The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. . . . We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. . . .Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

The struggle to which Feynman refers is, of course the centuries of dispute between science and religion.  A dispute that often resulted in the excommunication or death of the scientist.  It is not without irony that those now purporting to be on the side of science are screaming heresy at those who actually are on the side of science.

As I noted earlier, calling someone who does not believe in Global Warming™ a Holocaust denier is not just hyperbole, it’s idiotic, narcissistic and thoughtless.  Exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a celebrity.  Of course, there is a major difference between science and history–especially recent history.  We may never know how many Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other innocents the Nazis condemned to death, but we know they did it.  You can speak, even today, to Holocaust survivors.  We know it was done, and it is a black mark on the soul of humanity.  But those who have doubts about Global Warming™ are more like War of the Worlds deniers.

Global Warming™, is a theory.  A theory that started out as a crackpot joke, but was endorsed by politicians, first to gain leverage over coal miners, then to guilt the world into economic starvation.  The science of climate change is vast and complex.  Scientists cannot even agree on a baseline of historic temperatures (unless, of course, they are fabricating them).  Moreover, much of the anecdotal evidence in favor of the theory has fallen apart in recent years.

The massive ice sheets that cleave off of Antarctica were recently found to have been caused by a change in the flow of an Antarctic glacial river after millennia of erosion, not you driving an SUV for the last 5 years.  The Earth has been warming for thousands of years as we emerge from the last ice age.  An honest scientist would tell you that we cannot rule out that this long-term warming is not the cause of any minor variations we see today.  Such a scientist would also tell you that the evidence of a connection between historical CO2 and temperature points to a lagging one–temperatures rise first, then CO2 increases.

Liberals have a problem allowing for the possibility of doubt, or a rationale that cannot be blamed on consumption.  This is because blaming a climate disaster on human consumption gives them access to guilt, taxes and regulation–the favorite tools of liberal governance.  If you can blame humanity for a crisis, you can gain control over human lives.  You cannot tax the sun for its natural variability, nor can you regulate millennia of natural warming.  Rice patties do not respond to guilt.

As challenges to their Global Warming™ religion come closer and closer to debunking their whole belief system, alarmists become more desperate and hyperbolic.  A scientist would consider alternative viewpoints and question their premises.  This is the purpose of peer review in science.  But a religious fanatic will scream “death to my enemies” and slit your throat over a cartoon.  Global Warming alarmists like Paul McCartney have more in common with religious zealots than scientists.  Their fears are irrational, their minds are closed, and their plans will destroy mankind.

Oh, and the Beatles sucked.  Elvis lives, baby.

The conversation started over why, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out (start at the 7:00 mark), that every President since before I was born has tried to solve our foreign oil problem, and yet, it keeps getting worse.  The problem, I explained, was that the government cannot mandate ingenuity.

Obama’s plan, as all “green” projects in the past have, is to shove money at the problem and naively Hope™ that bureaucrats and politicians can pick a winner from primitive, undeveloped versions of future technologies.  Of course, these people have their own biases, and often find that the only projects that will work are ones in their own district or ones from which they or their union friends will personally benefit.  Even assuming you can level the playing field, you are asking people with little or no background in physics, engineering or astrology to decide which technology will, after billions of dollars and decades of false starts, be the one that pays off.  This is a lot like asking a 2 month old infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

This is a lot like asking an infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

The stick in all of this, of course, is that the government will fund this bad idea on the backs of taxpayers and energy consumers.  Just as they did in Spain, Germany and Denmark, “green” initiatives will increase the cost of energy, including low cost existing sources like oil, coal and natural gas.  A cap and trade program is a way to mandate an increase in the cost of existing fuel.  Even Obama admits that his policies would “bankrupt” the coal industry.

So I began to think what a carrot would look like.  By far, the most palatable incentive for free market types is a tax break–but “green” policies already provide tax incentives to “go green.”  In the context of our current energy issues, this is very much like giving a $5 off coupon for brass polish to the captain of the Titanic.  What is needed is an incentive to innovate that cannot be turned down.

Here is my two part proposal:

First, drill, baby, drill.  Access all of our natural resources domestically until that Texas tea cannot be found anywhere under American feet or swimsuits.  Start an immediate program to bring to market every ounce of oil under American control, shale, natural gas, ANWR–everything.  As Krauthammer pointed out last month, we are only drilling in deep water because environmentalists won’t let us drill where it is safe.  This is absurd and self defeating and needs to stop.  Cut the red tape, bar the law suits and start drilling.

