Thursday, May 25, 2006

Looming Unrest Destabilizing Our Government?

Ok, the title is a bit much, but I like it. Who knows what the future holds, but today's liberal mailbag has a bit of Big Brother in it to match my 'drive by media' titlle. And it will lead us to question the very fundamentals of our Constitution! Well, maybe not, but lets see where we end up:
Item one: On the local scene, the Mayor of Portland, the former Police Chief!!!, has filed a complaint with the Gestapo (the FBI) that they were trying to recruit spies in City Hall. The local gauliter in charge says there is no ongoing investigation. So…..why trying to recruit snitches? (Because Portland is sorta leftish perhaps??)

Item two: the same bunch, Henreich Gonzales Goon Squad, raided a congressmen’s office! For the first time The Leader has violated the separation of powers by actually coming up on the Hill and committing burglary and theft. Even the CCCRW Republican leadership is having a fit. Bout time!
On the first point, what does the City administration have to hide? Wouldn't they want to have liaison with federal law enforcement anyhow? And if the FBI felt the need for 'spies' in a city administration anywhere in the U.S., one would seriously wonder what was going on that prompted such action. This reeks of inanity and publicity. If it really comes about, we could have some fun, but I suspect that nothing will happen. It's way to ripe a situation if true.

On the second item, we have a very interesting situation. A congressman refused to allow the FBI access to his office. Has that ever happened before? No person seems very concerned about that. So what does the FBI do? Hmmm... The Executive Branch heads over to the Judicial Branch and gets a warrant. Then they conduct a search and viola! Screaming and ranting about the draconian tactics of the FBI. And what gets really weird, famed lib Barny Frank chastises the House leadership for complaining about a warranted search, yet doing nothing about Bush's 'domestic spy program'. Crazy! You can spy on the 'peons' without a warrant, but don't even think of touching a member of Congress, even if you get a warrant! Oh, this is going to be good.

Furthermore, what about that 'culture of corruption' meme? Seems William Jefferson (Dem), has a few issues. Is it a systematic, democratic, culture of corruption? To make things more fun, someone in the Justice Dept. leaks juicy tidbits about the current speaker of the House to ABC, who then runs a hit piece. Gee, only days after said speaker condemned the actions of said Branch of government. Does it seem that all these players have jumped off the cliff? Oh, and the Justice Dept. denies its investigation of the speaker... At least we know where the money was, in the freezer. That should solve Willy J.'s problem eventually.

My tittle seems appropriate now. If this is the focus of government, we are doomed. At least we will be entertained on our path to destruction! Ah, and I see that the Pres. has just frozen Willy's documents for 45 days, so the situation can 'cool off'. Cooler heads? Or more entertainment...

Friday, May 19, 2006

A Wonderful Source of Anti-Socialist Ammunition

I had not realized that there was a repository of Ludwig von Mises extensive quotations, but even better than just finding one, it is searchable. That may not turn your crank now, but go try out the The Quotable Mises. Just put in your favorite nemesis philosophy, and let the fun begin. One of my favorites:
What pushes the masses into the camp of socialism is, even more than the illusion that socialism will make them richer, the expectation that it will curb all those who are better than they themselves are. . . . There will no longer be any room left for innovators and reformers.
Pointed, filled with balanced truth, what more do you want? I am sure to be returning to this depot in the battles ahead.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Last Chance to Save the World!

Or, more aptly titled, "Those who fear change, should not study Geophysical Fluid Dynamics!" I will leave the topic after this, as my message is quite clear. Assuming you can plow through the rambling musings of my various posts on the topic. No guarantee in that. So, again, the current climate is a result of many features of the past climate. Some features are recent, some features very long time scale. Some features are geologic in nature, hence epic periodicity. I will restate myself quite clearly. If anthropogenic forces have changed recent climatic conditions, it is not provable yet. Even when we do have conclusive proof of anthropogenic impact (which will happen given growing populations and waste products), the change that we will see then could not be predicted now. This is not the same problem as dumping pesticides in a river, or strip mining, or whatever. The concept of environmental damage is far more subjective when it comes to global climate change. Global climate change is not dioxin in the water or carcinogens in a cigarette.

No one can conclusively state what is a better or worse climate for mankind. Even disasters, when they happen, as horrible as they are, have long term benefits. However, if they can be prevented, that is a great success for man. But there is no impending disaster we can predict concerning global climate change. We are just as likely to all be wiped out by a errant comet. Why is there no cultural fear of that? It has happened before, and unlike a ice age, or other climate change, happens very rapidly. Why constant fear of climate change? Is it simply collective guilt?

Some people will not accept healthy skepticism (the backbone of real science), no matter what the actual facts relate. This is a social phenomena, not a scientific one. There is a philosophy that believes man's very existence is destructive. Well, that is true. It is a Christian principal. For us to have life, something else must die (the top of the food chain is like that). But, wanton waste and destruction is not good stewardship. What conversation would you have with God? Can you ask Him what He would want most of all? More believers, more people able to live better lives and help each other? Or is God concerned with a pristine environment most of all? Noah and the flood should tell us something of God's thinking.

Apparently God was willing to destroy plants, animals, and people as punishment for their rejection of God. He then made a covenant with Noah. Very interesting stuff. With this in mind what should a Christian do about global climate change? First, have faith that God will provide for you the things necessary for survival. Trust Him, worship Him, love one another, take care of widows and orphans. Then try to be a good steward of the land. There is a lot to get right before you start worrying about buying another Chevy Suburban. So what does good stewardship mean? If it means make the land productive, that is good. Does it mean preserve the earth in a primordial state of cave man utopia? Some would believe such.

One thing is certain, we should try to not create harmful environments as we expand. Clearly that means balancing growth with cleanliness. And local and regional environs are definitely impacted by industrialization. The global climate will be impacted as well, and may be already. But what is acceptable, and what is a threat? Is nuclear energy acceptable? Not to some. Is a new landfill acceptable? Not to some. Is increased use of petrochemicals acceptable? Again, there are many who do not believe that is the correct path. But each of these has a societal benefit, and is arguably better for our modern existence than current alternatives. If there is no new landfill, dangerous and unhealthy conditions will be created in areas near high populations. If there is no new nuclear energy, more coal plants will be created to meet energy needs. And for societies use of geologic petroleum, it is irreplaceable at this point in time.

