Another nobel laureate rejects global warming 1


By Tom Quiner

Is global warming based on good science or bad?

I ask this question because of the treatment Governor Rick Perry of Texas received from John Harris at the Republican debate at the Reagan library a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Harris tried to trap the Governor by demanding he list the names of the scientists on whom he based his skepticism of global warming. Mr. Perry really didn’t answer the question. Global warming evangelists who embrace Al Gore’s premise that the evidence in favor of global warming is “incontrovertible” were surely triumphant.

There is, though, a growing list of scientists who don’t buy into the whole global warming religion. The latest is Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Laureate for physics. He said of global warming:

“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Another dissenter is Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University of California at Santa Barbara. He said global warming is:

“the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Another dissenter is Nobelist Robert B. Laughlin.

Another dissenter is the late Nobelist Norman Borlaug.

The list is extensive, and it is growing.

The evidence in the eyes of these highly regarded scientists is not incontrovertible when it comes to global warming. What Mr. Gore and President Obama have done is make a leap of faith in their belief that global warming is real, that it is man-made, and that assuming these, it is even fixable.

In other words, it sounds like a religion.

The president could have made a more persuasive case for going green if he couched it in terms of weaning us off of mideast oil. Liberals and conservatives could agree on that. Unfortunately, we are left with the sense that the president is trying to establish a state religion.

 

Is this a smart way to create jobs? 2


By Tom Quiner

Job creation is the job of government. No one else can do it better.

This is the view of the president and his party.

The Democratic Party’s approach to job creation has been given a rigorous workout, and it has failed.

They have taken tax payer money, borrowed even more from China, and redistributed it to public employee unions and politically-correct corporations in the “green energy” industry.

The poster child for the president’s job creation approach was Solyndra, Inc.  They received a half-a-billion of tax payer’s (and China’s) money to build better solar cells.

The company is going bust. Taxpayers are left holding the bag (but not China, to whom we have to repay the money we borrowed to “stimulate” our economy).

In a previous post (The U.S. can control its energy destiny), I talked about the flaw in the president’s approach:

The president has a skewed vision on how to accomplish this. His vision is a massive infusion of taxpayer money into the creation of “green jobs.” The liberal Apollo Alliance guestimates it’ll take 20 times the annual budget of the Department of Energy to create five million jobs. So how much will all this job creation cost us? Five hundred BILLION dollars, or $100,000 per job.

Okay, the president’s plan failed. He learned from his mistakes, right?

We could only wish.

The president has proposed a massive, new $450 billion job creation package, even though this approach was tried on a grander scale before and failed.

The most optimistic guesstimate on how many jobs this will create comes from a Moody’s economist, Mark Zendi, who projects maybe 1.9 million will be “saved” or created.

The cost to taxpayers? How about $236,000 per job?

Is this a smart way to create jobs?

Is the Iraq War the cause of our deficits? 1


By Tom Quiner

The “Supercommittee” meets. Their vision on why America’s fiscal house is such a mess varies wildly. The USA Today reports that Democrats on the committee blame the two wars this decade as one of the major reasons for our crisis, along with Bush-era tax cuts.

I am re-running a Quiner’s Diner post from last year which addresses the Iraq/Afghanistan War allegations:

***

Voices on the left are clear:  our fiscal problems are the result of an unnecessary war on Iraq forced on the country by former President Bush.

Democratic Party strategist, James Carville, is blunt:

“It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq…”

Writing in the Washington Post, Linda Bilmes (a member of Harvard’s faculty) and economist Joseph Stiglitz were even blunter:

“The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can’t spend $3 trillion — yes, $3 trillion — on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.”

Writing in The Nation, Christopher Hayes is bluntest:

“First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars…”

The Iraq War certainly makes voices from the political Left emotional.  Fortunately, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has weighed in with a detailed financial analysis of the war’s cost.  It turns out the folks above were just plain misinformed.