Second, for the carrot–call it the federal X-prize: the first company (or individual) who patents and brings to market either of the “new energy technologies” listed below will not have to pay federal taxes for the next 25 years.  The President will, in his infinite wisdom, set out the basic objective criteria for a “new energy technologies” in direct power and power generation.  The criteria must be vague enough to allow for unforeseen solutions, and specific enough to be used to determine success objectively.  My suggestion for the direct power criteria are;

1. A source of energy (e.g. a battery or a motor) that can power a standard size SUV for 300 miles at highway speed without stopping to refuel.
2. Weighs less than 25 gallons of gasoline or provides sufficient additional power to compensate.
3. Is renewable or reusable (a battery or a primary source).
4. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
5. Is marketable (price point without subsidies) to ordinary consumers.

The argument, of course, will be on the definitions for the above.  For power generation, I suggest the following criteria:

1. A source of energy that can provide energy on a large scale (at least 500 MW) at or below the national average cost per kWh (currently, about $.15 per kWh) with the builder recouping construction costs.
2. Is renewable or reusable.
3. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
4. Is capable of mass production and use in large and small markets.

So these are the product criteria.  If you bring a product to market, you won’t owe Uncle Sam a dime for the next quarter century.

This would spark a search like none other since the Holy Grail.  Every company in the world, technology companies, aerospace companies, oil companies, credit card companies, would make massive investments to win the brass ring: a 60-70% increase of after tax profits for 25 years.  [For the math inclined, a corporation pays roughly 35% in federal taxes out of a total tax burden of 40-50% for most companies.  If you take off the 35% federal tax, after tax profits (the percentage the company keeps) will go from 50-60% to 85-95%.  85%/50% = 170%; 95%/60% = 158%.]

To give this some real world numbers, Exxon, the largest U.S. company by revenue, pays about $5-7 billion in federal taxes each year.  So at the maximum, this would be about a $175 billion “investment” over 25 years.  Of course, unlike Obama’s $50 billion plan, not a penny of this would be wasted–we would only make the “investment” after the goods were delivered.

For perspective, all of the world governments combined spend $500 billion per year on “green” subsidies that are largely a waste of money.  So for a maximum of 1% of that price, the United States could revolutionize the energy industry and solve our foreign oil problem.

Looking at it a different way, the U.S. imports 9.73 million barrels of oil per day.  That’s about $980 million per day going to stalwart allies like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Venezuela.  That’s $357 billion of American money exported per year.  I know liberals hate the idea of even one corporation not paying taxes, but we get very little tax revenue from the $357 billion we send over seas.

This idea may seem extreme, but (1) no government subsidy has ever worked to move the needle for oil consumption and (2) it is completely cost free if it works.  Moreover, it is not unprecedented.  Many countries provide low or zero tax agreements to companies in order to spur local economic growth.  Singapore and Dubai, for example, have economic development councils that encourage multinational corporations to build their regional business there.  The company gets a massive tax break and the host country gets higher employment, ancillary economic growth (workers need food, lodging and entertainment) and bragging rights.

Under my plan, companies would be given the incentive to expand their R&D departments, hire more employees and develop technologies that, even if they do not win the prize, will at least be taking us in the right direction.  (We might not have digital thermometers or cordless tools if not for the space program.)  If the research resulting in a dead-end, the cost is borne by the private company, not the taxpayer.  And no technology would have a defacto advantage through bureaucratic endorsement.  The government would be encouraging risk and innovation, rather than underwriting it, or worse, stifling it.

The four Navy Seals from SEAL Team 10, were Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy and petty officers Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz and Marcus Luttrell.  After a helicopter insertion and a treacherous four mile hike, the SEALs found a hiding space overlooking the Afghan village where Shah was suspected and prepared to stalk him.

Two local goat herders and a fourteen year old boy happened upon them.  Michael Murphy, the leader of the squad, put their fate to a vote.  Axelson voted they should be killed, a sad, but militarily efficient result.  Dietz abstained.  Murphy told Luttrell that it was up to him.  Worried about the consequences, and giving what he called the “liberal media” a chance to drag them and the SEAL name through the mud, Luttrell spared the three Afghans.

