Will Al impose restrictions? and the new color of AGW

When Al comes to the Philippines on April 30 for Part 3 of the Leadership Conference Series at the SMX Convention Center at SM Mall of Asia Complex where he will present an Asian version of "An Inconvenient Truth", will he limit "media members ... to record video and audio of the first five minutes" of his talk in the same way he will "censor" his audience at Duke University on April 8? Will Philippine media and Filipinos in the audience at SM accept these restrictions, if indeed he will impose? It is known that Al has been censoring questions, so I am pretty sure April 30 in the Philippines would be no different. By the way, will he take a private jet? Just asking.

See also: No Questions for Mr. Gore

What is he so afraid of? If the recent "exonerations" of Michael Mann and Phil Jones are a plus to the AGW alarmists, what is Al so afraid of? Besides that we don't give a damn about global warming that much, that is.

Talking of "exonerations", I think the new color for environmentalists is now white. As in whitewash.

Update: when Al comes around, we will have rain and bad weather.

And so it continues

NASA extrapolates climate data where data do not exist. What do you call that? This is even worse than the East Anglia CRU climate-gate.

Here's from WWUT:

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the emails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

More effective

If you want to help "save the Earth", there are much better ways than going on 60-minute lights abstinence. Yeah yeah, it's the thought.

Here are two links: 15 ways and 10 ways

Why Al likes the dark

I just got to link you to MMalkin's Earth Hour post.

In the end she says this, possibly why Al likes the dark:

My own theory for the thinking behind Earth Hour is that Al Gore and his fellow enviro-scammers have settled on going dark as the single best way to make sure nobody can see them pick-pocketing the world. 

It was always the plan ...

... that abortion will be funded in the new US healthcare reform bill. Kathleen Parker over at WaPo explains how this will be done. H/T Jill.

Under the new law, they can. There's nothing to stop them.

Here's why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all "required primary health care services," defined to include "health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians."

Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voilà.One may believe that poor women should have affordable access to abortion. This is a reasonable position and it is likely to be the result of this bill. But it is not what Americans have been led to believe is true, nor is it what most want. A January Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, down from 72 percent in December.

Prediction: Abortions will be performed at community health centers. You can bet your foreclosed mortgage on that. There was always a will by this administration, and now there's a way.

How goes your Earth Hour?

That was last night in this part of the world. I celebrated Human Achievement Hour -- celebrating the fruits of man's mind (cfr. CEI). Like electricity!

Here's Tammy. Telling you what EH really is about.

Here's a thought: Since power plants are operated according to power forecasts, there are no power plants turned off during Earth Hour. How could that impact on "CO2 emissions"? A lot of turned off lights just made us grope in the dark. Then again, with "more efficient lighting", how much emissions are really cut? Oh yeah, its the symbolism.

They'll be getting a lot more

Sorry for my friends in the great US.  After much bullying from the administration on the healthcare reform, they are getting new draconian rules from their EPA on carbon emissions.  Also, sources have it that illegal immigration reform is just around the corner.

At least in RP, we only face, for the moment, conspiracy theories on failure of elections, on dumping of candidates, and on wanting to hold on to power (military takeover, judicial hanky-panky, people power, etc.).  Those, and six weeks of speeches, songs, and dance.

Speculation, not evidence

About five years ago, Michael Crichton gave a speech at the National Press Club Washington, DC, where he put forth his view on global warming. I hope you the read the whole speech found here. Food for thought for when Earth Hour comes around in a few days and Earth Day in about a month: Power to the People (borrowed from Laura).

He ends with this:

Finally, and most important — we can't predict the future, but we can know the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the third world. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it.

What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken this phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now — it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and antihuman doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world.

And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now.

In the UK, they get it

Not surprising that in the UK, they are really getting it. London's Science Museum is changing their current exhibit originally called "Climate Change Gallery" on "Climate Science Gallery". Because Climate Change consensus is not just "rocket science" anymore.

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

H/T: WUWT

Pass for cows and pigs (etc)

Despite the ever-popular-among-the-climate-change crowd theory that less meat equals less heat, a group of scientists in a recent meet says that eating less meat or cutting down on dairy products will have very little impact on global warming.

Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented here today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” launched late last year.

H/T: WUWT

What Americans feel

about the threat of global warming may not matter to us in this side of the world. Or does it? If many of you believe in Al and his "scientists", then maybe Gallup's poll on Americans' attitudes toward global warming and the environment ring hollow.

But if, as is quite evident in this election campaign period where many Filipinos tend to believe in surveys (to the extent that they will vote for a candidate for the only reason that he is leading in the polls), shouldn't we also wonder why Americans' convictions toward the environment and global warming's effects have waned?

