Wrong question!
If we know that the earth has had 5 ice ages, and that the dinosaurs lived in a time when the earth was much hotter; why are we trying to stop global warming, when we should be trying to figure out how to live with extreme climate change--both freeze and boil?
Why is it that no "brilliant" climate scientists seem to have studied whether or not the water vapor is capable of escaping earths gravity? the only way that global warming is a real problem is if it is possible for our waters to leave us altogether.
If global warming warms the entire earth, why is it that these scientists haven't considered the fact that more land will become livable and even more land will probably become arable? Lands in extremely cold places, such as Siberia, north Canada, and Alaska, will become more livable. Much land will also become arable that was previously barren: just think of all the new lands that will grow crops when they are unfrozen.
In summary, I think we need to change the focus and intention of our studies of climate so that we can live with the inevitable when it happens.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Global Warming debate ended?
Really? In the 70's the prediction was an ice age. those predictions seemed to have failed. Now we are expected to believe the results of a models that have not been proven accurate which say were gonna cook? If you read anything about global warming and the "science" involved in the calculations you realize that many things need to be considered in the calculations and that there are probably billions of factors that have not been considered.
The biggest problem is that people forget, all to readily, that scientists are human: they make mistakes sometimes on purpose. They even forget that scientists are often not motivated by science, but by economic gain. People have already forgotten the big mess that Dr. Hwang created in Korea over his fabricated genetic experiments.
If Dr. Hwang fabricated research for financial gain, just how many are out there that haven't been found out yet? What this means is that you shouldn't necessarily buy what someone says just because they are a "scientist", or for that matter have a PhD. You need to filter everything you hear and read through your own reasoning process.
I often read the overused pedantic that we should yield to "Peer reviewed journals." This is hype and down right crap. What these people fail to tell you is that there are scientists who pass phony research off for years before it is found out to be false. So lets step back in time 5 years, Dr. Hwang is a renowned, peer-reviewed, published, PhD. scientist. According to certain said scientists we should believe him because he is "peer-reviewed." I don't know about you, but knowing what I know now about Dr. Hwang, and extrapolating that situation to the fact that others like him have to exist, I am still going to rely on my own brain to process what I see and decide whether I should believe it or not.
Here are a couple more cases to illustrate my point:
These scientists fabricated lab data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Lab-Falsified-Tests6sep03.htm, This Bell Labs scientist faked data http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2, The scientist who falsified this information cost the US tax payer $10 million per year for a program based on falsified information http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38366,00.html --And those in the global warming camp claim that anyone who resists is being buttered by the oil industry.
Setting all this Global Warming bologna aside, we need to stop polluting our environment for the sake of our environment, but not at the cost of bankrupting small countries. I am appalled to see how much trash people throw out. People walking down the street, seeing no receptacle, drop trash on the ground. It has to stop people.
The biggest problem is that people forget, all to readily, that scientists are human: they make mistakes sometimes on purpose. They even forget that scientists are often not motivated by science, but by economic gain. People have already forgotten the big mess that Dr. Hwang created in Korea over his fabricated genetic experiments.
If Dr. Hwang fabricated research for financial gain, just how many are out there that haven't been found out yet? What this means is that you shouldn't necessarily buy what someone says just because they are a "scientist", or for that matter have a PhD. You need to filter everything you hear and read through your own reasoning process.
I often read the overused pedantic that we should yield to "Peer reviewed journals." This is hype and down right crap. What these people fail to tell you is that there are scientists who pass phony research off for years before it is found out to be false. So lets step back in time 5 years, Dr. Hwang is a renowned, peer-reviewed, published, PhD. scientist. According to certain said scientists we should believe him because he is "peer-reviewed." I don't know about you, but knowing what I know now about Dr. Hwang, and extrapolating that situation to the fact that others like him have to exist, I am still going to rely on my own brain to process what I see and decide whether I should believe it or not.
Here are a couple more cases to illustrate my point:
These scientists fabricated lab data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Lab-Falsified-Tests6sep03.htm, This Bell Labs scientist faked data http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2, The scientist who falsified this information cost the US tax payer $10 million per year for a program based on falsified information http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38366,00.html --And those in the global warming camp claim that anyone who resists is being buttered by the oil industry.
