It's all over the news.  Some marketing company promoting a late-night cartoon on the Cartoon Network placed a bunch of blinking lighted signs around Boston, causing the police to call out the bomb squads and block off major parts of the city. Now the police have arrested two of the sign installers and are calling for the heads of Cartoon Network and Turner Broadcasting executives. Translation: We are so embarassed that we didn't know the difference between a battery and a bomb that we have to make more out of this than common sense dictates.

Nine other cities dealt with the signs without creating a furor. In fact, some of them did nothing about the signs until Boston converted them into a security crisis. Apparently cooler heads are running the police departments of those cities. I can understand that a large city woldn't want people going around sticking up lighted signs wherever they like. Fining the perpetrators might be in order, but arresting the lowest level hired help won't be an effective deterrent.

While I do believe that Boston overreacted, there is at least one question that authorities need to try to answer: Is the marketing company itself responsible for the frantic calls from citizens about the signs? Did they calculate that this would be a cheap way to gain a lot of publicity for the show even if they or Turner had to pay a fine? The signs were in place in Boston and the other cities for a couple of weeks before the reaction.

---

Have you ever heard of the Congressional White Caucus? No? That's because it doesn't exist. But there is a Congressional Black Caucus and they don't accept non-blacks as members. Not even one who represents a district that is 60% black. Read Jeff Jacoby's column on the subject for more details.

If the CBC is interested in furthering equality for all blacks I would think that they would welcome as members those that represent a lot of blacks in particular and anyone sharing their goals in general. In fact, I would think that the CBC would be happy to speak for all the downtrodden regardless of race. I suspect that the CBC is more interested in enhancing its own power than in promoting equality for anyone. And that they might be interested in more than just equality for blacks.

Anyhow, why do the rules of Congress allow such a racist organization to exist? Does anyone believe for even a second that they would allow a CWC to exist? There is no Congressional Christian Caucus. But might there be a Congressional Muslim Caucus when more Muslims are elected to Congress?

---

CBS News and the Associated Press report on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

The warning from a top panel of international scientists was blunt and dire: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the cause is "very likely" man-made, and the menace will "continue for centuries."

We've heard all this before. But now I suppose we're expected to actually believe it and be alarmed because it comes from the IPCC -- whatever that is. 'Unequivocal' is a big word that means 'clear'. But 'unequivocal' grabs you a little better than 'clear' doesn't it? That's what they hoped anyway. They say it is "very likely" man-made because they aren't sure that it is man-made. But that doesn't stop them from pushing for drastic measures from governments around the world to restrict the activity of humans -- without regard for the negative efffects of the restrictions. They seem to be certain that warming will "continue for centuries" despite the fact that just 30 years ago they were certain that the earth was cooling.

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

OK Susan, so what if they are? Since we can't cease all human activity what do you propose? Would you restrict the manufacture of goods in large factories and possibly cause those goods to be produced less effeciently and at greater harm to the climate? Oh, you say that we would still let the efficient factories produce all the goods we need but the greenhouse-gas trapping equipment would just increase the cost of the goods? And you say that the consumers would just have to absorb the additional costs? Well, what are the consumers going to give up in order to pay the higher cost of essential goods? Might it be heating oil, gas or electricity? Might they resort to heating their homes by burning wood or coal? Be careful, Susan, of unintended consequences. The global climate and "human activity" are much too complex to be managed by a few humans with simplistic ideas.

"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," (U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Achim) Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

I think there is a greater chance that Steiner and his cohorts "will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 F by the year 2100.

They're predicting as little as a 2 degree increase in temperatures in 93 years. For this they want to stop the world so we can get off? Further, the range of their prediction indicates a lot of uncertainty, which suggests to me that the interval could actually be wider, say -1 to 14.5 degrees. If so, then overall cooling might be the actual result. The weather service often misses tomorrow's highs and lows by ten degrees or more. The IPCC has no better tools available to them than the weather service. And 93 years is about 34,000 times longer than 24 hours.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Combining their range estimates results in a range of about 7 to 31 inches in the predicted rise in sea levels. Again, this wide range tells me that they really have no idea how much sea levels will rise in almost a hundred years. But, if sea levels do rise 31 inches, a hundred years is plenty of time to adjust for the effects without chaos. A lot of people would be affected but it won't be like the flooding of New Oleans by Hurricane Katrina. It won't happen overnight. People will have plenty of time to move away from the encroaching seas.