We will need to create renewable sources of petroleum. It will be a major challenge for us, and one we can meet. There is cause for concern as well. History has a number of examples of civilizations that failed to adapt and faded away. Fertile lands were irrigated with saline waters to many times, the land became unusable. Forests were utilized for fuel, and in some places, completely disappeared to this day. We will need to create technology that overcomes the limited source of cheap energy. And we may need to begin to study how to mediate our global impact if possible. All good things to pursue.

In contrast to these positive steps, there is the political morass previously discussed. There is no global enforcement of environmental laws yet. And oil is the fuel of developing nations. Without it, they will not join the western world. In contrast, some would rather see the industrialized countries shrink. This is a philosophical divide as well as inherent national competition. Another part of the divide is the economic issue.

I find it asinine when presumed 'experts' can only come up with one solution to increased demand, higher taxes. And then to claim that oil is highly subsidized in the same breath! If it is so subsidized, remove the so called subsidies and find out what the real market will support. I could just as well claim all Canadian production of anything is highly subsidized, as they have national health care, as opposed to products made in the U.S. And most 'subsidies' cited are reductions in tax rates. Gee, a lower tax rate equals a subsidy? Isn't that the same thing as a reduction in the rate of growth being a 'cut' in spending? This is the real problem, many may think they understand economics, but can not grasp the most basic smokescreen of rhetoric.

Then to claim that the oil companies are responsible for billions of dollars in pollution, caused by the end user, is equally nefarious. The same people are screaming about high gasoline prices being caused by the oil companies. Lets see, increased regulation, more spending on cleaner processes, increased price. That seems fairly clear. Then increase the price of oil, increase the demand for gas, make building a new refinery unprofitable, and you get today's price at the pump. What would bring down the price of gas? More refineries, domestic oil drilling, reduced taxation. Clearly beneficial on a national level. Yet it will not happen because of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the unpredictable nature of global climate change.

In my perspective, this is indicative of ignorance and the global citizen mentality. But on the timescale of generations, very little damage to our societies expansion. Most western economies are past the point where petroleum costs and access constitute one of the principal governors of growth. A greater fear is the recent popularization of socialist principals throughout the world. Want something that will surely lead to human suffering? Embrace socialism.

I will personally welcome the increased funding in my area of research. My goal is to see the energy budget for the ocean closed within reasonable error in the next decade. That may sound off topic, but it isn't. We do not know were all the energy goes yet, and until we do, no ocean model will be useful for prediction. Without a accurate ocean model, no coupled atmosphere ocean model will be accurate. And if you can't get that right, you can not predict the climate. We might be able to make predictions in twenty years or so, barring some major breakthrough. And at that point, we may have technologies and energy sources to make a cleaner environment globally. It is something to attain to. In the meantime, saner heads should be supported.

The history of environmental fear tactics is sordid, and when it comes to global climate change, the MO is identical. Our real policy, worldwide, should be to dump billions of dollars into public and private research into marketable energy distribution and creation. Think of twenty years ago, when a lithium ion battery powering a pocket sized cell phone for days was science fiction. We can do the same with the automobile, though it may take thirty years. And to provide all our energy needs, we will need to think big, but it is possible to accomplish.

I will stop boring everyone with meandering thoughts on the environment now, but if I get inspired in the future, plug your ears. Please consider rejecting socialistic tendency before worrying about global climate change. That should be our real nemesis, along with it's evil sibling communism.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Expanding My Global Warming Stance

I must continue the fight in the valiant front-line against scientific inanity in regards to global warming. We will begin with economics, reiterate the difference between scientific theory that has been proved vs. 'expert' speculation, and end with group think as it applies to the social dynamic of scientific funding. All in response to Tom's comment to A Chill Wind Blows Through Tokyo. However, as opposed to that piece of reasoned contemplation, we must leap from the peaks of civil discourse and delve into the gutter of political rhetoric. Otherwise, whats the point?

The accusation is thrown against me that I have a 'lack of understanding of the economic principles' in regards to this issue. Ah, that verges away from science does it not? Or is econometrics just a tool to be used by advocates of a political position? From a pure growth perspective, something quite positive in economics, unless you are interested in vitiating policies, global warming might be something to embrace! Look at the benefits of increased CO2 for agricultural crops. Do away with the growth stifling regulations that cripple many industries. The list could be extensive.

More seriously, are successful western nations supposed to throttle growth in deference to emerging industrialization? There is a big difference between so called 'global' economics, which is loosely controlled through treaties and trade agreement, taxes and resources, and the 'national' economics for which each country is intimately involved in expanding. The position of the 'global citezen' is inevitably one of fair distribution for all humanity, which sounds fine, but is actually the most unnatural and unsuccessful modern political philosophy (apart from overt communism), which is unfortunately embraced by many. Who is going to enforce these fair distributions? It is pure social liberalism, and in my view, the cancer of modern governance. We were born to compete, and in healthy competition, thrive and make great progress. Under socialism, humanity historically stagnates, why should we expect any difference in the future?

And more practically, no sane nation is going to sit back and be nice, while every other nation strives to the goal of growth through any means. Ludicrous and naive. So, while I do not have a major in economics, I have significant exposure to real economists working in various fields, both government and private sector, and have seen how economic statistics are ginned up as political tools many times. It is not that I don't understand the principal (of green economics), I just don't believe that it works. Again, to reiterate, I am not an advocate of unlimited resource abuse. But that is not common sense economics either, and should be obvious. Furthermore, I am not naive concerning non-renewable resources, but that is a separate discussion addressed previously.

Moving on to bad science. First, one greener's pollution is one gardener's growth enhancer. And if you are a geologist, the only thing that constitutes long term pollution is arguably elements that do not occur naturally. Of course we need to control pollution, but to what end? Some go so far as to claim humanity is a scourge upon life itself, and should be restricted greatly. Others simply want safe clean living spaces. Now, to the other side, some are only concerned with profitability, at any expense. There are many different issues. And each of these positions utilize scientific methods and results to justify themselves. For me, I am interested in having the most productive society with the least negative impact on livability. But what does that mean?

I will never get the chance a being the first to explore the highest mountain, the first to see the deepest depth of the ocean, or be the first to either pole. In fact, there are very few places where man has not gone on this planet. In another millenia, we may all have to fit into very high density population areas, or maybe we will move to Mars. Certainly by then, all the geologic oil will be gone and whatever impact burning it all up has will be well established. Should we prepare for that? Of course, and the best way in my view is by having continued growth and success in all areas of society, on a national level first, an then globally. Science applies to this in many ways, some regulatory, some as new technology. But for my concerns, provable science is different from statistical forecasting, which is still better than speculation, even if its from 'experts' in the field.