That decision, as noble or moral as it may have been, led to the worst day of casualties in U.S. Special Forces history.  Two hours after the Afghans were released, a force of about 80 Taliban swarmed the SEALs.  The SEALs, perched on a perilous cliff with radios that did not work, were alone.  In the brutal firefight that followed, the SEALs were forced to peal off and slide down a nearly vertical mountain of shale. Several times.

Danny Dietz, shot three times, once in the throat, continued to fire on the enemy, even as Taliban reinforcements arrived.  The fourth shot, to the head, killed him instantly.  After nearly an hour holding off the Taliban, Dietz killed, and Murphy, Lutrell and Axelson each shot at least once, Michael Murphy did something that defies belief.  Already shot in the stomach, he climbed out from behind his covered firing position and into the center of the firefight to call for help using his own cell phone.  He raised the Special Forces command, and reinforcements were on their way.  As he returned to his covered position, he was shot in the back, through the chest.  This act bravery was later honored with a Congressional Medal of Honor.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
- Winston Churchill

Murphy covered their displacement down the hill again, but was overpowered and killed.  Axelson was soon shot in the head, but incredibly, continued to fight, defending his shipmates.  Luttrell was left to fend off the scores of Taliban while rendering aid to a dying Axelson.  A grenade blew Luttrell out of his position, killing Axelson, and ironically, saving Luttrell.

Luttrell’s body was blown clear of the firefight, and the Taliban presumed him dead.  Far away, the SEALs’ reinforcements were landing, but the Taliban had staged an ambush.  When the Chinook helicopter lowered its ramp, a Taliban RPG screamed into the opening, destroying the helicopter and killing eight Navy SEALs and eight Nighstalker crew members.

The Navy SEALs were FCC Jacques J. Fontan, ITCS Daniel R. Healy, LCDR Erik S. Kristensen, Jeffery A. Lucas, LT Michael M. McGreevy, Jr., QM2 James E. Suh, HM1 Jeffrey S. Taylor, and MM2 Shane E. Patton.  The Nightstalkers were Staff Sgt. Shamus O. Goare, Chief Warrant Officer Corey J. Goodnature, Sgt. Kip A. Jacoby, Sgt. 1st Class Marcus V. Muralles, Master Sgt. James W. Ponder III, Maj. Stephen C. Reich, Sgt. 1st Class Michael L. Russell, and Chief Warrant Officer Chris J. Scherkenbach. In all, 19 Special Forces operators were killed.

For the next five days, Luttrell was hidden and protected from the Taliban by Pashtun tribesmen in a small village.  The village elder carried a note from Luttrell to the Special Forces command center, and Luttrell was soon rescued.  Shah survived his encounter with the SEALs, but he did not live long.  Less than three years later, he was killed in a firefight with Pakistani police forces.

Murphy was given the Congressional Medal of Honor, posthumously.  In 2008, a Navy destroyer was named after him.  Axelson, Dietz and Luttrell were each awarded the Navy Cross for their actions during Red Wing.  Luttrell later wrote a book, one you should read: Lone Survivor.  A movie is rumored for next year.

Luttrell has always maintained it was self-preservation, not mercy that lead him to spare the lives of the goat herders.  He knew that killing them was the correct thing to do, but worried about the media and a politically correct Navy court martialing him.  As if to prove Luttrell’s concerns legitimate, this year, three Navy SEALs were court martialed for allegedly punching a terrorist.  All three have been acquitted.

Luttrell’s suffering was not over, however.  Luttrell was given a dog, DASY, as part of his rehabilitation.  The name is an acronym for his comrades, Danny, Axe, Southern Boy (Luttrell) and Yankee (Murphy).  In 2009, in an act of unfathomable cowardice, two teenagers shot and killed his dog, DASY in Texas.  Luttrell gave chase, and fortunately for the scum, the police apprehended them before Luttrell did.

Keep these men in your mind and heart this Memorial Day.  Enjoy your hot dogs and your day off.  But don’t forget what these rough men have done and stand ready to do, to protect your freedom.

