The law of unintended consequences...

This is a perfect example of why government politicians and bureaucrats should not be making decisions on how to conform and shape our society to the latest idealistic faddish goal, whether having to do with the environment, healthcare, or the economy... The purpose of a traffic light is to shine brightly and accurately in order to ostensibly direct traffic safely in all kinds of weather. The moment that is compromised by another so-called important purpose (saving energy) then... well, read on. From the Associated Press - Energy-efficient traffic lights can't melt snow:

Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don't burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

"I've never had to put up with this in the past," said Duane Kassens, a driver from West Bend who got into a fender-bender recently because he couldn't see the lights. "The police officer told me the new lights weren't melting the snow. How is that safe?"

Many communities have switched to LED bulbs in their traffic lights because they use 90 percent less energy than the old incandescent variety, last far longer and save money. Their great advantage is also their drawback: They do not waste energy by producing heat.

The Christmas Tale

Hat tip - Mockingbird

A good word from...

Fr. Robert Hart at The Continuum, regarding the path to unity in the Christian church.

Authority can bring uniformity; but only the truth brings unity, and then only among those who love it.

Copenhagen, we have a problem....

For those wanting some insight as to the so-called "Climategate" check out this detailed examination of temperature data and charting that begins to show that the "consensus" on man-made global warming maybe needs another look... (compliments of Watts Up With That?)

Politicians and statists of varying stripes are gathering in Copenhagen to save the world from the impending doom of man-made global warming. The idea of ramming through worldwide costly programs and provisions of dubious effectiveness (not to mention the resultant loss of freedoms and the mushrooming growth of government powers) based on science that is possibly of an even more dubious nature borders on... should I say... blind faith.

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Here is an excerpt and just one of many charts:

Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.
Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.

That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the decline”.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. It’s likely a better choice than the GHCN monstrosity, but it’s a hard one to justify.

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

And CRU? Who knows what they use? We’re still waiting on that one, no data yet …

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

US Media Ignores Obama’s Muffed Japan Visit

So how does the left now square Obama’s many failures in representing America to the various countries of the world (England, Russia, Israel, Iran, China, Japan…)? Given their ridicule toward George Bush with his so-called lack of diplomatic finesse, it may be hard to swallow that Mr. Obama by their own measure makes “W” appear to be quite the statesman.

The “lightness of being” that is Mr. Obama is becoming more apparent with time. And it appears his administration is over-populated with the same like minded, light-weights who are out of their league in the world arena.

Wasn't Obama's raison d'etre vis-a-vis Bush how he would better represent America to the world?

Well, check out this bit at Big Government.com->

US Media Ignores Obama’s Muffed Japan Visit

According to the mainstream Japanese weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun the visit was the “worst” one ever... and additionally-
“To tell you the truth, it had to have been the worst US-Japan Summit Meeting in history,” from a source at the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

In the words of dear Gilda Radner...



Update (11-23-09):
N.Y. Times - Assessing The China Trip

Germany's Der Spidgel Onlne - Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage

Times of London - Barack Obama dream fades as China visit fails to bring change

Hat tip to Hot Air

Further Fort Hood thoughts...

Following up on my post "When is a mosque not a mosque?", here is a link to a an article at National Review Online by Cliff May entitled Lessons of Fort Hood.

May's troubling conclusion:

The revolutionary jihadis also have this advantage: the reluctance of so many in the West to accept that a serious war is being waged against them — even after an American military base in Texas has been turned into a killing field by what appears to have been a turncoat furious over Islamist grievances, driven by Islamist dreams.

In his remarks at the memorial in Fort Hood last week, President Obama said: “No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts.” But the faith embraced by Major Hasan, al-Aulaqi, and millions like them has been invoked to justify the slaughter of Christians, Jews, and Muslim dissidents for decades. It would be enormously helpful if our political leaders would acknowledge this reality and consider its policy implications. But that’s not going to happen, at least not any time soon.

When is a mosque not a mosque?

Or, when does a place of worship relinquish it’s Constitutional protections of “free exercise” of religion? The recent revelations concerning the Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hasan, and his association with a Virginia mosque that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour–two of the 9/11 terrorists–also frequented, has gotten me to thinking along these lines…

A bank forfeits its legitimacy as a lawful financial institution when behind the scenes it serves as the means of laundering money gained from criminal activity. That bank no longer is serving its legal business function and therefore should be brought to justice in order that the illegal financial operations be ended and the underlying criminal activity exposed and prosecuted.

In the same way, doesn’t a mosque (or any other religious institution) cede its legitimacy as a place of religious worship, protected under the First Amendment, when it functions as a vehicle for the laundering of terrorists bent on carrying out their murderous vision of religion in the United States?

In the example of the bank, the bad money is given a cover of legitimacy through deceptive financial accounting. This allows the illicit money to have the cover of honest gain in order that it can be used to further illegal activities without exposure.

So too with the laundering mosque cited above, bad actors or otherwise jihadists (those waging a holy war on behalf of Islam as a religious duty) are afforded a veneer of peaceful, legitimate religious beliefs (in this case a misguided application of cultural diversity one might say) by the deceptive “house of worship” in order that those individuals can plan and carry out their terrorist intentions. When this occurs then that religious institution is likewise a criminal accesory and, I dare say, a treasonous enterprise. Such organizations should be broken up with the same or even more conviction exercised in law enforcement toward money laundering banks; exposed for what they are and those responsible brought to justice.

I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the objections of our government sticking its nose into private religious affairs. But when evidence of the above surfaces, then that evidence should be followed by investigation and, if warranted, indictments and the cessation of the bogus religious operation. The terrorist considers his mosque related activity as obligatory religious warfare. How are we to view it?

My gut tells me that we entertain squeamishness in this matter at our own peril.

The art of debate coninued...

More of my thoughts on the matter...

Frequently finding insult and impugning motive in others when in debate reveals the paucity of one's argument.

Corollary: Lacking the persuasiveness of fact, he moralizes.

The Art of Self-Righteous Debate

My verse written for today,

Umbrage...

It seems righteous umbrage is on the rise,
In those who ironically patronize.
Through pc contrivance they demonize,
Eschewing debate to marginalize.


... I take some solace in having diagnosed my frustration with debate in today's open square.

Cranmer, martyred for Justification by faith...

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles, burned at the stake on March 21, 1556 in England by the Roman Catholic Church under Bloody (Queen) Mary... from his sermon on the salvation of man:

"Three things must go together in our justification. In these aforesaid places, the Apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our justification. Upon GOD'S part, his great mercy and grace: upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD'S justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly & throughly; and upon our part true & lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by GOD'S working in us: so that in our justification, is not only God's mercy & grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calls the justice of GOD, & it consists in paying our ransom, & fulfilling of the law: & so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shuts out the justice of, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore S. Paul declares here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true & lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of GOD, and not mans only work, without GOD: And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, & the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shuts them out from the office of justifying...

"... But this saying, That we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GODS hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of our selves, and the might and power of GOD, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Savior Christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood shedding."