If a disease appears, researchers try to develop techniques and medicines to combat that disease. This clearly benefits society. It is tax money well spent, and no normal person would object. But what about the drug trials for the 'new' medicine? Some people may experience complications, some might die. If the trial is successful, the pharmaceutical company will make a significant profit, shareholders will benefit, and so will the recipients of the drug, if they can afford it. Ah, what a tangled web! But, principal to this argument if the emergence of a disease. Would it be wise to spend untold tax dollars upon a disease that was hypothetical? And what if the hypothetical disease was not shown to be deadly? Or the effects were completely unknown?

This is the state of affairs with global warming. Yes, I agree that many people have now jumped on the train condemning mankind for the catastrophic climate change, that has not happened yet. And no one is denying, again, the data on global temperature. But I will reiterate again, and again, there is no scientific provable link between anthropogenic forcing and global temperature. I must quote Tom at this point:
Based upon what I understand the bulk of climate scientists believe (including the AGU, the NAS and the chief international national academies of science), I understand that we have a sufficiently clear idea of the present and likely future consequences of human-induced climate change to justify taking modest actions now, and to try to coordinate with China and India to reduce the amount of GHCs that they can otherwise be expected to produce.
First, there is a huge difference between what someone believes, and what is proved. I don't care if it is Einstein Jr., if he says he thinks this is the case, fine. But if he says it 'is' the case, based upon some substantial evidence, then we can go validate that and establish it as verified. So from the start, the above statement is suspect. Next, we have no idea of the future of the climate. That is a provable fact. We do not know what the consequences of the global increase in temperature will be. And we do not know that that increase is anthropogenic. What actions should you take to 'protect' something you have not shown to be in danger? It is a huge lie at this point to believe any climate model conclusively. That is one of the reasons I recommended the journal article previously, but maybe I need to be more explicit.

In the article (Linday's HP), there were a number of things one should notice. If the cause of arctic ice thinning is directly global warming, why was there a local maxima in sea ice in 1987? They rightly warn, concerning the Arctic temperature, "Trends in air temperature are notoriously dependent on the interval examined." This gets to the heart of why, for every scientist who is honest, there is no definite statement about anthropogenic forcing of global temperature. It also explains the disconnect between real forecasting, and pure speculation. With trends in global temperature only well established in the last twenty years (and there is argument about that as well), predicting accurately just the temperature next year would be hard, let alone the climate.

Furthermore I would encourage every reader to at the minimum read the beginning paragraph of the conclusions. This is a good representation of the state of regional climate modeling, and as they correctly state, is extremely dependent upon the sparse data available. Now, the modeling effort is worthwhile, and seems to point to the confluence of two long term oscillations coinciding to shift the balance of ice production in the Arctic (in 1989). And, they make no prediction to the future, except to speculate. This again is common, and the speculations are the main source of climate news. The scientific results are boring, but the speculations drive the debate. Not that it is bad to have such discussions, but to create policy on such as if they were irrefutable is foolish.

In synopsis, the real research identifies a mechanism to describe the observations, and is scientifically presented as such. That initial trigger mechanism has very little connection to global temperature. Increasing Arctic temperatures (over 16 yrs) then prevent the re-thickening of the ice sheet. Again, not a direct connection to global temperature, and certainly says nothing about long term Arctic temperatures, of which we have little.

I use this example for another reason. These regional models, which are more accurate arguably, than global ones, can not predict regional climate, they are principally used to explain what we have seen, not what we will see. For the global models, the predictive ability is even more tenuous. Yet every researcher running a model such as this can run it ahead for a while and speculate on the result. Doing this usually involves guessing something which is normally provided by a analyzed data set. So the second the model moves forward into the future, all of the possible dynamics represented by the control data set are released as free relationships. In other words, the current level of modeling is very weak at long term prediction.

Most of my colleagues are not naive, and that is why they separate scientific results from speculation, even if they believe the speculation. Many of them promote personally a liberal socialist agenda, yet this does not contaminate the science. It does stain the speculation which colors the resulting dialog in regards to policy. So again we fall back to what is accurate and how should society respond to it. That response takes us into the realm of opinion. Again, before we move on, it is not established science that anthropogenic forcing has increased the global temperature. And, no one has the ability to predict future climate at this time. Even expert speculation is highly inaccurate on both points.

Now what would benefit society in terms of climate? More arable land would be good. What if that land is dominated by specific countries? Is it fair for them to have increased farming resources, and not the rest of the world? Especially if it is proved that the industrialized nations warmed the climate thus creating that wealth? Sounds ridiculous, but just as likely as vast new deserts being created by the same. Only, with the desert, it's a catchy threat, and blame can be conveniently placed. Not so with something beneficial, which is non-news. This brings us back to the medical argument. What disease are we to prepare for? What policy are we to implement to save the world? What are we saving the world from? When we know for sure what threatens us, we can prepare for it.

For example, sea level has been constantly increasing over the last 18k yr. We know (maybe) that low lying areas will be underwater at some point in the future. But how long? Even if you double the current rate (~2mm/yr) there would be an increase of 40 cm by 2100. Yes, even my grandchildren will be old, and not see much societal impact. Would I rather give them a strong safe country to live in and thrive, or reduce the inevitable (maybe) increase in sea level? Any sane person will chose the former. Not that there couldn't be dramatic and threatening changes. There is evidence of rapid onset ice ages, one of which happening now would be detrimental to society. So would complete melting of Greenland and Antarctica, with its expected ~50m increase in sea level. Neither scenario is predictable, and planning for either is foolish at this point.

None of the arguments I make are targeted to dissuade one from actively advocating for sustainable livability. I do not agree with overfishing, overpolution, destruction of green spaces, cheap suburban development, subsidized agriculture, blah blah, etc. But in each instance, there are subjective measures which weigh for and against. I do think there are far greater threats to humanity for us to focus our energy on. The fear mongering surrounding global warming is itself a threat. If society responds to perceived threats in lieu of real ones we will suffer from inefficiency and distrust. In my view, we are already suffering from the lack of common sense.

To conclude, I return to the concept of global regulation. Apart from the fact that it is unenforceable by a global body at this time, the concept itself is a pipe dream of utopiana. What should be obvious to all involved, is the inevitable use of every possible resource mankind can access, and some resources we will never see recovered on this planet in millions of years. How to move forward? I believe all factors must come into play for fundamental progress to occur. We can encourage limiting our impact, but if that process is not economically viable, it will not happen. And regulation can be a part of that, but to much regulation will delay the shift in technology, as well as encourage defiance of those regulations. So what to do in the immediate future? Fund more primary research into efficient use of non-renewable resources. Other than that, what can society do? How do you proactively deal with some tenuous future threat that does not affect you in the present?