The CARD Act, passed late last year, was intended to create a “Cardholder Bill of Rights.” Far from it, the Credit CARD Act has prompted credit card companies to raise their prices (APR on balances); restrict lending by reducing available credit; charge annual fees on basic cards that have not been seen for decades; and refuse to offer products that were on the market only a year ago.

We were told that credit card companies were evil and shouldn’t profit so much. We were told that credit card companies should not be able to change their price based on risk–if you default on one loan, why should another lender be able to raise your rates? Congress declared an end to the law of cause and effect. Amazingly, there were unintended consequences from Congressional hubris.  Sure, you have marginally clearer disclosure on credit card practices now, but what good is disclosure for a product you can’t afford?  I’m sure the people at Maserati put out a fantastic brochure, but that doesn’t help me at the Dodge dealership.

And now, the Democrats tell us that health insurance companies are unfairly profiting from you. We are told they should not be able to underwrite based on risk–if you’re already sick, why won’t they give you insurance? It takes little brains not to realize what will happen to insurance premiums and plans. But then again, that is what Congress is known for–little brains.

A number of groups have urged universities and local police to delve into voting records, private emails and social networking sites, such as facebook and twitter. “A growing number of professors and teachers have taken to violence in recent days, and the overwhelming faculty bias is towards the Left and Obama,”  noted Cohen C. Dence, chairman of the Concerned Citizens Against the Obama Agenda.

“We need to expand beyond just faculty and look at the root causes, like involvement with radical-left groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and PETA,” said Mr. Dence.  He also noted that some studies could indicate that involvement in certain activities may lead to violence.  “Just like video games, the constant exposure to the liberal agenda leads to a devaluation of human life, and often, and incitement to violence.”  Mr. Dence noted that 100% of violent teachers are left-wing and Obama supporters.

1. Remind the world that Hope is Stronger than Fear, and that Change is better than no Change.
2. Remind Iran that Bush is no longer President, and that shrubs are no longer than trees.
3. Give a speech in Cairo, blaming America for everything that has gone wrong in the world since 1776.
4. Turn a blind eye to peaceful demonstrations against Iranian regime–a friend in need–amIright?
5. Gently remind Iran of its international obligations.
6. Send a sternly worded letter to Iran about its international obligations.
7. No dessert for a week.
8. No xbox until free and fair elections are restored/they stop refining uranium/release the hostages/stop calling me Barry.
9. Warn Iran not to use the nuclear bombs it has built.
10. Condolence calls to those outside the blast radii.

To: pantsonfire@hotmale.ng
From: earl.whitley@ga-bulldogs.com
Subject: An interesting busniess propasitun for yuo!

The United States Constitution is simply the document that unified the (at the time) 13 states and set out the rules by which those 13 states would: (1) regulate commerce between themselves; (2) admit new states; (3) settle disputes; (4) raise and spend money; (5) raise a military for their common defense; and (6) ensure that certain rights and liberties were respected as they passed from one state through to another–i.e., a Virginian was not discriminated against in New York. So you had three parties at risk: (a) the new federal government; (b) the states and (c) the people. The document had to address what the individual rights and responsibilities of each of those parties would be and how they would be carried out.

The principle that the drafters followed, which is embodied expressly in the Tenth Amendment is that, if the Constitution does not expressly give the federal government a power, no such power exists.  The Constitution lays out in great detail the three separate branches of the federal government, their powers and their limits.  So what about this “General Welfare” clause?  Is there a provision that allows the federal government to provide for the “general welfare?”  No.  It is in the introduction:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It was not the bloated federal bureaucracy that was established to promote the general Welfare–it was the Constitution itself.

So what does that mean?  In Steny Hoyer’s mind (and, I’m sure, the minds of a lot of government-centric liberals) it means that the federal government–specifically Congress– is being created to “promote the general Welfare.”  But if you read to the end of that sentence, it is not the federal government that this language refers to.  No, Mr. Hoyer.  It is not you, Mrs. Pelosi and your bloated, ignorant, unaccountable federal bureaucracy that was established to promote the general Welfare.  It was the Constitution itself.

It was the Constitution that was written to promote the general welfare.  The limits on federal power are what promote the general welfare.  The very barriers between the federal government, the state government and the people that Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid so gleefully ignore–that is what the Founders had in mind when they talked about promoting the general Welfare.  The clear, unambiguous language in black and crinkled yellow that says, “thou shalt not trample my rights” is what establishes justice, ensures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defense, promotes the general Welfare, and secures the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

It is the Constitution –the limits on federal power–that promote the general welfare.

