Lift up your heads ...

Christine Snyder writes about her aunt's rescue from an interment camp in the Philippines in World War II.

Sixty-five years ago today, U.S. Marines iconically raised the American flag atop Mt. Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima.

And 65 years ago today, hundreds of miles to the south, my aunt walked to freedom.

Sister Mary Beata Mackie spent over three years in a Japanese internment camp in the Philippines during World War II. Like most of the more than 2,100 others in the camp, she was malnourished and emaciated in the end.

Sister Mary Beata was one of 53 Maryknoll Missionary Sisters caught in the invasion of the Philippines after Pearl Harbor.

Most of the internees had to be carried out of the camp they were so weak.

Their liberation was possibly the most incredible airborne rescue behind enemy lines ever devised. It was initiated by Gen. Douglas MacArthur and recognized by all as miraculously maneuvered.

What gave my aunt the strength?

Tada! Al!

There is a thrill up my leg, Al is coming.

But it should be sooner as El Niño is now upon us.

We need cooler weather, and Al's known for cooler climates following him, despite the hot air coming out of his mouth.

Photo from TammyB.

Gore will come to the country to keynote the third staging of the Leadership Conference Series -- a string of lectures aimed at allowing top Philippine leaders from the academe, business, government, and non-government sectors to learn from the experience and expertise of global leaders.

The British, they're getting it

The Met Office of the UK is slowly getting it.

Losing count

Again, more retractions from climate scientists about climate disaster projections.

How many now? I am losing count fast.

This time around, sea-level rise.

I quote in full the retraction published in Nature Geoscience:

This Letter presented projections of future sea-level rise based on simulations of the past 22,000 years of sea-level history using a simple, empirical model linking sea-level rise to global mean-temperature anomalies. One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach. First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries. Second, we did not include the effect of the uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions since the Medieval Climate Anomaly in our uncertainty estimates for the twenty-first-century projections. This led to an inconsistency between the twentieth-century simulation used to test the predictive capability of the model and the twenty-first-century simulation, owing to a provisional allowance for warming since the Little Ice Age in the twentieth-century simulations. Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900. Both our simulations of the last deglaciation, and the result that the equilibrium response of sea-level change to temperature is non-linear over the last deglaciation, are robust to the length of the time step used, and are still valid.

Samwise

They say some environmentalists think that "The Lord of the Rings" is a documentary. Of course am joking, and "TREES WILL NOT BECOME UNSTOPPABLE KILLING MACHINES, ADMIT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" over at The Daily Mash is, well, satire.

A friend told me once that I am like Samwise Gamgee. Perhaps, in many ways; but definitely not like George Monbiot.

Follow the money

Green and environmentalist groups are taking a lot of your money. Climate alarmists are part of this group. Read what Climate Resistance wrote:

As we reported in May 2008, it’s even less of a hill of beans when it is seen in contrast to the budgets of the big Green, NGOs. WWF, for example, took this much money in recent years:

Year Income ($US)

2003 370,245,000

2004 468,889,000

2005 499,629,000

2006 549,827,000

2007 663,193,000

TOTAL 2,551,783,000

According to WWF’s latest financial report, 2008 was not quite such a good year for them. They’ve switched their accounting to Euros, rather than dollars, and say that in 2007, they took €508,137,000, and in 2008, they took €447,251,000. Poor WWF. Still, we make that to be roughly $584,000,000 – over half a billion dollars, bringing their total income since 2003 to just over $3.1 billion, not including 2009.

Of interest to some of our readers is the fact that WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies’.

‘Why are you banging on about how much money WWF have, again?’ you may well be asking.

The point is first to demonstrate again that, in purely cash terms, the alarmist cause is considerably better funded. This must also be seen in the context of the rhetoric produced by the likes of Greenpeace, who, as we’ve pointed out before, don’t do so badly themselves. They say that ‘deniers’ have intended ‘to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action’, yet as the events that are unfolding reveal, it is much more organisations such as the WWF who have influenced the debate with misinformation.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html

We thought it might be time to tot up Greenpeace’s accounts to date…

Year Income (US$) Income (Euros)

1994 137,358,000 —————-

1995 152,805,000 —————-

1996 139,895,000 —————-

1997 125,648,000 —————-

1998 —————- 110,833,000

1999 —————- 126,023,000

2000 —————- 143,646,000

2001 —————- 157,730,000

2005 —————- 173,464,000

2006 —————- 171,367,000

2007 —————- 204,982,000

2008 —————- 196,620,000

TOTAL 555,706,000 1,284,665,000

To put these crudely into the same terms, we make that $2,373,506,970 ($2.37 billion) at today’s euro to US dollar exchange rate.

Most of this money comes from people who think that they are giving to save the rhino, panda, or the whale, because that’s how Greenpeace and the WWF sell themselves. They hire companies to accost people in the street on their behalf and to phone people, harassing them into signing agreements to pay monthly amounts, deducted automatically from their bank accounts. Yet these organisations don’t simply save whales and rhinos, they use their not inconsiderable financial clout to influence the political agenda throughout the world, in a way that the ‘deniers’ simply have not been able to. This obviously includes preparing ‘research’ that finds its way into IPCC Assessment Reports.