If one was world dictator, then there could be fantastic protections put in place to preserve utopia. But I can guarantee the overthrow of that government. And the world's strongest economies are going to get stronger in the near future, so what incentive does any one of them have to stifle their own growth for the benefit of emerging nations? Furthermore, until a viable threat materializes and begins to pressure humanity from global warming, no treaty will have any impact. Not to say we shouldn't try to be clean and encourage others to be clean, but no one will stop the growth. Even as world dictator, would you want more people to enjoy a higher standard of living, or restrict growth in hopes of preventing some yet unknowable disaster? It boils down to different philosophies and what those philosophies view as beneficial for mankind.

This world dictator model is perfect to explain scientific funding as well. Lets say some dynamic scientist speculates death and destruction for all based on his research. It gets airtime because it is dramatic. Some other scientists see it as a possibility and want to find out. They head to das üat;berlord and say, "Hey, lets see if we're all going to die! Give us money, please." Some swag is distributed and the scientist go out and do the research. They find out that it is a perfectly good possibility that we all will drown, given a set of assumptions. More scientists read the research and think to themselves, "Hey, Einstein Jr. got funded, let's get some swag!" They proceed to write many proposals with the words 'global climate change' in the abstract, and by this time the whole world is eating up the possible destruction of all that is decent. As world dictator, you must please the press, who are clamoring for action to save the world, so spend some more dough. It's all fine, yet the results for the most part are greater understanding of past events and more tenuous speculation.

That is the state of the art in Climate Predictions, speculation. I am not impressed by whoever jumps on board, signs a petition, drafts a resolution, or proposes a treaty. I do think it is a good idea to fund this research. It is also a good idea to have global political debates on resources and pollution. We all breath the same air, and particulate pollution from China is in the U.S. a few weeks from production. Just as the U.S spouts gasses the world over. And smog in some cities is so bad as to create mortal health threats for residents. All things we should try and fix. Yet on the time scale of global warming, the current debate is ineffective. And the specifics regarding the science that the debate is based upon are overlooked in favor of the speculation, by both expert and lay. That is what irritates me the most. Hopefully, you the reader can extract some salient perspective from the ramblings above and demand greater proof regarding this issue. It is your economy, your jobs and future that will be impacted by undue restriction. But keep in mind that we must have progress to exist as well, so lets try to choose clean solutions to our immediate needs.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Oh So Delicious

Have you ever seen a hamster dance? Well, if not your in for a treat! It's the Mohamsterdance (, and it is definitely not politically correct. Aaron has regained momentum, escalating the war for global free speech to a interesting place. The dead guy looks pretty perky, and gets down to some poignant music with a message. This ought to be provocative in certain freedom loving circles. Congratulations go out.

From Nutter Ranting to Scary Scenario

I have to say, the idea that Iran's psychotic leaders approved of the bearded puppet's letter to Bush was a question in the back of my mind. But no more. Not if the explanation of said letter is a simple invitation to convert to Islam. Yes, one of the requirements before engaging in conflict with infidels. Think about that for a while, then check out the extended commentary from Protein Wisdom where the imagination will engage in bunker building one more time.

Questions and more Questions but to Question Faith?

This is actually pretty funny, I think he is getting the hang of it. What would you answer to these four inquiries:
Questions from the news:

A. Have the Kurds really just forged an independent government? Will they take Kirkuk and the oil area around it? Is this the end of 'one Iraq'? They seem to be the only unified region in the country. Why do they fly the Iraq flag from 1958 rather than the current national flag?

B. What's with the crazy fellow from Iran going off to visit Indonesia? Are they about to strike some kinda deal? Is Iran about to export nuclear technology to Indonesia?

Is he just looking for support? Or is he out to stir up trouble?

C. What's with the DiVinci Code stuff? How come so many nincompoops think it's 'real'? Why do the "Christians" feel so threatened by it?

D. Who cares if Britney is PG again? Gee people, get a life.
I must say, if the Kurds separate, it will be messy, but they have the right to freedom just like anyone else, and if that is what they must do, we should figure a way to support it. Of course the Turks will squat cows, but as they want to be part of the EU more than they care about ethnic suppression (I hope), it will work out in twenty years or so.

Iran (read - 'the cult of the twelfth Imam') is ruled by absolute nutters. And most nutters like to spread their nuttiness. But, Indonesia is a different animal, as they have a population and economic situation that would not survive extremism without severe bloodshed. Most likely they will say, "So glad you came, have a nice trip home."

For item c: most "Christians" do not feel threatened by it, but many "Catholics" do. Now, we can argue about semantics, but here is the basic difference. To be a Christian (whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Non-Denominational, or whatever), the idea is that you personally believe that the acceptable sacrifice for the transgressions of man, communal and singular, was Jesus, the Son of God. Then you enter in to that relationship. Some Catholics (and others in whatever group you want to name), believe that God's modern dispensation is through the offices of the 'Church'. Thus, you could be a Catholic, under this description, and not be a Christian. I refer to this as Cultural Christianity, as that term is not negative and applies equally to the oldest of orders, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the more modern cults, like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons. We can further this point but it strays off topic.

So, why do people feel threatened by the DaVinci Code mumbo jumbo? Principally because the main failure in modern organized religion is in the education of the process of critical thinking as it relates to faith. If it is a matter of community support, basic moral teaching, worship and good works, the modern day believers in this country are very successful. If it is a matter of doctrine, the whole system is unbelievably whacked. I could elaborate, but I am sure you know what I mean. And the Catholics, in this regard, have the most baggage, and hence, the least solid foundation. I believe that is the root of the fear.

My personal shot back at those you lambaste who take the book and movie seriously, is if you are actually going to loose members due to this piece of entertainment, you have already failed at more critical tasks. Even someone with a tenth grade education could debunk the main points in the book in twenty minutes. It's ridiculous, yet points to a real situation in the Church (Catholic). Now I can proceed to really offend my Catholic friends by pointing out that Peter the actual person was not made the head of the Church, the rock is the "principal of the Spirit of God revealing to a man that Jesus is the Christ". That principal of enlightenment is what the Church (all believers) is built upon. In other words, you've been duped. But I have the utmost respect for many individuals who are Catholic, and are Christians by the definition above, all the way up to the current head of the Catholic organization. A man who is extremely intelligent, and insightful.