Liberals lament the sharp reaction that their schemes have met.  They fret about violence and secretly fear the backlash from their policies.  Their constant unconstitutional plans are all met with passionate anger: dragging us deeper in debt for their pet projects; telling us at what temperature to set our thermostats; coercing people into buying insurance; “nudging” us into what they deem to be proper behavior.  It is the Constitution that has ensured domestic justice and tranquility for 220 years.  Democrats “reshape” our Republic at their peril.

In advance of yet another international climate change conference, the media and liberal fear-mongers (but I repeat myself) are fretting over what might not be done in Copenhagen.  In the medal for the most idiotic overstatement, Gordon Brown is currently in the lead for saying “we have only 50 days to save the world.”  In the spirit of a far better, and far more intelligent Englishman, Douglas Adams, and with full knowledge that “stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems in all parts of the galaxy and it is in order that this situation should not be in any way exacerbated that the following fact[] will now be revealed in advance:” Nothing of significance will be accomplished in Copenhagen.

(Except, perhaps, someone may sustain a slight bruise to their upper arm.  The safe bet is that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will both later claim sniper fire was involved.)

Here is why, in a bulleted list, nothing will come of the Copenhagen Climate Council:

1. Global Warming™ is only a theory (and growing less accepted each day).
2. The Earth has not warmed, but in fact has cooled, over the past 11 years.  Yes I said 11.
3. In order to noticeably reduce CO2 emissions on any meaningful time frame, draconian measures are required that would destroy every civilized economy. That is not a point capable of exaggeration.  Every world economy would grind to a halt.
4. Politicians, regardless of their political stripe, are not that stupid.

Taking each point in turn, allow me to explain:

Global Warming as a Theory.

Science is a funny business.  Even if everyone agrees that something is true, it is still, in almost every case, a theory at some level.  Generally accepted scientific principles like Evolution and Relativity (general and special) remain merely “theories.”  But all theories are not equal.  For example, Flat Earth is also a theory, as is Nemesis Earth.  These are discredited theories, but they are still, technically theories.

The theory of Global Warming™ is built on successively weaker bricks, in much the same was as a government highway project would be.

Global Warming, like many theories that liberals embrace, is simple on a third-grade level.  (They love that poster: everything I needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten.)  The problem, however, is that real life is played at the graduate level and above.  But at a simple level, Global Warming says the following:

1. CO2 absorbs light more efficiently in the IR end of the spectrum than in the visible end. (True)
2. So it acts like a filter, allowing sunlight in and “trapping” heat coming off of the Earth–much like a greenhouse.  (Maybe).
3. As humans continue to emit more CO2 (by burning fossil fuels, among other things), we will continue to add to the levels of atmospheric CO2–in other words, there is no removal mechanism.  (Not so sure.)
4. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases, the “trapping” factor will cause the global temperature to increase and nothing will act to counteract the effect–in other words, there is no negative feedback mechanism. (Probably not true.)
5. All of this will lead to polar bears drowning, or swimming to your house in St. Loius and killing you in your bed. (Now you’re making stuff up.)

The theory of global warming is built on successively weaker bricks, in much the same was as a government highway project would be.  Point 1 is absolutely true and has been verified in laboratory experiments.  CO2 molecules do absorb more IR light than visible.  The rest, however, is just a theory and has never been proven.  When you get to point 2, the problem becomes that you have to move from a controlled laboratory environment to the atmosphere.   And there, things get messy.  CO2 is barely noticeable in the atmosphere.  If you took 1,000,000 Poland Spring bottles and filled them with air; and then separated them into the different gases in the atmosphere, you would have about: 781,000 bottles of Nitrogen, 209,250 bottles of Oxygen; 9,350 bottles of Argon; and only about 350 bottles of CO2.  (You would also have 18 bottles of Neon; 1 bottle of Methane; and 1 bottle of Kryton, plus some trace gases.)  This also assumes a static atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not static, lightning strikes, particulate matter, ozone and a host of trace chemicals acts as catalysts to scrub and convert atmospheric gases constantly.

