Global Warming and Hurricanes

I just posted a comment over at Scott Maxwell's blog concerning Dr. William Grey's hurricane predictions for this year, so I thought I post an after thought here.

The point of Scott's blog post is to take a lighthearted approach to these predictions because, quite frankly, Dr. Grey was way off last year. Of course that had to do with the unexpected rise a el Niño, but it exactly illustrates the point I made in my post. We simply do not know enough about our atmosphere to make concrete predictions of what the future holds. Of course this fly's in the face of global warming advocates who say the evidence is unequivocal that man is the cause of global warming, and if you believe otherwise your an idiot, period.

To illustrate the point that we are just beginning to understand our planet and how it interacts with our surrounding solar system, scientists have now discovered that Neptune in experiencing some warming as well:

Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.

The article goes on to include charts showing the correlation between the rise in temperature on Neptune, and Earth, as it relates to increased solar output from the sun. And this follows in the footsteps of similar results being reported on Mars.

My point is a simple one: We're a very small and still very ignorant creature when it comes to our understanding of our own planet, Earth. As soon as we think we've figured one thing out, it raises new questions and forces us to reevaluate what we believed to be true before.

It is for this very reason that it's hard for me to take the global warming alarmists seriously. They may be right, they may be wrong, but the more they insist that theirs is the only real truth, the less I believe them.

Dems Finally Back Down

It was inevitable, and finally the Democrats have backed down on their demands for surrender deadlines in funding for the war. They were never in a position to get any such Bill passed, but they wanted to make their statement and attempt to appease their rabid base. (You know, playing politics while our military forces are in the field and all that. But they support the troops!) Of course that won't work, because nothing short of immediate and complete withdrawal from the battlefield will make the KosKidz happy.

Their response has been kind of tame (at Kos anyway), with Kos counseling patience. However, this part of his post caught my eye:

We face a multiple-front war -- against conservatives, against an out-of-touch and corrupt beltway consultant class, against corporatist Democrats, or Democrats that long ago lost the fire in their belly, and against a compromised punditry elite.

That pretty much sums it up for the anti-war crowd. The only enemy they recognize and are willing the go to "war" against are their political enemies. I know it's a lot to ask, but just once I'd like to see the left get worked up about defeating our real enemies. But, like I said, that would be asking a lot.

Another part of the post that caught my eye was this bit:

Buck up. We still haven't completely lost this Iraq supplemental battle. And if we do, instead of crying and taking your ball home, resolve to fight even harder. We owe it to our troops in Iraq, to our families, to our neighbors, to ourselves.

Funny, I read quite a few MilBlogs and have read a lot about what the soldiers actually fighting the war want, and I don't recall ever reading about them asking to be rescued from the war. Is that what Kos thinks we "owe" them?

Do they want to come home? Of course, who wouldn't. But most of what I read is they simply want to finish the job they've started. All they ask is to be given the time, resources, and support to complete the mission. While the KosKidz love to keep a bodycount, everyone of those killed will have been lost in vain if the left gets it's way. That's not supporting the troops in my book, and it certainly isn't what we "owe" them.

Worst President Ever?

When you actually are the worst president in modern history, it's usually not a good idea to draw attention to yourself by claiming sombody else should have your title.

He's now backtracking by saying he was "careless" and his comments were "misinterpreted." Right.

America's national embarassement known as Jimmy Carter continues to this day more than 25 years after his presidency ended. Quite a feat, even for somebody as naive and incompetent as Carter.

Now They Tell Us

To borrow a line from James Taranto, What Would We Do Without Experts? This from CNN:

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn
(CNN) -- Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Well, duh! The most glaring omission from the MSMs coverage of the Democrats surrender bill has been what will the consequences be?

I guess now that all the political theater by the Democrats is over, for the time being, CNN had no choice but to finally ask, "Hey, what happens after we surrender?" It is a subject that seriously needs to be debated and one that will expose the Democrats strategy for surrender as nothing short of disastrous.

Reuters: Terrorist Death = Bad News

Only Reuters could report the unofficial death of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq as bad news:

If true, the death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri would signal a deepening split at a time when the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is trying to woo some insurgent groups into the political process.

Excuse me? A deepening split with who? Could Reuters not know that the exact opposite is true? The Iraqi government and coalition forces have been trying to convince the shieks in the Anbar province to evict al Qaeda from their territory and join the governement in working towards reconciliation. That's exactly what's happening the Reuters reports it as bad news.

I know I shouldn't be surprised with Reuters because this is the news agency where one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but they've actually reported this story from the perspective of al Qaeda.

This is what happen's when you start to play the moral equivalency game, I call it the "Bridge of River Kwai Syndrome." You spend so much time trying to prove your superior morality to your enemy that you forget who's side you're on.

UPDATE: The Confederate Yankee has a good analysis of how this news may portend a shift of momentum on the ground. It's very true that the war will be won by the Iraqi's themselves and it appears that under the new leadership of General Petraeus that may be occuring. The Confederate Yankee's keen insight into the complexities of the war stands in stark contrast as to how the KosKidz see things. To them, it's all about the body count.