Letters to the Editor
Solarpower
Published Letters: 14 Editor's Choice: 1
-
CIA Strong Man Punches Shark .... defeats terrorism
[Read the article: A "safe haven" for al-Qaida in Pakistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having been immediately alerted to the kind of macho man we're dealing with here (who in their right mind would even consider punching a shark? What the hell for?) alarm bells jangled when he advocated sending troops into the North West Frontier to just sort the whole damn place out.
Wonderfull! What a great solution, I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before? (But then I never would have thought of punching a shark, either ... ) It shows amazing foresight, and in view of the way things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, seems to be a 'text-book' solution. Bound to bring the locals around to our way of thinking; just a few bombs and they always see the sense in abandoning their tribal culture.
Jeez. Typical CIA tactics. And they've always worked. Right?
-
Cartoon as Political Satire
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Americans' inability to understand, or even accept in many cases, a culture other than their own, causes them gyrations of guilt and apoplexy, here manifested in a 'cartoon'. Most people can only accept the modern day definition of 'cartoon'- they should check out Goya or Hogarth who's satirical commentary on contemporary politics took the form of the 'cartoon'. The American expectation of a laugh from a cartoon has rendered Berkeley Breathed's intelligent commentary indecipherable for the MSM and many commentators here.
Only one poster seems to have grasped the obvious: the guy's throw away commentary summing up America's attitude to the 'other': impose your will. Muslims everywhere will only succumb to God or Allah's will, and this, in all its glorious Judeo-Christian foundation, is incomprehensible to America. BB has shown Lola to be sticking to her choice, which is exactly what today's American Muslimiyah is doing. The fact that the cartoon has been censored in the MSM is because of US sensibilities, not Muslim. It is not within the Washington political mainstream's ability to permit lampooning its own attitude.
-
A Movie for The Sheeple?
[Read the article: "Lions for Lambs"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmmm. Sounds like a EUROPEAN movie. Maybe the obviousness that strikes these commentators is a necessary evil to get through the fogged minds of your average movie-theater goer. Oh, but then they'd be asleep by the time that dialogue came around.....
-
Arctic Climate Expert: Gore's Film is Science Fiction
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former Director of the International Arctic Research Center, on April 23, 2007. In an interview published on Executive Intelligence Review http://larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html discusses the IPCC findings and methods used to reach the highly publicized findings:
Dr. Akasofu: "The IPCC's report, on page 10, states that, "most of the present temperature increase during the last 100 years, from 1975, is due to a magnified greenhouse effect. But there is no basis for them to say "most," for they have not examined the natural component. So it's an assumption. Then, they say, computer models conforms to that, but that's not true. What's happening is that computers try to simulate the present increase, but computers can't do that. So it's not confirming anything; their computers are just trying to simulate the initial assumption."
And "(...) but what I can see, is that temperature has been increasing almost linearly at a constant rate of about 0.5° C, by 100 years, continuously; to the present. So I doubt that much of the increase over the last 100 years the IPCC says, of about 0.6°, is due to the greenhouse effect—that's what they say. Well, they assume. They have not taken the natural component; we don't know what they did!
So, definitely climate change, or temperature, has been rising. Somehow the IPCC decided that the increase in the last 100 years is due to the greenhouse effect; however, a significant part of that would be just due to natural change. So, even if we spend lots of money on suppressing CO2 release, it wouldn't do any good, because it's a natural change"
-
Models based on What?
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Droogoy, thanks for that detail.
But surely in the field of science, especially when we're talking about such massively important specifics, one should pay attention to the base assumptions and the original data upon which all subsequent studies are basing themselves? If the computer models being used to assess the future warming of the planet do not take into account the past 100 years of 'natural' as opposed to human induced chemical changes in the earth's atmosphere, how can we trust so implicitly the findings of those models? Surely you'd agree, there is a massive amount of data being ignored by these models.
I am not trying to excuse humanity, I am not denying global warming. But I am sick to the back teeth of the New Dogma in science which sidelines any studies which do not begin from the same established ASSUMPTIONS which have neither been tested nor proven. The whole global warming campaign has become an incontrollable juggernaught which is barrelling mindlessly through science, society and politics in a way which leaves no room for intelligent questions. The huge emotional manipulation being carried out is itself indicative of a lack of scientific rigour. James Hansen's famous bugged algorithms upon which most of the calculations for the supposed future were founded, is one of those 'minor' details within the scientific field of climate change these days which the public is NOT BEING TOLD. There is a distinct lack of positive skepticism being applied in this area, now we've been told by Al Gore (when in the world did we ever trust a politician so much ...?) that the issue is a moral one, surely we have to question how we have arrived at such emotional extremes ?
Whether or not the IPCC's models turn out to be correct, is not reason enough to NOT make an effort to reduce emmissions. However, the enormous political hoodwinking which is underway shall definately mean large sections of the earth's population are MAINTAINED at current levels of poverty, whether man can truly control the earth's atmosphere and climate or not: by simply refusing to allow them to apply the same degree of industrial and economic growth which has brought the Ist, or 'developed' world to dominance. (Cf: dissallowing Iran's nuclear energy development, propping up oppressive regimes in countries with enormous strategic importance etc.,)