Setting all this Global Warming bologna aside, we need to stop polluting our environment for the sake of our environment, but not at the cost of bankrupting small countries. I am appalled to see how much trash people throw out. People walking down the street, seeing no receptacle, drop trash on the ground. It has to stop people.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Is John McCain a Yes man?
In recent years it seems that parties are less and less interested in serving the people and more and more interested in serving themselves. I, for one, am sick and tired of self-centered, self-serving legislators who are more interested in what the opposing party has to say than what their constituents say.
John McCain got major flack for his co-sponsorship of the campaign finance reform legislation; but to be honest, I believe his heart was in the right place, even if the bill was flawed. What John McCain did, in co-authoring the bill, was to observe injustices performed at the hands of special interest groups and wealthy individuals and try to do something about it. It seems to me that this is more than much of congress can say.
Whenever something goes wrong on the other side of the fence, you always see Democrats and Republicans alike pointing the finger. Then the guilty party bans together to fend off the attacker whether this is warranted or not. Our public officials always seem to be more interested in party defence, "What's good for the party?" Take the Foley scandal or the Lewinsky scandal, these are both cases in which the opposing parties dove in like a pack of wolves and the wounded parties pulled together instead of asking, "What is best for my constituents?"
Who cares what's good for the party; wouldn't you rather hear your elected officials saying, "What will be good for my constituents?" What I admire about John McCain is that he is not a yes man: he sees something he does not like or believe in and stands up against it. Whether it is good for the party or makes him popular does not seem to matter. He is a man of character which is more than can be said of many in the US Congress.
As to whether I will vote for him this election cycle, I have not decided. Personally I am not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but at least he stands for something. I wish that more of our elected officials demonstrated the character traits of this Senator.
Thank you John McCain for being somebody to look up to.
John McCain got major flack for his co-sponsorship of the campaign finance reform legislation; but to be honest, I believe his heart was in the right place, even if the bill was flawed. What John McCain did, in co-authoring the bill, was to observe injustices performed at the hands of special interest groups and wealthy individuals and try to do something about it. It seems to me that this is more than much of congress can say.
Whenever something goes wrong on the other side of the fence, you always see Democrats and Republicans alike pointing the finger. Then the guilty party bans together to fend off the attacker whether this is warranted or not. Our public officials always seem to be more interested in party defence, "What's good for the party?" Take the Foley scandal or the Lewinsky scandal, these are both cases in which the opposing parties dove in like a pack of wolves and the wounded parties pulled together instead of asking, "What is best for my constituents?"
Who cares what's good for the party; wouldn't you rather hear your elected officials saying, "What will be good for my constituents?" What I admire about John McCain is that he is not a yes man: he sees something he does not like or believe in and stands up against it. Whether it is good for the party or makes him popular does not seem to matter. He is a man of character which is more than can be said of many in the US Congress.
As to whether I will vote for him this election cycle, I have not decided. Personally I am not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but at least he stands for something. I wish that more of our elected officials demonstrated the character traits of this Senator.
Thank you John McCain for being somebody to look up to.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Does Hillary Clinton Care?
I find it interesting, how such a liar could be so popular. Hillary Clinton has to be one of the most selfish individuals in the world. What amazes me is that she and her husband have been caught time and again in lies, and the good people of New York and the US just seem to turn a blind eye. http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3735&PHPSESSID=42f0c754
She must believe that the people of the United States exist to serve her rather than the other way around--as a US Senator.
Am I the only one who is irritated by her grand standing; It amazes me that the people of New York allowed themselves to be taken for such a grand ride. Hillary never lived in New York before she ran for the US Senate, so she was using New York from the start. Why else would a woman run for Senate from a 1000 miles away. The people of New York might have had better representation from Kim Jung Il. He probably knows about as much about and cares a little more for the people of New York than Hillary does, as she has shown them in her bid for the Presidency following her ardent disavowal of any intention to run.
To end this thought I'll just note the ridiculous grand entrance: "I'm in, and I'm in to win!" As if people decide to run for any race and spend thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars to 'lose'.
