, leaders on both sides of the issue said yesterday as details of the discovery traveled through the scientific and political communities.

The news that Harvard scientists have successfully converted human skin cells into embryonic stem cells — without using a human egg or new embryo — is likely to muddle the already complex debate over federal stem cell research policy.

Muddle? How in the world could finding a way to avoid all the ethical complications of embryonic stem cell research be considered muddling? On the contrary, this could help clear up the whole debate once and for all; researches get their embryonic stem cells without killing unborn life. Everybody wins, if this turns out to be a viable option. This is called “muddling”?

This research is still just getting going, but if we concentrated on this rather than something with ethical pitfalls galore, we’d come sooner to the place where all points of view would be satisfied. Isn’t that the best solution?

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

You simply must read Michael Yon’s “Gates of Fire” post from Iraq. It’s a long read, but it shows how honorable our soldiers are, and how bad policy can literally kill people. The closing paragraphs will help you understand one of the many ways we are significantly different from the terrorists. An amazing read.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Whilst commenting on Redstate.org in a thread dealing with the reporting on the pending Iraqi constitution, “streiff” responds to a poster who says that the new Iraqi government doesn’t look like it will be better than the previous one, by the poster’s definition of “better”.

This is just another instance of the dynamic moving of goalposts.

First, we couldn’t handle the heat of an Iraqi summer.

Then, Baghdad was Stalingrad on the Euphrates.

Then, civil war was imminent.

Then, no one would participate in the January election.

Then, no constitution would ever be drafted.

Now, the constitution isn’t good enough.

Coming soon, no one will vote in the October electin [sic]; no one will vote in the December elections.

Eventually they’ll move the goalposts far enough that they can declare we’ve been defeated and hopefully go home and leave the rest of us alone.

Good point. Virtually every prediction by the Left on the war in Iraq has been proven wrong, and as each one topples they’ve quickly built another one further downfield.

The topic that generated this thread noted that the NY Times praised the Afghan constitution but has deplored an almost identical one coming out of Iraq, so the “objectivity” of the Times comes into question here as well. Given virtually identical situations, they praise one and condemn the other. Why? Pure politics. “Good” is only good if we wanted it that way. They didn’t object to the Afghanistan war, so the outcome is good. They did oppose the Iraq war, so the identical outcome is bad.

Politics appears to be the sole informer of their opinions. If they didn’t agree politically with the conditions that brought it about, then they say the outcome is bad. How childish! Then they couch that opinion in language to suggest that the outcome itself is inherently bad, so as to cover up their real motivation. And they’re betting on the short attention span of liberals.

Unfortunately, there are those with a little longer memories. Welcome to the Age of Blogs.

If you still had any shred of respect for the NY Times editorial page, I do hope you’ll seriously reconsider.

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

Environmentalists, rejoice over the war in Iraq!

Iraq’s southern marshlands — nearly ruined under the Saddam Hussein regime — have been making a “phenomenal” recovery, a U.N. agency said Wednesday

The U.N. Environmental Program said the wetlands, which had been regarded as “a key natural habitat for people, wildlife and fisheries,” have bounced back to about 40 percent of the area they covered in the 1970s.

The region had been “damaged significantly since the 1970s, due to upstream dam construction and drainage operations” by the former regime, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

But after the toppling of the Saddam regime, officials embarked on restoration and people “began opening floodgates and breaching embankments in order to bring water back into the marshlands.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

Today’s Odd “Considerettes” Search Phrase - how to fix a overamplified wav recording [#12 on Google]

Popularity: 3% [?]

If you were about to be part of an assault that would make D-Day look like a walk in the park, and your life would very likely end on that day, as well as the lives of 500,000 of your countrymen, how would you feel about a weapon that would kill fewer people, but stop the war?

Read what someone who was there thought; Sgt. Jim Baxter, USMC.

And remember, the bomb also killed fewer Japanese than a land assault would have.

(By the way, I love the blog name, “The View from 1776″.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

Via one of the comments at RedState.org comes word of an al Qaeda / Iraq connection. The Toronto Star had the information back in 2003.

“2003?”, you may ask. “But…but…the media and the Democrats have been saying for years that there was no connection between the two.” Well yes, that is true. That ought to tell you why I often consider the phrase “the media and the Democrats” a redundant one. It should also tell you why you shouldn’t believe them.

“But at least Hussein wasn’t planning attacks on America…right?”, you may ask. Do American embassies count? An Iraqi soldier (currently residing at Club Gitmo) had also been a “trusted agent” of bin Laden and worked with the Taliban to plot chemical attacks (”WMDs?”, you may ask) at embassies in Pakistan. (See this article for more detailed evidence.)

Just a reminder, is all. Some folks need it every so often.

Popularity: 3% [?]

I often wish the Left would distance itself from its loonies the way the Right does.

The Bush administration swiftly and unequivocally distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a frequent target of U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: “Our department doesn’t do that kind of thing. It’s against the law. He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.”

Acknowledging differences with the Caracas government, and saying it should be promoting democracy in the Western Hemisphere, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson’s remarks “inappropriate.”