Gerry Meehl (U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research), warned that continued global warming could eventually lead to an "ice-free Arctic." And when that happened 125,000 years ago, seas rose between 13 and 20 feet.

Do you suppose that the "ice-free Arctic" that existed 125,000 years ago was caused by greenhouse-gas emmisions from human activity? I think not. So, if it occurred then without the greenhouse-gases, why is the IPCC and other global warming alarmists so convinced that present day warming is caused by the greenhouse-gases? The answer, I suspect, is that it's too hard for alarmists to make money from a naturally occurring phenomenom.

The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea-level rise will continue for centuries. "This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," (Kevin) Trenberth (director of climate analysis at the U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research) said in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come back in 100 years' time, we'll have a different climate."

Apparently there is not much consensus among the IPCC contributors, much less among the 'scientific community' as a whole. Most of them are pushing for strong measures from governments around the world while the report says there is nothing we can do about global warming. I agree with Trenberth, we'll just learn to live with it.

---

According to the Associated Press temperatures in the northern parts of the country have dipped to deadly levels. An article at FoxNews.com reports:

A bone-chilling Arctic cold wave with temperatures as low as 38 below zero shut down schools for thousands of youngsters Monday, halted some Amtrak service and put car batteries on the disabled list from the northern Plains across the Great Lakes.

Whether the current global warming trend is caused by human activity or not it's not clear to me that it will be a net negative for humans. Some warming of the northern latitudes might allow more food to be grown. And it might result in longer working seasons for construction and other outdoor trades. The economies of regions like Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Iceland might benefit.

The effects of global warming are just too complex to predict. We should wait until we see some effects from warming and understand them more before we take drastic actions to try to control them.

---

If you think this is becoming a global warming skeptic's blog you may be right. Someone needs to help derail that out-of-control train. With all those jumping aboard it is a disaster in the making.

I received a link to an article by Dr Timothy Ball via e-mail. He is a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He seems to be trying to inject a little reason into the debate and calm some of the hysteria:

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

A quick search of the internet revealed, as you might expect, that Dr Ball is reviled by the global warming believers in Canada. The search also revealed that he has said, as I did yesterday, that global warming might be a net positive for Canada.

If you find yourself in a debate with global warming adherents ask them if they believe its net effect on humanity (as opposed to its effect on individual humans) will be negative. They will most likely say that its effect will be negative and might say that it will be disastrous. Ask them then if they would like to have the earth in a cooling trend instead of a warming trend. That is, do they believe that, if the net effect of warming is bad, the net effect of cooling will be good? They most likely will say that cooling is bad too (they did say that just a few years ago). Then ask them if you understand correctly, based on their positions, that they believe the current state of the earth's climate is perfect for human existence. You probably won't get a straight answer to that question. At this point they will start questioning your credentials instead of addressing your question.

Let's look at the issue another way. What is the chance that at this point in time the earth's climate is perfect for human existence? If you have any scientific training at all you know that the chance is almost zero. But if it's not perfect then how do we manage so well? The answer is that we have adapted to and become accustomed to the current state of the earth's climate. We've learned to live with the hand we've been dealt. And that's what we'll continue to do whether the climate warms or cools.

Only egocentric people believe that their world is a perfect world. They are happy with the way things are now for them and care little that change might improve the lives of others.

---

Robot Parking Garage to Open in New York
I didn't know that parking space for robots was that much of a problem in New York.

Gore: Nations Must Take Lead in Warming
I thought he was against warming.

Rare Turtles Found Dead in Bangladesh
Did they vow that they wouldn't be caught dead in Bangladesh?

Wizardry at Harvard: Physicists Move Light
Big deal! I've moved a few lights myself -- without wizardry.