Yes, for the final point, who does care? It is sad that such a large group of people are concerned with the lives of celebrities, but that is the true pablum for the masses at this point in modern culture. All the news that's fit to print...

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

A Chill Wind Blows Through Tokyo...

I hope the catchy hook title engenders humor. Today we respond to a comment thread that I apparently overlooked, and one that is relevant and fun. The diary is at redstate (comment #26) regarding the coming ice age. I spent a bit of time trashing my peers, but Tokyo Tom was not satisfied with that, and as his comments were evidence of more intelligence than rhetoric, I will respond in kind.

For those who have not guessed, my heat inducing commentary is volatile and at times speculative. On the other side, when it comes to science, physics, and especially geophysical fluid dynamics, we can be more precise, and rely on established work done over the last fifty years. So in that light, the following will have less heat, more solidity. But, I will refrain from primary references, and simply make 'sane' comments.

Now, Tom begins by comparing 'local' environmental anthropogenic impacts and 'global' climate change statistics. This is a common problem, and one scientist do quite often. That is not to say that some local effects could be observed globally, but until you do, it is fallacious to make the assumption. As this impacts politics and environmental regulations, some of the policies we implement are based on local assumptions, without justification for larger scale use. If this sounds like I am a advocate of reduced regulation, that is incorrect. My personal preference is for careful and common sense based maintenance of the environment we live in.

How does this relate to global warming? Tom makes the comparison between environmental science, and specifically carcinogen exposure, to the statistics used in the global warming debate. I could not agree more with identifying carcinogens and regulating them before we expose people, that is common sense. However, there are two fallacies in the comparison with global warming. One, there is no indication that a warmer globe is detrimental to society, despite all the Doom and Gloom scenarios popularized in the media. Two, there is still not a direct connection with global warming and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses. The hypothesis is there, and it is possible that we have influenced the global temperature, the problem is that there are so many factors unproven, that contribute large amounts of error to such observations, making the conclusion of direct anthropogenic influence a less than scientific conclusion.

I hope that I need not return to the same arguments surrounding all of the details. Yes, I see the temperature records, the CO2 measurements, the sea ice coverage. All of these are changing, and some of these changes may be linked to societies waste. Certainly you can link CO2 emission to industrialization. But can you then say that it is the cause of warmer temperatures? Why did the global temperature decrease from 1945 to 1975? If you can not explain that, you can not claim you know what caused the temperature to spike in the eighties and nineties. If you claim it is a factor of the PDO, then tell me how that oscillation is affecting temperature now, and in the next thirty years. It is a problem of definition as well. The global atmospheric heat content is the equivalent of the heat contained in the first meter of ocean. One meter only? Why, we could change the global atmospheric temperature simply by some long term change in ocean circulation. Yet we have sparse oceanic data to link into this picture, resulting in large model variability.

In response to Tom's aggravation about my position regarding this, I would give this explanation. It is unprincipled science that rides populist agendas simply for the chance at increased funding. And I see some of what is happening in the Climate community of scientists as exactly that. Hundreds of millions of dollars is currently going to fund this type of research, and it is still in its juvenile stages. I agree with the validity of the research, but not the current crop of ill founded conclusions. Yes, conclusions based on models that have large amounts of error, and are governed more by statistical parameters, not dynamics. Don't get me wrong, I think that these same models are indispensable, and will make a significant contribution to future choices we make as a society, but at this juncture, they are not accurate in climate prediction.

Tom asks the following:
Or are you both (i) taking issue with the scientific consensus and the bona fides all the scientific organizations that are telling us about climate change, and (ii) arguing that it is wrong for our elected leaders and others to advocate the we DO something?
Yes, and yes. I take issue with a few peoples conclusions, and a large number of scientists in the community who are perfectly willing to jump on the bandwagon instead of doing the necessary questioning of said science. Generally, science needs to be proved before policy is generated, but again, that brings us back to what policy should be. Yes, lets do something! What do you propose? First prove what you intend to legislate is going to benefit society. Hard to do if the threat has not materialized, and the factors generating the threat that has not materialized are not scientifically established fact. Beyond that, what is going to benefit society? Here we stray into the realm of global politics, and most readers can guess that if we stay here, much rhetoric will follow.

Next, the question is asked what I find convincing in terms of climate change. Well, I find it amazing that recent (last millenia) regional climatic conditions were so variable. What caused the mini ice age in Europe? Why has the glaciation receded so dramatically pre-industrialization? Are there long term fluctuations yet to be discovered in the recent climate record? The forty year Aleutian low is fascinating, how is it and similar oscillations connected to global temperature? Is there data set yet to be developed that accurately tracks solar output? We have such a short record of total atmospheric temperature, and it does not correlate precisely with terrestrial measurement, will the next twenty years show a closer fit? These are some of the questions that will give us a better picture of how our climate changes, but even answering these does not get us accurate predictions. For that, we need synoptic ocean observations, and that isn't even being planned.

Tom asks where I think we are headed. Scientifically speaking, I don't have a clue. The most accurate prediction we have right now is the six month lead on predicting El Niño. Weather and local climate is restricted to a week or less. Most other prediction have the same accuracy as the Farmers Almanac. Of course, there will be even more CO2 generated, but what does it do, and how will it affect us I can not say. The ocean is a sponge for CO2, and a sink as well. Yet, some of the water subducted at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has yet to return to the surface! How do these long term cycles change?

One statement I do not like, that many have bought into is:
The record is clear that we have had a major impact on levels of greenhouse gases, which are now at levels not seen for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years (cite later if you want it), and that this increase, even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, are going to force more climate change over the next hundred years.
The principal 'greenhouse gas' is water vapor. We do not have global long term coverage of atmospheric water vapor, and the terrestrial time series of humidity is not sufficient. If you can not characterize the most abundant greenhouse gas, how can you make the claim that we have had a major impact on greenhouse gases? Furthermore, the water vapor issue complicates many models, adding another layer of error which has not been parametrized accurately. You again assume that anthropogenic CO2 has forced climate change, and will do more in the future. It is possible, but clearly only a weak hypothesis at this point. It may be a perfectly valid hypothesis, but it is not a proved one.

Finally we need to address the Arctic, I said I wouldn't get technical, so go read Lindsay and Zhang, "The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: have we passed a tipping point?", in the Journal of Climate and see what you think. Clearly something dramatic has occurred, and one of the factors is the gradual increase in the regional temperature. But, the confluence of other factors was also needed in this modeling effort to explain what has been occurring. It will be interesting to see what occurs in the Arctic, but to asses dramatic doom for all the world is not responsible. Claims of unprecedented and dramatic changes need to be put in context. Forget about millions of years, lets talk about reasonable changes within the last ten millenia. What would you consider more dramatic, loss of permanent ice in the Arctic, or an increase in the sea level of 50 meters? That is five centimeters every 100 years, but in the context of recent history, a arguably huge societal effect. Oh, and no anthropogenic causation at all.