“This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views,” McCormack said in a flat refutation of Robertson’s suggestion that the United States “take out” Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a “launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism.”

Remember, it was right-side blogs that were just as, if not more, vocal about Trent Lott’s Strom Thurmond remarks. But when Howard Dean, far more a spokesman for the Left than Robertson is for the Right, talk about how he thinks Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened or say he “hates” Republicans, or when Cynthia McKinney (when she was still an elected Democrat) was willing to take money on the condition that America be blamed first, far too many on the Left just cheer.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Today’s Odd “Considerettes” Search Phrase - Kia Spectra Air Flow Meter code [#21 on Google]

Popularity: 3% [?]

Sic transit Robertson.

Pat Robertson, a former GOP presidential candidate and host of the “700 Club” daily Christian TV show, yesterday called for the assassination of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

“There was a popular coup that overthrew him,” Robertson said. “And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken. Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.”

About the Fidel Castro ally, Robertson said: “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination. But if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

“It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop,” Robertson added. “But this man is a terrific danger and the United … this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen.”

Why, oh why, does the MSM go to he and Falwell when they want the “Christian viewpoint”? Well actually, the above quote answers that question; they’re hoping for a scoop about something outrageous that they’ve said. Never mind your view of Chavez (and I have a very poor view of him), this is uncalled for.

Pat? Jerry? Please leave politics alone? Please?

(Jim at Stones Cry Out beat me to a post on this subject by 20 minutes. His remarks are good as well.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

When the Army doesn’t meet its recruiting goals, the MSM shouts it from the rooftop. That was then, this is now.

Remember last spring, when the Army’s recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media’s glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn’t find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army’s numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don’t hear a whisper about it from the “mainstream media.”

That liberal media. Read the whole thing for the numbers.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Democrats turn up heat on US pump prices

As we’ll see, this just means they’re yelling louder.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democrats turned up the heat on the White House on Friday to act in the face of record-high U.S gasoline pump prices.

The same day, the Senate Energy Committee set a September 8 hearing on what’s behind the prices, which hit a record $2.55 a gallon this week.

Those prices could come down were we not so dependent on OPEC for oil. There’s that relatively small area in ANWR that would help.

Lawmakers admit there is no short-term fix to pain at the pump, but are nervous about political fall-out. Gasoline prices are sure to be a hot topic when Congress returns from its recess next month.

Well, if we’d started drilling in ANWR when it was first suggested, we’d be well on our way to easing things.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Friday said the Bush administration should require U.S. oil companies to disclose their fuel pricing policies and production costs.

In a letter to the White House, Reid also said the Federal Trade Commission should investigate instances where a state’s retail prices rise 20 percent in any given week “to determine if the price of gasoline is being artificially manipulated.”

There ya’ go! Produce a government report, and prices should drop. But seriously, I wonder if Senator Reid has been watching the price of oil or not. And I wonder if Senator Reid has been paying attention to his own government.

Past FTC probes into U.S. oil company pricing policies have found no sign of abuse.

“This one has already being done,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. “The FTC and the Justice Department have been keenly watching for this type of activity for the past two years.”

Duffy also said that Democrats’ attempts to prevent oil drilling in the Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, have kept supplies tight.

“Commonsense steps we’ve tried to take, like increasing domestic oil production by allowing drilling in a small portion of ANWR, have been blocked by Democrats for years,” Duffy said.

Precisely! However, the Democrats have their own solution; “artificially manipulate” the price.

Separately, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said the White House should ask oil companies for a voluntary, temporarily freeze on prices that they charge gasoline distributors.

Duffy said that price controls in any form are “terribly toxic to the economy” but added he had not seen the specific proposal.

Sen. Nelson, your minority leader would be proud. Anyone with a knowledge of economics, however, might have something else to say about that.

And how much does that $2.50 gallon of gas cost the oil companies?

The American Petroleum Institute, the biggest industry lobbyist, said U.S. oil companies are not benefiting unduly from high energy prices, and said that global crude oil shortages and oil prices near $70 a barrel are to blame.

It costs about $2 a gallon for U.S. refiners to turn crude oil into gasoline before transportation and distribution costs are added, said John Felmy, an API economist.

That’s $2 plus distribution plus state & federal taxes charged at the pump. Remember that when news organizations cry about the profits being made by oil companies. If you make a 10% profit on your product, and if the price goes up, your 10% markup now brings in more actual dollars, but it’s still only 10% greater than your costs. Should I use the government to force you to lower your margin at higher prices?

Or let’s ask the question a different way; is a 10% profit fair? If you think it is, then what if I told you that oil companies generally run a 7% profit margin? And yet Democrats and the press (redundancy, I know) only tell the public about the actual dollar amounts. If they reported the margin percentage just as often, they’d of course lose that as a propaganda tool against the “evil” oil companies. I have my own arguments with oil companies (rising costs seem to be reflected in the final price much faster than dropping costs do), but their overall profits aren’t the place to look for relief from high gas prices.

The answers are conservation (I’m working from home today) and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Deal with economic problems in an economic way, not artificially.

Popularity: 3% [?]