Electrocuted Owl Cuts Power to 23,000
That's quite an accomplishment for an owl, especially a dead one.

---

This CBS News article is about 10 days old now but I didn't have time to complete this post when the article was first published. From the article:

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

What? Someone's superiors insisting that their employees' actions should actually be bound by agency policy?

It amuses me when I see some indignant reporter trying to suggest that government employees shouldn't be controlled by their supervisors. Imagine the chaos that would result if all government employees were given carte blanche to pursue their own interests. It would be the same chaos that would result in a private organization run in that manner.

Reporters are certainly free to criticize the Bush Administration's policy on global warming, but to try to make a story out of the Administration's efforts to administer its policy is just plain silly.

The Democratic chairman of the House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

How is it 'misleading the public' to inject doubt into the science of global warming? There is plenty of doubt and uncertainty in the science of global warming. The public should be encouraged to question what the alarmists are telling them.

About the only aspect of global warming that most scientists agree on is that the earth is warming -- but some are beginning to question that. Some say that we might enter a little ice age within about twenty years. There is a lot of disagreement about whether human activity is a significant contributor to warming and, if it is, whether we can do anything that will significantly slow the warming. There is tremendous disagreement on the rate of warming and its effects. Some argue that the effects might even be a net positive for humans.

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin told a security forum attracting top officials that "we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" and that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

Putin shouldn't fret so much. He should just relax and wait for the situation in Iraq to deal a crushing blow to our influence in the international arena. That is, if he believes the Democrats. He might also consider the assessment of the terrorists that we are weak willed and cowardly.

But no, Putin is not the one hyperventilating about the magnitude and application of our military strength. It's the Democrats and terrorists. The Democrats will say anything in their zeal to elect more anti-Americans to office. The terrorists are just delusional.

---

In a column at FoxNews.com Martin Frost argues that if somehow President Bush could replace Vice President Cheney with Senator Joe Lieberman it would give the White House certain opportunities. He describes a scenario through which this would allow the Republicans to regain control of the Senate. He also says that, depending on how the Democrats react to Lieberman's nomination, it could tip enough of the Jewish vote in 2008 to the Republicans to allow them to retain the Presidency.

To me a more interesting wrinkle is the possibility that this would induce Lieberman to run for President in 2008 as an independent. He ran as an independent in Connecticut and won. He had to run as an independent because the Democrats nominated a more liberal candidate. As a moderate independent candidate for President he would get a lot of votes but probably wouldn't win. I believe that he would pull more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans, thus helping the Republicans retain the Presidency.

Of course, for this scenario to play out correctly the Republicans have to come up with a good candidate. They haven't done so yet. If they don't come up with a better candidate Lieberman might win -- but that would be OK with me.

On second thought there is more to this than the manipulative aspects. It could give the country a real choice as to what they want in a President. If Lieberman runs as a moderate independent it might entice the Democrats to nominate a left-wing liberal and the Republicans to nominate a right-wing conservative. Actually this likely is wishful thinking on my part; we might end up with three moderates to choose from. But then that wouldn't be all bad if it keeps candidates like Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton off the tickets.

---

N. Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament
This could be really good news, but we probably won't hear much about it. There are still too many unresolved Anna Nicole Smith issues.

Stern's Sister: He Last Saw Smith Asleep
Where, in a dream?

Pelosi to Lead Way in Debate Over Iraq
She should be careful. They have a habit of firing guns into the air in Iraq.

Ancient Chimps May Have Used Hammers
OK, but where did they get nails?

A New School Plans to Teach Half of Classes Using Arabic
It could teach the other half using Hebrew. It might produce some interesting cultural clashes.

What You Need to Know About Flying with Fido
If you fly with dogs you might get fleas?

California's Future May be Paved With Fees
Well, that's better than fleas.

Thai Cops on Alert for Underage Kissing
They don't want their innocence to go missing.

Farmer Exasperated with Wayward Donkey
That's probably not the way the donkey sees it.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• Next page -->