In terms radiative transfer (the transfer of heat through light), atmospheric CO2 is not going to have a noticeable impact on global temperature, regardless of its absorption profile–there just is not enough of it in the atmosphere.  But that is my opinion.  Other scientists have their opinions.  Many people, scientists and lay people, base their opinions on climate models.  A quick word about those: useless.  A climate model is a large, expensive, horribly complicated program that is only as useful as the theory you put into it.  They are very useful at telling you what your theory means, but they are utterly useless at telling you whether or not your theory is accurate.

For example, if you programmed into a climate model that a .5% increase in CO2 would cause a zombie virus to infect mankind–guess what?  You would find that, if what don’t cut down our emissions, we would all living a Will Smith movie.  Using a climate model to prove the theory that went into it is complete idiocy.  That brings me back to the essential difficulty with point 2.  We do not actually know what happens in the atmosphere when CO2 interacts with the menagerie of gases and particles.

Moving on to points 3 and 4 in the immediately above list, there are natural feedback mechanism that cutoff any impact that CO2 might have on temperature.  Mother nature may abhor a vacuum, but it also abhors excess.  We are already seeing huge increases in CO2 absorption in seaweed as the oceans act as a sink, causing predicted levels of CO2 to drop off.  Moreover, as temperatures rise (whether or not due to CO2) convection will usually increase, leading to cloud cover and rainfall.  This acts as a natural break in any runaway temperature increase.  Just as with tax increases, liberals have applied their rules and assumed nothing will changed because of their rules.

The Real Inconvenient Truth

The second important reason why nothing will happen in Copenhagen is that, as the BBC noted last week, the warmest year on record was 11 years ago.  How is that possible to reconcile with the prophecies of doom?  Al Gore and the IPCC can talk about El Niño and solar variability (when it suits them), but 11 years is a long, long time.  No one is willing to destroy their economy on the word of a former Vice President when faced with the coldest winter in decades and there has been no net warming since their teenager was in diapers and Clinton was in office.  The thing that amazes me is that no one has thought to say that this means Kyoto, which occurred in 1997, was a success.  (It was a patent failure, but moving on….)

If you want to know what it will really take to cut CO2 emissions in half by 2050, look at the person next to you; now kill them.

Draconian Measures

If you want to know what it will take to cut the world’s CO2 emissions in half by 2050, look at the person next to you; now kill them.  CO2 comes from everything. It is a natural part of the human biological process–you are emitting it right now–you filthy polluter–just by breathing.  Of course, it is also part of the Krebs cycle (one deranged lunatic’s pollutant is another man’s plant food.)  Even if you could (and you cannot) switched overnight to solar, wind and other “renewable” power sources–where would those power sources come from?  How can you manufacture an enormous wind turbine without plastics?  Plastics are made from refined petroleum products, which, in refining, produce CO2.

In addition, a lot of “greenhouse” emissions are not even fossil fuel based, but are from farm animals, rice paddies and termites, all of which give of methane, another “greenhouse gas.”  In order to actually reduce true greenhouse emissions, you would have to convince the worlds population to stop eating beef and rice and stop making their homes out of wood–oh, and stop using plastics as well.  And don’t forget–give up your car and take the bus or bike to work.  And you can forget about air travel unless you are the type of person who now takes a private jet anyway.

All of this in an environment where, again, the weather is getting colder (long-range forecasting is calling for the coldest winter in a decade or longer) and there has been no global warming in 11 years.  The scientific consensus (which never really existed, as much as a code of silence in exchange for funding) is collapsing and the climate of fear is giving way to one of ridicule.

Politicians are not that Dumb.

This brings me to my final point.  Politicians are not that dumb.  They know that businesses have to kowtow to environmentalists, as do they, the politicians.  They also know that the hemp wearing, no soap, trust fund hippies will never be happy no matter what you do, so there is no point in trying to satisfy them anyway.  The point of these conferences is to give the appearance of moving forward, blame the large developing countries (India and China) for not being able to reach a meaningful agreement and agree to meet again in a few years.  On the plus side, the weather in late fall is gorgeous in Copenhagen.  Try the hot chocolate.

But General McChrystal is a man focused on results, not his own pedigree.  Having come to the conclusion that his preferred strategy will not work, he has requested more troops to do the job in the way it will be required.  Obama, too scared to openly refuse the request, at first tried to pretend the request did not even exist, asking the Pentagon to hold onto the request until Obama (not the Generals, as Obama had promised) decided what strategy was appropriate to win the war.