In closing I would like to just comment on the time scales in this debate and be an advocate of common sense approaches to policy. Clearly mankind does not plan ahead actively for multi-generational problems. It is outside our grasp to actively and constructively work on something that will not appear in our lifespan. Society on the other hand, responds to environmental pressures over long time scales in effective ways. One of those resources is primary research and education. We may study and research something that will not be understood or implemented for many generations. For instance, non-linear equations and theory were discovered in the late Victorian era, but solutions and applications did not happen until the 1960's. Couple this with the growing need of resources and energy for an increased population and we would be wise to increase our efforts in terms of science and technology. I see the emergence of new technology linked with the marketplace, and how this plays out will determine the measure of future success. We will need to address energy resources, as there is a limit to geologic petroleum. We may need to adapt to climate changes more rapidly than society has in the past. But both of these things will occur on time scales that allow for adaptation, and if not, humanity will experience a setback. Yet to predict such is the realm of fiction at this point. We need more reasonable dialog, less pandering.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Cyber Terror Redux

It would seem that there are a few Islamofascist hackers out there as we have been noticing lately. Apparently aarons been attacked again, and some DDOS attacks have been perpetrated on well known hosts. Today check out The Jawa Report for a peak. For the actual retrograde minds who have sold their souls to the destructive and evil influences of Islamofascism, do something more constructive. These plebeian attempts at making a name for yourself, very weak. You have not even made the trade press in Internet security yet, let alone the mainstream media. You basically suck. Have you shaved you're anus lately? Something must be holding you back from real greatness. Think about it, what would that dead guy, Muhammad do in a situation like this? You should get some more evil inspiration soon...

I did get a bit of inspiration of my own, at the bottom of aarons hack, is the email for someone, possibly the hacker. Whois gives us Fastservers, INC. as the owner of the ip for, although not guaranteed. A bit of mail may make 020 change his email address and/or hosting company. It's a small gesture, but simple enough:

Are you the maintainers of the domain If so you may be interested in the activities of that domain with regard to the hacking of, a blog I appreciate. If this does not concern you disregard. The bottom of the hack page contains a "Mail To : 020@xp020[dot]com".
I wonder what the future holds...

More Liberal Justifications for War?

From the mailbag we get a snippy little piece of socialist liberal journalism of the flavor BBC. Pure evil American aggressor hit piece, but the comments after the article are what set me off. Here is my reply:

It stuff like this that prove how insane and marginal you Moonbats are:
Back in 1939, had I been one Adolf Scrub Hitler (ed: Scrub = Bush), the argument would be something like this. "Poland has been threatening Germany and Germans living in Poland (as indeed they had). Germany was under threat of attack at any time. Therefore, I had the right to strike first, to defend myself. Britain and France had both promised to "come to the assistance" of Poland. They were taking sides with the aggressor!!! Therefore, I was acting defensively in attacking both of them first; to protect myself. Therefore, WW2 was the fault of Poland, Britain and France, not Germany, who was only acting in self-defense under the pre-emptive Scrub Doctrine."
First, the whole Bush is Hitler thing is not only psychotic, but extremely distaste full. More Bush hatred twisting the mind into a degenerate state. Second, by your inane argument, Hitler would have insisted on free elections in Poland by 1942, oh wait, he simply enslaved them all. So, Neville, what does constitute a threat? I missed the part where the Poles encouraged terrorist acts in Germany...

Now regarding the issue of the article, do you not think the more important question is the legality of Iran's nuclear activity? Is that not the real question? Or have Liberals embraced a world with unfettered nuclear proliferation... Furthermore, if liberal idiots are perfectly willing to ignore nuclear proliferation by nutters, what grounds have they to claim any illegality under 'international law', which has now become a joke, of the U.S. or Israel actually enforcing non-proliferation? Of course this in itself is a joke as Israel does not exactly comply with nonproliferation, but then again, not many Israelis proposing as their national focus the destruction of a neighboring country.

I see in the article that the reason there would not be a Security Council resolution authorizing force is the obviously peace loving ChiComs and Russians. Why is that? Saving the world are they? From the evil George Bush? Or maybe they are making a tidy profit equipping Iran with they technology necessary to fulfill there nuclear ambition. The author is a dense brick. Why do so many journo's end up siding with communists? Hmmmm... But to reinforce the propagandists point of view is this delicious excerpt from the article:
Ms Wilmshurst accepted that Israel might regard itself as threatened, given the remarks made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But she added: "Israel would have to take an objective, realistic view as to whether there was a real threat, and I am doubtful at the moment."
You have found a friend Neville! The epitome of insane peacenik Moonbats. Doubtful indeed. Yes, lets take an objective, realistic view of a psychotic megalomaniac, who is threatening to erase you and all you're relations from the planet, and come up with the conclusion there is nothing to worry about. Brilliant! Give her a Nobel Peace prize! And people wonder why the contempt for liberal socialist peaceniks grows daily...

Monday, May 08, 2006

Socialism Fails Again

I am happy to report that the most liberal socialist state in the union has tested another socialist program and found that it fails miserably. Yes, the gas cap is gone! Not that I, the consumer, will notice. Why? Well, we consistently had the highest gasoline price before the gas cap, during the gas cap, and now that its gone, the trend will continue. What is especially galling, is the fact that we could have cheap gas, but the collusion of true monopoly and tax happy government is a stranglehold on a population that more than tends towards sheep-like socialist liberal behavior. Let me explain. Our tax per gallon is well over fifty cents. That puts government in the pocket of more gas sold. We have two refineries. Hence the competition is negligible. For instance, some airlines actually ship their own jet-fuel here, which they find cheaper than purchasing from the local refineries. Why can we not ship gas here? We are toast. Plebeian fools, who refuse to grow some common sense.

On the good side, when something fails, everybody gets antsy and the legislature kills it off, slinks away to their lair, and dreams up some new scheme to save us from ourselves. If I sound pessimistic concerning our political representation, I am. There is no concept of conservative values in politics here. And we have our own special 'culture of corruption', simply from the historical plantation mentality that pervades the community. The plantations are gone, simply replaced by a government who fills the role. Fortunately, when we go fill our tanks in the future, we can at least delude ourselves that the market is working.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Coldest Day On Record, Where is the Global Warming?