She must believe that the people of the United States exist to serve her rather than the other way around--as a US Senator.
Am I the only one who is irritated by her grand standing; It amazes me that the people of New York allowed themselves to be taken for such a grand ride. Hillary never lived in New York before she ran for the US Senate, so she was using New York from the start. Why else would a woman run for Senate from a 1000 miles away. The people of New York might have had better representation from Kim Jung Il. He probably knows about as much about and cares a little more for the people of New York than Hillary does, as she has shown them in her bid for the Presidency following her ardent disavowal of any intention to run.
To end this thought I'll just note the ridiculous grand entrance: "I'm in, and I'm in to win!" As if people decide to run for any race and spend thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars to 'lose'.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Does International Sesame St. teach racism?
I am an ESL teacher living in a foreign country. Although Sesame St. concentrates on teaching anti-racism, it is an American Show; I was quite surprised to turn on my TV one morning to hear Grover and Elmo teaching in the Korean language. Sesame St. should be in English as it originated in America and the language of America is English. If it was just an entertainment program (like The Simpson's, Bugs Bunny, or The Smurfs) it would be fine for the characters to be speaking the local language, but it is designed to teach language, and specifically English. It seems to me that when a foreign program is used to teach the local language it undermines the society. I think, in having Grover and Elmo teach in Korean, it sends a message that Korean culture and people are somehow inferior to Americans.
Then when these kids grow up they feel that somehow they aren't good enough and they need to have surgery to make themselves look more white/American so they can be "beautiful". Korean culture is great and the people are beautiful. They do not need cosmetic surgery to become beautiful.
Then when these kids grow up they feel that somehow they aren't good enough and they need to have surgery to make themselves look more white/American so they can be "beautiful". Korean culture is great and the people are beautiful. They do not need cosmetic surgery to become beautiful.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
New Year's Resolutions
So many people fail, --Why?
OK, what good are they? I am reminded of Jay Leno, or David Letterman asking the patrons on the streets what their New Year's Resolution are. In my mind is a vague, most likely self created, image of one of the these two TV personalities, probably Mr. Letterman, asking folks whether or not they kept their resolutions. Of course 90%, according to my impeccable memory, say that they don't keep the previous years resolution. Wow, what a waste of time and effort, me thinks!
As I see it, two main problems exist with resolutions: frequency of the resolution or goal setting process, and no review system. Most people who set resolutions do them once a year rendering the value of the goal setting process virtually useless. If we set resolutions once a month and reviewed them at the end of the month, I believe people would find two things happening: the New Year's resolution would become more attainable, and people would become better at setting attainable goals. The way in which most folks do resolutions is doomed to fail because there is no recovery system from failure, i.e. when it's broken, there is no mechanic. That is why yearly resolutions are a bad idea without the use of smaller monthly resolutions. Most people don't bother to review the resolution until next year.
So you ask, "What would be a successful strategy for my New Year's Resolution this year?" Good question, Johny boy! First I would make your New Year's Resolution actually a long term goal for the year, e.g. I will lose 50 lbs. Next, you need to break it down into bite size chunks; lets say monthly goals. Maybe you would say I will lose 12 lbs a month by riding my bicycle 3 times a week for an hour. Now we have a frame work that might work, but it won't work if you never review it; when the month comes up check to see if you have accomplished your goal and adjust your goals so you can hit them next month. If you missed for a week, don't be too hard on yourself, and the most important thing is that you don't give up the whole year just because you had one failure.
If you have crystallized goals that you can visualize it will be a lot easier to hit the mark. With your clear plan of action and monthly review, hopefully it will be easier to say, "No!" to that extra fry, or to get onto that bicycle, collecting dust, in the garage. So for all of you New Year's Resolutioners, I hope this will offer some useful advice on how to make them actually stick this year.
OK, what good are they? I am reminded of Jay Leno, or David Letterman asking the patrons on the streets what their New Year's Resolution are. In my mind is a vague, most likely self created, image of one of the these two TV personalities, probably Mr. Letterman, asking folks whether or not they kept their resolutions. Of course 90%, according to my impeccable memory, say that they don't keep the previous years resolution. Wow, what a waste of time and effort, me thinks!