Here are the numbers.

Won't be a small problem

One of the possible things we have to deal with, if our DOH pushes for more freebies.

This condom ploy is about two things: money and license. For the condom company, greed tramples any real concern for children. Lamprecht AG, the Swiss condom manufacturer, boasts of its intent to market the extra small condom in the United Kingdom next: “the UK is certainly a very attractive market since there is a very high rate of underage conception.” (Sounds like Planned Parenthood, here in the U.S., which makes huge amounts of money dispensing contraceptives and providing abortions.) There’s money to be made. Like any company trying to grow a market, Lamprecht AG ultimately must “grow” the need. They make money off the extra small condom only if more children have more sex. Good for kids? No way. Good for Lamprecht? Absolutely.

Remember the 16th

From Queer Conservative:

"All scientists are skeptics."

So says Prof. Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-chairman of the InterAcademy Council, and tasked to head an "independent" and external group to review procedures, practices, and management of the IPCC. We have our fingers crossed.

The review it seems will not correct any mistakes to previous IPCC reports, but hopes to avoid the mistakes, if any, in the process of making a report. The IPCC's fifth report is being prepared.

While we hope that Dijkgraaf and his team do a good job, we have to remember that in recent years, many (scientists and well, many others) have subscribed to the notion that climate science is a done deal, a consensus. What is there to be "skeptic" about?

Exposed

The Weekly Standard cover

The end is not near, then again, who really knows

"I can definitely tell you that the world is not coming to an end."

Not my words, but Bob Holdsworth's, an expert in tectonics at Durham University. It's good to know that recent quakes can be explained scientifically (not included is global warming science), and that the number of earthquakes are also within annual averages of seismic intensity. Read here for more.

March 11

What changed?

What changed? In 1952, Planned Parenthood said that abortion "kills the life of a baby after it has begun." Read David Schmidt at Live Action.

Let the conspiracy theories begin

The conspiracy theorists are having a field day beginning today, what with the emperor put in position. Y'know, the more we harp on these things, the truer they become. There is always that tendency that we will get what we imagine things to be.

Talking of dreams, here may be some of them types of dreamers. If they think she will change her mind, well,

“If the Church teaches that contraceptives are immoral, nothing can change that. Not even the vote of the whole country can change that,” he said.

Groupthink at work? The narrative is the same -- if some groups say or do something that isn't according to your narrative, it is not okay: you are sexist, homophobe, human rights violator, etc. But if your side says or does something that the former groups don't like, not according to your narrative, they should not give a hoot about it.

Tell me which side of the issue is which.

Update: Reading Cassy after I posted, and you should also, there is some similarity ...

Frankly, Angie is acting in typical behavior for a liberal. Liberals love to talk about “risky” or “taboo” things, and then pat themselves on the back for being courageous. This is basically the exact same thing. She says she isn’t doing it for a publicity stunt? She’s doing it to “de-mystify” abortion? Please. She wants attention, pure and simple. Some women may indeed be scared to have abortions, but watching Angie Jackson talk about having one isn’t exactly going to lead scared women to a moment of pure enlightenment and relief. This is another typical feature of liberalism. Their narcissism leads them to think that everything they do inspires someone, or encourages someone, or is somehow meaningful or special. In real life, it isn’t. No one cares about Angie Jackson, and they wouldn’t even know she existed were it not for this controversy she created.

Why not warnings?

The issue concerning condom use in the Philippines has been elevated to the question of appropriateness of advertising condoms ever since the Philippine Department of Health gave out condoms for free on Valentine's Day this year. The Church has spearheaded the call for the ban when she said: "... condom advertisements should be banned from television, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, and public places, as they desensitize the youth's delicate conscience and weaken their moral fiber as future parents."

I see that it is the right of the Church to call for such action, so that those who say that it is wrong for the Church to propose such measures is taking away the Church's moral obligation and responsibility as well as not giving her the benefit of the right to free expression.

Nevertheless, I also tend to agree that banning these advertisements might also go against the constitutional right of free expression of the manufacturers and advertisers. To my mind, it is not GHB, Ecstacy, cocaine, guns, or assisted-suicide services that are being advertised (these will most likely be banned from public advertising).

I echo a friend's suggestion: Considering that the ban is unconstitutional and considering as well the Church's right and duty to care for her faithful, we may allow these advertisements, BUT, in the same vein that government mandates that advertisements and other marketing communication strategies, including packaging, must include warnings or contra-indications, advertisements for condoms and other contraceptives cannot be exempt from this rule.