Yesterday we had the auspicious honor of the coldest day on record for that date (May 2) here in Honolulu. Yes, we suffered by at a high of 76° and a low of 60°, oh my, fire up the furnace! Get out the sweaters! How can this be with global warming beating down the door? Well, the Old Grey Hag does some science reporting, and today they report on a report. Yes, here is more proof of questionable science pandering to politicians who are brow beat by a nutter green media. In the report, they claim that discrepancies have been resolved with the twenty some years of satellite data that showed little tropospheric warming as opposed to the surface temperature. First, the satellite data sets are still in disagreement with surface temperature, but now the anomalies are positive and reasonably associated with other data. It still leaves in question what drives the earths atmospheric temperature although they make the claim that other measurable sources can not account for the increase of the last fifty years. Yet, if you took the same data from 1945 to 1975, you would have to explain what drove the decrease in global temperature. Anyhow, for more contrarian viewpoint for the layman, check out JunkScience on Global Warming, and a specific response to the report.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The Cyber Shots Heard Round the World?

If you haven't been following the very real and nasty attacks against freedom perpetrated upon one of our cyber LRRP leaders ('lurps' tend to be the unsung front-line in modern war -real lrrps-), you need to get informed! Aaron has been surfing the friendly Islamic websites of love and come up with a few admirers. Yes, if you don't think its a culture war, you are in the cozy couch surrounded by Bud Light and Cheers reruns. We will all have to fight against a large population of otherwise peaceful Muslim's who in their core beliefs sympathize with these throwbacks to the Dark Ages. They will be successful in polarizing a large population, and we need to combat their effectiveness. One such method is to support the front-line, so go read more about Aaron's exploits. Battlefield promotion in the 101rst Fighting Keyboardists is in order.

Eternal Burning Oil Slick

We must close out the oil trilogy with the ridiculous defense of religious slurs used in part two of the series on liberal ignorance and big oil. Here for your continued enjoyment is the poetic prose:
Religion is related because
Ignoring the developing oil crisis,
Denying the reality of global warming induced by industrialization,
And believing in the second coming
Are all
'Magical Thinking'
And therefore
And make the situation worse, not better.
I must reply is 'magical science' a religion? If so, then I agree. Again, all three points are incorrect.

1) Is there really a immediate oil crisis? No. Lots of hype, rhetoric, and ignorance. Our per dollar GDP spending on energy has decreased in the last thirty years. Fluctuations in the price of crude are entirely consistent such a market and with long term inflation. Could we be seeing a period where energy costs begin to increase above the very cheap energy we have been enjoying? That is a reasonable scenario. None of this negates the fact that we will have to develop new sources of energy at some point in the future, and it is prudent to research that now. I am just repeating myself at this point...

2) Has so called 'global warming' been caused by industrialization? There is no concrete evidence that global temperature is directly correlated to anthropogenic CO2, how many times do I have to repeat that? And the scientific community seems to have swallowed the blue pill on this one. A good example of what I mean is expressed by Dr. Lindzen in this opinion piece. He is not alone in his concern, as many very green (enviro wacko) faculty across the land are beginning to question the validity surrounding these dire and ludicrous claims of climatic destruction.

3) The real second coming came and went. It would take a while to explain, but as you don't believe anyhow, why now do you attribute Victorian era Christian mythology to me? Don't jump in the mud without boots on.

A real danger is scientist making 'pie in the sky' predictions to go along with pop culture hype. They should know better. Part of it stems from the avenue of funding (congress) where there are very few scientists and in order to secure large scale funding, you must create a viable threat to civilization. With wiling accomplices in media, the unholy trinity is secure (money - power - influence). For many recent moons, if you did not include 'global climate change' in your proposals, you receive little attention. Forty years ago it was 'Nuclear Winter', twenty years ago it was 'El Niño'. Society will accept spending money on things they fear. They rarely spend large amounts of money on projects that do not capture the imagination.

Which conveniently brings us back to alternative energy. There is a concerted effort now to investigate new large scale sources of energy. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) was a hot topic for the last few years. In principal there is massive amounts of energy in the temperature difference between the deep ocean and the surface. That difference represents many gigawatts of sustainable energy, yet the cost of recovery and environmental impact are unknown and assumed to be immense. Fusion is a future hope of many, yet the cost and time to achieve viable production is daunting. Solar is clearly un-implementable in very large scale. Bio-fuel is similarly stuck in the small scale category.

Where does that leave the imagination? Who knows what discovery, whether principal or engineering, is just around the corner. But the reality of energy needs are immediate, so what is the best choice? Clean Nuclear is what will bridge the gap in my view. Reprocessing existing 'spent fuel' and generating electricity at the same time just sound right. Using that to crack water and then replace many of the large petroleum users with hydrogen is a very attractive path. Roll out of safe hydrogen delivery on a large scale will take decades though. Whatever happens, the same debate will occur, with the same lack of common sense economics. In that prediction I am certain.

Monday, May 01, 2006

More Oil on the Fire

I got a nice response to the oil article (here), although it is a bit strange. So what follows is the standard call and response, recorded here for your enjoyment!

So, let me confirm that the following is REALLY the position of the CCCRW (ed -crazy christian conservative right wing):
Uh, what does any of this have to do with religion? You're knee jerkin'....
1. Despite the fact that China, India and others are expected to experience a sharp increase in oil consumption, and the increase in US oil consumption is expected to continue, while at the same time both US and world ability to produce oil has peaked and is expected to decline, the CCCRW has come to the conclusion that: 1. There is no oil crisis. 2. Even if there is a crisis, the combination of technology and the so-called 'free market' will instantly solve it. 3. The environment doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
First, the peak argument has never been proved. Its a theory, and not fact. The worlds oil producers are no where near the hypothetical peak. I never implied that a solution would be instantaneous, just as the current problem is not 'instantly' a crisis. And on the third point, you're very naively grasping for a straw man to attribute my position, besides, Jesus already came back, no need to wait.
2. There is no such thing as global warming. And even if there is, it certainly has nothing to do with the internal combustion engine. And even if it does, it won't be so bad because it has happened before. And, if it does get bad it doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
Again, I made no claim about there not being any global warming. There is global warming, and there is global cooling. Currently, there is no scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 output and the global temperature. Anyone who makes such a claim is not being honest with themselves or the data. That is not to say that there couldn't be, it just isn't provable at this juncture. Furthermore, if you do not know what the global temperature was when its was 'good' or 'bad' for human civilization, why would you constantly expect DOOM and GLOOM? To the last, Jesus, again, has already returned.
3. The last thing we want to do is actually cut back on oil use, sometimes called conservation, because that would hurt the profits of the oil companies (and a half-dozen or so countries, most of which support terrorism, but that is another matter)since big business is sacred and the back-bone of 'our economy'. The best solution would be to go to war and take over the oil producing countries. And, if things go wrong (where IS that Iraqi oil?), it doesn't matter, because, you guessed it, Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything just peachy keen.
Here, you missed the point. It is economically impossible to stop China and India, or whoever else in the world wants to buy oil. What your ilk propose is self vitiating for sentimental insanity. If we really needed to go to war for oil, we would invade Canada, our largest supplier. You socialist nut-jobs need to get a bit of an edumacation. Oh, Jesus already returned I might add.
4. Yes, there is a tax on gasoline. Last time I looked that's how the USER pays for the highway system. It is a USER fee. If you don't drive your car, you don't pay the tax. Commercial interests, of course, pass the tax burden on to the consumer in the cost of the product you buy.