And to think climate skeptics are always accused of being paid hacks. More found at NOConsensus.

Now 3

The global warming alarmists are losing more fans. Three major firms are pulling out of a coalition of businesses and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation in the US. Even as the main reason for the departures is that climate change legislation is bad for business, there is that uneasiness that comes with following a myth.

Next come the hurricanes

One by one, they fall. Next come the hurricanes. H/T: Planet Gore

"When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity - 2005 - the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that "there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones." If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn't support.

Blues for Green?

For what it is worth, Gibo wins mock elections in ... Ateneo! Gasp!

There will be another mock poll, they say.
Should Sanggu and Blue Vote risk it?

Tsk Tsk, too bad I can't put in my Gi-vote.

Blogger beware

The good thing about this is that we will fight this and we will win it.

Giving more light

Also, they might try using compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), which use less power but light a bigger area.

Although this statement does not change much the merit of what the author wrote in toto, the statement above should be explained a little more. Even as space and number of words might have prevented her from writing more, I see it as a little dangerous because it may easily be misunderstood.

There is a consensus that CFL's are more economical in the long run because they use less power. What this means is that a lower wattage CFL bulb can give off light (brightness and area lighted) similar to a higher wattage incandescent bulb (for example, a 18W CFL bulb can give the same amount of light from a 60W incandescent bulb, or a 25W CFL is comparatively equivalent to a 100W incandescent bulb). So instead of paying for 60W of power, one pays only for 18W of power for the same amount of light.*

What had the tendency to be misleading is the statement regarding the bigger area. The CFL's will light up the SAME AREA unless you put in a higher wattage CFL bulb, say 32W which can have the same lighting capacity of a 150W incandescent bulb.

Of course, the type of bulb and lighting fixtures will also spell the difference in the area that will be lighted.

*There have been questions about power factor of CFL's that may affect load and power generation and distribution losses passed on to the consumers, but this is another matter. There is also the increased heating bills in homes in colder countries because CFL's give o less heat, which is not a concern for us in the tropics, obviously.

Shades of Mayweather?

Edward John Craig at Planet Gore writes The Debate Is Over that mentions the 2010 Panetta Institute Lecture Series guests including Al Gore, Jeb Bush, James Carville, Harvey Pitt, Robert Reich, James Rubin, and Frances Townsend. This year's theme is The Second Decade (2010-2020): What's Next for America?

Each of the lectures will be a moderated discussion with two "opposing sides" represented. Except that of Al. Because the debate is over. Just cuz.

And Al? He's on the panel called "Can We Save the Planet that Sustains Us?" Al will have a moderator, but no, he won't be debating anyone.

By the way, a legit question posted at Planet Gore: What is the carbon cost of recalling 437,000 Prius hybrids?

Repurcussions or Repercussions

This is just one of those effects of the proposed RH Bill, which is not dead, but on hold until the next Congress -- or as many believe, will be fought in the local government level through the successes of RH laws in Quezon City and Davao City:

Planned Parenthood Pushes Intensive Sex Education for Kids as Young as 10

Sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions. Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic Schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex." the report states.

Click here to read the report.

The report demands that children 10 and older be given a "comprehensive sexuality education" by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as "sexual beings."

"Young people have the right to be informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services," Bert Koenders, the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, wrote in the foreword to the report. It was his organization that helped fund the report.

Pro-choice is really pro-abort

Because ... why would pro-choice groups protest against the Tim Tebow pro-life ad that's going to debut on Super Bowl Sunday? Why should they want to yank out the ad when in fact it talks about the choice that Tim's mother made, of carrying him full term despite the advice of her doctor in the Philippines?

Read Ms Datiles here:

When Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus praise Jesus as the Savior during nationally-broadcasted music awards programs, no one bats an eye. When professional athletes thank God after scoring a winning point, reporters offer them the microphone. But when football prodigy Tim Tebow decides to share on national TV the story of his mother’s heroic choice to give birth to him after receiving medical advice to have an abortion, he is attacked on all sides by pro-abortion groups, and a media frenzy ensues.

Tim Tebow’s story is all over the news. A winner of the Heisman Trophy, the former Florida Gaters quarterback is not only one of the most celebrated college football players of all time, but a pro-life, evangelical Christian who is proud that his mother chose life over abortion.

The harsh reaction of pro-abortion activist groups to the news that Focus on the Family bought a CBS Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow and his mother makes us think about the way the “right to choose” is portrayed by abortion advocates. It offers us a chance to reflect on our understanding of women’s rights, as well as the role of pro-life Christians who have a public presence.

Note of course that the Philippines enshrined the abortion ban in its constitution in 1987, most probably before Tim's mother got the shock of that advice. While it may have not been illegal for that doctor to give that advise, still, it would have been immoral.

This could be it

A suggestion to Pres. Obama -- perhaps you can send the Gitmo detainees to Cebu. Dancing could be good for them: http://bit.ly/8eVCv5