We cannot deny that there are hazards to contraceptive use (as explained here and here and here) and, so let us put these warnings. Informed choice. I have seen many of these ads and packaging, but warnings are never included.

If ads for alcoholic beverages and liquor include, for example, "Drink moderately" ; if medicine ads include "If symptoms persist, consult a doctor"; if health supplements ads say "No approved therapeutic claim"; if toy packaging comes with "Choking Hazard" labels; if tobacco products have picture-based warnings; then why not put similar warnings in contraceptive products advertisements and packaging (there could be a choking hazard, in some cases, y'know)?

If the anti-smoking, anti-processed milk or anti-powder milk, anti-gun, anti-right -to-reply, anti-freedom-of-information-act, hell, even anti-Arroyo-in-government advocacies (lobbies?) are gaining headway into "regulatory" solutions, we might have another effective way of telling people the evils of contraception: the warnings on labels and advertisements.

Then again, there is an anti-life lobby that will fight this.

Dr. Phil digs deeper

Dr. Phil is found lying again. He has gotten used to doctoring his data, and now even makes up reason for his not giving information to those requesting. He is digging deeper his icy hole, and there will lots of ice still to come.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

Dibs on the yellow Presidency and media

About a couple of months ago, this came out in Hotair.com. A little more than a year from now, I believe that we can say something like this about the Presidency in the Philippines, if the yellow army wins. If it comes to this, I declare dibs.

Disclosure: Yellow is my favorite color and it pains me to not use my yellow stuff more often these next few months.

Update: Well, what do you know? Read Jojo Robles's piece at Manila Standard. Here's one who sees the possibility of promises-meant-to-be-broken kind of guy, or worse.

More flak

Alan Reynolds writes another commentary on one point Al raised in his recent op-ed at NYT. Read.

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore wrote, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

See what you've done

Fear mongers, see what you've done.

Now come the hurricanes

Nature Geoscience came out with findings that differ from the 2007 IPCC Report (and differ then with Al's) on the link between hurricanes and anthropogenic global warming. Slowly but surely.

Here's a summary from Nature:

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

Full report needs subscription though. But read here and here; all the same, the UN IPCC is fast losing more credibility.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading".

Of course they've said an independent review will take place. Ya sure.

Al shows up

In print, that is: NYT op-ed.

Still, he won't show up in debate. Don't take his word for it though. Better to read the antidote by Jules -- in short, Al does not say anything which he has not already said before.

Photo from Jules.

Ok, it’s settled, the science isn’t settled. Thanks, Al, for sort of acknowledging that. I notice he overlooked the fact that some diehard warmalists have wavered in the last few years, never mind that that IPCC twelve-pack was a few beers short of full consensus. Come on already with the fact that the warming’s stopped. Kind of makes me wonder if they aren’t lying about the ice caps melting, too. Anyway, Al, what did you expect, everything to stay the same forever? When did that ever happen on this planet?

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

There is no double standard

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported:

The Catholic Church is exercising a double standard by telling the people to choose the country's next leaders based on their conscience, but at the same time saying that they should not vote for those who support the reproductive health bill, according to Akbayan Representative Walden Bello.

This is somehow echoed by a Sunstar editorial:

Reacting to the call of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for the faithful “not to be swayed by survey results and political advertisements” but to follow instead the dictates of their conscience after a prayerful and collective period of discernment,” some people accused the bishops of having a double standard of religious outlook.

While asking people to vote with their conscience, CBCP urges them not to vote for candidates supporting the RH bill.

There is no double standard. The Church has the obligation, as pastor, to guide the faithful away from evil, specifically in cases where there is intrinsic evil -- intrinsic evil is, sadly, not in the vocabulary of many.

To better understand why there is no double standard, I link you to the January 13th column of San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer entitled Archbishop’s Journal – Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice: What Catholics believe which is a response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement in a Newsweek interview in December:

I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions ...

While the statement of Rep. Pelosi was related to her support of abortion, her reasons for supporting what is contrary to Church teaching while at the same time maintaining her "membership" in the Church dwell on her mistaken notion of freedom and conscience, which is the argument, it seems, that those who talk of double standards also use.

I quote below the last paragraph, but it's best to read the whole text:

As participants in the life of the civil community, we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom. Because of these convictions we commit ourselves to a continuing witness to, and dialogue about, the Gospel values that underlie our understanding of freedom, conscience, and moral choice.

GW, my foot 2

In a PDI commentary, Loren writes:

Earthquakes don’t kill. Unsafe structures do. That’s one lesson Filipinos can draw from the recent magnitude-7 quake that devastated Haiti.

This is good to read from her. Even as it echoes what Phelim McAleer wrote, and to which I referred to in my previous post "GW, my foot".