Cost of a gallon of gas as follows: April 2006, State of California--
Marketing Costs and Profits -$0.01
Crude oil cost 1.65
Refinery Cost and Profits 0.84
State and Local Taxes 0.23
State Excise Tax 0.18
Federal Excise Tax 0.18
Total per gallon cost 3.07

That's $.59 per gallon in taxes, or 19.2% of the total cost. All of the Federal tax goes to the FHWA for distribution to the states for highway projects. All or most of the state/local money is handled the same way--it goes for highways. Now, if you want to get rid of those taxes, tell me how you plan to pay for the highway system? Which, by the way, speaking of the Interstate Highway system, is now forty years old to fifty years old and requiring a lot of upkeep. In Oregon, for example, we have hundreds of bridges whose life expectancy has been reached and require replacement. But, if you want, we can get rid of the taxes and simply shut down the highway system......
No, you misunderstood the point, again. I am combating the idiots who write drivel, and trying to persuade the 'sycophants in waiting' that such drivel is dishonest, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. I have no problem paying for highways. The problem is when class envy socialist claim that big oil is screwing the little guy. Hence, if you as a consumer were aware of how much you pay in taxes on gasoline, you will realize how ridiculous the undue profit claim is. But, since we are on the point, why is it called a user fee instead of a tax? More hiding in the bushes. And how come I, as a gasoline consumer, have to subsidize the transportation of goods for the masses of those who do not consume gasoline? The great urban unwashed (those who don't drive) are not carrying their fair share.
Now then, about alternative energy sources to replace oil. Largely, this means a way of either replacing the automobile with some other mode of transportation, or fueling an automobile in some other way. Who is going to pay to develop these alternatives? Not big oil! Who is stupid enough to fund the competition? Must be the Feds are going to do it. And where to the Feds get their money? From taxes. Ah, but you're against taxes, so out with that program! and the other CCCRW's have painted yourselves into a nice corner. No taxes, no alternatives, increased consumption as production declines and irreversible global damage. You'd better hope that Jesus is coming back soon and will fix everything peachy keen!
I am not against taxes, just undue taxation. Within your argument is exactly the point. Why would oil companies, who are competing against each other, spend money researching alternative products that will not be competitive in the market? You don't get the fundamental aspect, if it is not cheaper that petroleum, it will not sell. If you force the U.S. to use more expensive, unproven energy sources, it will slow our economy. This is the equivalent of providing cheap oil to our national competition. Not smart. My point was simple, yet must have been filtered in the socialist brain. When oil actually does become expensive, alternative energy sources will increase. Oh, and I still do not get how you thought this was some religious argument, pretty weird.

The Physical, The Meta-Physical, and The Ridiculous

From time to time it behooves one to contemplate the essential nature of existence, some do this more than others, some not so much. Today we do it with the thought in mind of God's physical parameter space and requirement for human communication. In the seminal texts, God presented to man a way, physically, of approaching and drawing near. For instance, God gave clothing to Adam and Eve, He accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and developed that theme (the old dispensation) with the principals of the Mosaic Law.

The natural progression to the perfect sacrifice fulfilling this paradigm seems intuitive, does it not? And as a believer in that perfect love, I couldn't be more convinced. However, there are those who do not embrace this view (those poor lost souls...), and we need to contemplate on what kind of hope they have. First we turn to a question I have always had in regard to modern Judaism, then proceed on to question Muslim sanity. I must admit, it looks bad, but hang in there, and hate me if you want.

For the modern Jew: how do you get close to God without making a physical sacrifice? I mean, if you are still living under the Mosaic dispensation, you have to enter into the 'holiest' place through the sprinkling of blood for purification. Do you not believe this anymore? Or has God changed the way He interacts with you? Or are we (the collective Zionist wackos) waiting for the rebuilding of the Temple? What happens if you die before the Temple is rebuilt? Inquiring minds want to know. I ask this in earnest concern for your eternal destiny, as I see no indication in the Pentateuch where you have access to God without sacrifice.

Well, now that we ticked of my friends, we can move on to the Muslim faith. What are you people thinking? You have to follow a bunch of archaic laws, orient yourself geographically five times a day, and all for a tenuous dead guy. Were is the fun in that? Do you really think God cares about a certain place on the globe? And if He did, why would you think it would be out in the desert, and not in Antarctica, or Greenland? Anyhow, it appears there is a slight problem with Muslim space travel, pretty hard to stay pointed in the right direction!

Now for the finishing touch, for those who are interested in where Christians (well most of them, theoretically) believe the 'Holy of Holies' has run off to. If you remember, the priests had to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice within the inner tabernacle in ye olde dispensation, purifying themselves before entering in to the most holy place. Christ was offered up outside the city, and the blood spilled on the ground. If you have a ear to hear, then you will probably realize that in the new dispensation, God considers ever inch of the planet as a acceptable place to purify yourself and enter in to Gods presence.

In this light, I would remark unfavorably again towards the misguided Zionist. If you are a Christian, you should ask God whether He cares about any special place on the planet. In my opinion, the current 'Holy Land' is a place of misguided conflict. This un-Zionist view brings up the question of the vast misinterpretation of the book of Revelation and its application to modern times, but we will have to defer that discussion. Again, God cares not for Mecca, and even less for Jerusalem. His concern is for all men, and in that light, has given us a path to approach Him personally, one that each can pursue anywhere they are, and whatever direction they are facing. (...stepping down from the pulpit...)