As I see it, two main problems exist with resolutions: frequency of the resolution or goal setting process, and no review system. Most people who set resolutions do them once a year rendering the value of the goal setting process virtually useless. If we set resolutions once a month and reviewed them at the end of the month, I believe people would find two things happening: the New Year's resolution would become more attainable, and people would become better at setting attainable goals. The way in which most folks do resolutions is doomed to fail because there is no recovery system from failure, i.e. when it's broken, there is no mechanic. That is why yearly resolutions are a bad idea without the use of smaller monthly resolutions. Most people don't bother to review the resolution until next year.
So you ask, "What would be a successful strategy for my New Year's Resolution this year?" Good question, Johny boy! First I would make your New Year's Resolution actually a long term goal for the year, e.g. I will lose 50 lbs. Next, you need to break it down into bite size chunks; lets say monthly goals. Maybe you would say I will lose 12 lbs a month by riding my bicycle 3 times a week for an hour. Now we have a frame work that might work, but it won't work if you never review it; when the month comes up check to see if you have accomplished your goal and adjust your goals so you can hit them next month. If you missed for a week, don't be too hard on yourself, and the most important thing is that you don't give up the whole year just because you had one failure.
If you have crystallized goals that you can visualize it will be a lot easier to hit the mark. With your clear plan of action and monthly review, hopefully it will be easier to say, "No!" to that extra fry, or to get onto that bicycle, collecting dust, in the garage. So for all of you New Year's Resolutioners, I hope this will offer some useful advice on how to make them actually stick this year.
Peace Protests
In free countries why do individuals protest for peace? Would these same people protest raped women to stop rape? These actions are logically equivalent.
It is always difficult when one loses a family member: as a society we should never take lightly the loss of any of our military members. Families suffer the most when war is waged. Men and women who fight in wars often return home jaded by their experiences; sometimes, they do not return at all. If you are human and feeling, your heart can't help but go out to these individuals with broken lives.
On the other hand, does the fact that we are losing military members change the fact our nations have been attacked. Will protesting for peace stop terrorists from flying planes into our buildings? Would begging for peace from nations under attack stop bombs from being detonated in the Chechnya school or on Spanish buses? It seems that all to often we humans respond first with our emotions, with out fully considering the ramifications of our actions.
Let's put this into perspective, would you try to stop a bully from bullying kids by asking the bullied kid to be peaceful? Prior to WWII this very kind of reckless reasoning was rampant: Peace at all costs-- to the cost of millions of lives. Don't the protesters for peace see that sometimes we must indeed fight for peace, as ironic as it sounds, or we will be backed into corner where all our freedoms including peace are exterminated. I think it was best put by Kenny Rogers in his song "Coward of the County": " Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek, and Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."
So if peaceful nations are attacked do we always have to pick up our ball and go play somewhere else, or is there a time when it is appropriate for us to stand up and say, "NO MORE!"
It is always difficult when one loses a family member: as a society we should never take lightly the loss of any of our military members. Families suffer the most when war is waged. Men and women who fight in wars often return home jaded by their experiences; sometimes, they do not return at all. If you are human and feeling, your heart can't help but go out to these individuals with broken lives.
On the other hand, does the fact that we are losing military members change the fact our nations have been attacked. Will protesting for peace stop terrorists from flying planes into our buildings? Would begging for peace from nations under attack stop bombs from being detonated in the Chechnya school or on Spanish buses? It seems that all to often we humans respond first with our emotions, with out fully considering the ramifications of our actions.
Let's put this into perspective, would you try to stop a bully from bullying kids by asking the bullied kid to be peaceful? Prior to WWII this very kind of reckless reasoning was rampant: Peace at all costs-- to the cost of millions of lives. Don't the protesters for peace see that sometimes we must indeed fight for peace, as ironic as it sounds, or we will be backed into corner where all our freedoms including peace are exterminated. I think it was best put by Kenny Rogers in his song "Coward of the County": " Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek, and Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."
So if peaceful nations are attacked do we always have to pick up our ball and go play somewhere else, or is there a time when it is appropriate for us to stand up and say, "NO MORE!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)