I have to say, I was expecting to see the earthquake-global warming link somewhere in the commentary, but there was not any. Unlike so many in the "environmentalist" mold who have said that all these disasters are linked to global warming and climate change, or as nature's response to our non-response to the Kabuki theater that was Copengate or Dopenhagen.

Latex sententiae

An editorial piece suggested: Environmentalists seek to ban the commercial release of balloons as these latex and foil toys usually end up as sea debris. Marine animals mistake these as edible and eat the balloons, causing their illness or death.

But have we ever heard them advocate the ban of this latex? I have not, and I don't think they ever did or will.

The better to cut human population, y'know?

Then again, animals do not know any better.

Time release technology

Apple confirmed recently the release of its tablet and iPhone 4 by January 27. This is great news for Apple die-hards.

But not all is good news at Apple. Especially for some stockholders.

While Apple "boasts" that it is a green company, even putting the One (no, the other the One that goes by the name of Al), on its board, they are expected to refuse again the request of some stockholders to release its environmental sustainability report and the formation of a board-level committee to address sustainability issues.

It may count Nobel Prize-winning climate change campaigner Al Gore among its number, but that has not stopped the board of IT giant Apple from opposing two shareholder petitions calling on the company to introduce new environmental governance measures.

Environmental group As You Sow is to repeat its effort of last year and table a petition at the company's forthcoming annual stockholder meeting on behalf of a group of Apple shareholders, including the influential New York City Office of the Comptroller, calling on the company to prepare a sustainability report by July 2010.

It will be accompanied by a second petition calling on Apple to form a specific board-level committee to address sustainability issues.

As You Sow will argue that more than 2,700 firms now issue environmental reports, including competitors of Apple such as Dell, IBM and HP.

It is surprising that Apple could not comply as its competitors and a lot more companies have been able to do these.

... Apple "lags behind global industry peers on sustainability reporting" and will call on it to produce an annual report providing details on how the company will "reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address other environmental and social impacts such as toxics, recycling and employee and product safety".

Perhaps, Apple is afraid that its operations are not actually "green" and that they cannot in reality reduce their own emissions. Remember that most of Apple's manufacturing operations are overseas, in countries like ultra-emitting China.

Disclaimer: I "love" my Apple gadgets and will not part with them because I am not a GWA (read: hypocrite).

H/T: PlanetGore

One by one

The dire warnings of future catastrophic, even end of life, events due to global warming are now being slowly downgraded, because some of these have been based on speculation and computer models that "forecast" their own hypotheses.

Here's one:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

With Michael "hockey stick" Mann under investigation, what and who is next?

PETA distraction

Love her or hate her, depending on which side of the forest you are in.

If u want to preach do it about something worthwhile don't waste my time trying to save the dang chipmunk.

Find a worthwhile cause like the women being maimed in these Middle Eastern countries. Or female circumcision. Or women's rights here in America, we still get paid less for doing the same jobs as men. Quite honestly if you hate the world so much go live in the forest where no one else has to hear you complain about the perfectly good food chain the good Lord created.

GW, my foot

As we continue to pray for Haiti and help in whatever way we can, here are some food for thought from Phelim: Earthquakes don't kill Haitians - Underdevelopment does

The reason so many people died in Haiti is because its people live in poorly built houses and have not benefited from development which brings with it cities and houses which can withstand earthquakes.

Take it any way you want it. But there is some truth to it. Although there could also be other contributing factors to the mess in Haiti.

Government must support the choice freely made by a couple

F Sionil Jose's column on looks into why Gibo may be the one. Excerpt below on his view on population management.

We will be hundred million people in less than five years and will have difficulty feeding this population. What are your ideas on population control?

Population management is essential, not merely because our resources are not limitless but also to reduce the risk of disaster. With the visible effects of climate change on our country, we have more vulnerable areas and fewer areas where people can stay. Population is a big issue. It is a problem that continues to fester while everyone gets lost in the acrimonious debate on which is the right institution to deal with it. So nothing gets done.

Granting that the cornerstone of population management is a moral choice freely and knowledgeable made by couples and that government should not make that moral choice, several things must follow because the debate must not stop there. We cannot pretend the problem does not exist. The following construct must logically follow: 1. There must be institutional responsibility and accountability. If government is not the proper agency to deal with the problem because it is a moral issue, then our moral guardians must take the responsibility and the consequent accountability for positive results, and not merely for information and education; 2. Government must support the choice freely made by a couple; 3. No to abortion.

Carbon matters

Tom Nelson has a photo representation of the non-evidence that "carbon dioxide causes major warming".