When that was seen for the delaying tactic that it was, Obama publicly rebuked General McChrystal, summoning him to Air Force One for their first face-to-face meeting.  The meeting lasted less than half an hour, and the topic of discussion, apparently, was not how to win the war, but how McChrystal should STFU and GBTW.  Obama then returned to having very public and long-winded debates with his staff over what to do in Afghanistan.

I see one serious man, and one pontificating philosopher.

teacher s union viagra benefit
viagra no prescription chea
generic viagra trial pack
viagra online usa
order cialis
viagra generic buy
canadiancialis
pfizer viagra 100mg sildenafil
generic viagra from canada
buy canadian cialis
name for viagra
compare prices on cialis
viagra for animals
side effects of cialis
order cialis soft tabs

The safest bet in any foreign policy crisis is to ask Joe Biden what he would do, and then promptly do the opposite.

In one corner, there are the Generals, McChrystal and his commander, Patraeus, who both believe a surge is the only thing that will work.  In the other is Joe Biden, a man who has been wrong so often about foreign policy over the last 35 years, that the safest bet in any crisis is to ask Joe Biden what he would do, and then promptly do the opposite.  Here is a brief list of issues on which Joe Biden has been (vocally and clearly) on the wrong side of history:

1. Biden opposed giving aide to South Vietnam, leading to its collapse and the slaughter of millions.
2. Biden opposed aide to anticommunist groups in Latin America, specifically in Nicaragua and El Salvador. That opposition cost millions of lives.
3. Biden opposed SDI and missile defense, the system that most experts now say is what caused the Soviet Union to collapse and is now giving the Russians fits (if only Obama wouldn’t give it away for free).
4. In 1990, Biden was against the first Gulf War to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
5. In 2006, Biden called for Iraq to be split into three separate, autonomous regions.
6. In 2007, just prior to the surge showing results in Iraq, Biden called it a “tragic mistake.”

Biden’s ideas are the type you hear listening to old men in an uncrowded barber shop on a Wednesday afternoon; somewhere between implausible and insane.

In short, Biden is a buffoon who almost never knows what he is talking about.  Sure, he may sound knowledgeable and may talk a good game, but his ideas are the equivalent of what you hear listening to the old men in an uncrowded barber shop on a Wednesday afternoon; somewhere between implausible and insane.

Faced with this, Obama has a problem.  He has a General who has a career of following a strategy that Obama wants to follow.  A serious career military man (whose unit, by the way, captured Saddam Hussein), who knows how to win wars and is not just spouting off at the mouth like an over-inflated blowhard.  Then he has Joe Biden.  So what to do?  Obama, being who he is, knows what to do:  Delay, Drum Up and Destroy.

First, delay.  Take as much time as possible to make people think this is a difficult decision.  When you opponents complain, bloviate about heavy is the head that wears the crown, and sending young men into battle is not something to be taken lightly, etc.  (He takes solace in the knowledge that he is a Democrat, and therefore, no one will follow up with, “yes, but what about the young men who are already there, dying for lack of reinforcements?”).

Second: Lift up Biden’s profile.  Make people think he actually knows what he is doing.  Send him around to talk about the stimulus, healthcare, Russia, whatever.  Make sure he is seen being somewhat presidential. As Krauthammer notes, the sudden media fawning over Biden is not accidental, it is strategic.

No, he's still a joke.

And finally, Destroy McChrystal.  Remind the press of ancient history.  “Hey, remember Pat Tillman–the NFL player who left a $6 million deal after 9/11. Wasn’t McChrystal involved in the cover-up of his death?” “Wasn’t McChrystal involved in detainee abuses in Iraq?” The fact that McChrystal was not actually involved, and nonetheless took full responsibility is meaningless.  Just like a political campaign, it’s not the truth that matters, it’s getting them to deny it. Getting your opponent to have to say, “I never slept with a 13 year old” is incredibly damaging, even if it is 100% true.  This is a disgusting tactic when used against a politician.  When used against an honorable man such as General McChrystal,

Obama knows how to play politics.  He beat the Clintons at it.  From all accounts, McChrystal is a brilliant general, but in this war, he doesn’t have a fighting chance.