It is certainly fair to argue if the fruits of our efforts were worth the tremendous cost to our nation.

Reasonable voices can debate if the removal of a mass-murdering dictator and the establishment of a democratically-elected government were worth it.

Reasonable voices can argue if the piece of mind knowing that the country truly is free of weapons of mass destruction are worth it.

The jury is still out on Iraq, and a healthy debate should continue on whether the price was worth it.

However, when it comes to deficits, the debate is over.  The CBO spells it out.  The war accounted for just 3.2% of federal government spending while it lasted.

Look at defense spending under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in the 60s when it accounted for 46% of all federal spending.  Contrast that with Bush II when defense spending was less than 20% of federal outlays.

The chart above really lays it on the line.  The last year Republicans were in charge of the budget was 2007.  Deficits exploded after Democrats took over.  The biggest culprit is Obama’s stimulus package which will cost far more than the Iraq War ever did.

And for the record, we went to war with Iraq on the basis of bipartisan Congressional Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res 114).  In the House, 82 Democrats voted to go to war; in the Senate, 29 Democrats voted to go to war.

The next time you hear an angry voice blaming our deficits on the Iraq War, tell them to talk to the non-partisan CBO.

Who suffers most from hate crimes in the USA: Muslims or Jews? Reply


By Tom Quiner

It was just a one paragraph blurb in yesterday’s Des Moines Register: four men in New York City were convicted of plotting to blow up synagogues in New York.

I read the paragraph searching for a key piece of information. Can you guess what it was? What would you like to know about these anti-semitic terrorist wannabes?

The answer is motivation. The answer couldn’t be found in the Register’s five sentence coverage. In search of why four men wanted to blow up synagogues (note the plural), I went to the New York Times for additional insights.

The Times’ reporter on this story, Kareem Fahim, focused on the Defense’s claim that the four men were entrapped by the FBI in a sting. It wasn’t until the 10th paragraph that Mr. Fahim revealed that the charged (and now convicted men) were arrested after the FBI infiltrated a mosque. The word Muslim was not used in the news report.

Is this word relevant?

In light of 9/11, the answer is yes.

In light of the Christmas day “shoe” bomber, the answer is yes.

In light of the Fort Hood massacre, the answer is yes.

In light of the attempted Time Square bombing, the answer is yes.

Muslim terrorists want to kill Americans. These terrorists obviously do not represent all Muslims. They may only represent a small percentage.

But political correctness seems to block this critical piece of news reporting. The USA Today said on September 13, 2001:

“Arab-Americans and Muslims fear backlash” after the 2001 9/11 attacks in the US.”

The London Guardian said in July 8th, 2005 after Islamic terrorists killed 56:

“Muslim leaders fear backlash.”

After Islamic terrorists killed 195 in India in 2008, the Muslim Public Affairs Council said:

“The Muslim Public Affairs Council today sent a letter to the Bush administration and the Obama transition team expressing concern about a potential backlash that could be triggered in the wake of terrorist attacks in Mumbai.”

After Nidal Hasan murdered 13 women and men at Fort Hood and wounded another 30, but before his motivations were known, Islam Online said:

“As fears of a backlash are going high among US Muslims, President Barack Obama urged Americans Saturday, November 7, not to jump into conclusions over a deadly attack on a military base in Texas, stressing the diversity of the US army.”

You can understand the concern Muslims have that a backlash might occur in light of the number of innocent people Muslim terrorists kill each year in American and around the world. This leads to an interesting question: which group do you think is the victim of more hate crimes in the United States each year? Muslims or Jews?

The FBI tracks hate crimes. The chart above gives the answer. Jews are victims of ten times as many hate crimes as Muslims. Interestingly, this is not newsworthy to the Mainstream Media (MSM). What is newsworthy is the fear of reprisals against Muslims.

Why are anti-semitic hate crimes of such little interest to the MSM?

[This post first appeared in Quiner’s Diner in October of 2010]