Dave Barry on Christmas

In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!' ~Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"

Plagiarism

Last year, while still living in Utah, a bill was proposed in the state legislature that would have required a statement to be read in science classes. The statement basically said that evolution is a theory and that there are other theories that attempt to explain the origin of life. The bill created quite a bit of controversy and did not pass.

As I followed the bill during the legislative session I also read quite a bit of the back and forth regarding evolution and intelligent design. The discussions would become quite heated. Often, a court decision in Ohio would be brought up as proof that the bill had no chance of being held up in court. That decision was made by Judge John Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. Judge Jones wrote that Intelligent Design was not science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

However, there is a new report released by the Discovery Institute claiming that Judge Jones's judicial ruling is basically copied straight from a brief given to the judge by the ACLU one month prior to Judge Jones writing his ruling.

I have not seen this reported anywhere else other than by the Discovery Institute itself, which as a very vocal proponent of Intelligent Design across the country, clearly has something to gain by discrediting Judge Jones's ruling. So I will be following this story to check for its validity.

However, if true, I hope that Judge Jones is reprimanded and that the case is heard again.

UPDATE: Here is another analysis of the plagiarized ruling.

Silent Night

One of the all-time great Christams Carols is Silent Night. I've looked a bit into its origins and it seems that many legends have sprung up surrounding its history. However, for the most part the truth has been discovered. The song was written in Austria by Joseph Mohr in 1816, with the music composed at Mohr's request by Franz Gruber on December 24, 1818. It was originally written with guitar accompaniment and the pair sung it at Midnight Mass that night. Silent Night spread fairly quickly from there, as it was picked up by a travelling family singing troup and eventually was sung for royalty.

Silent night Holy night
All is calm all is bright
'Round yon virgin Mother and Child
Holy infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar,
Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia;
Christ the Savior is born;
Christ the Savior is born.

Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face,
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth;
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.

FDR's Pearl Harbor WWII Address

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Pearl Harbor-65 Years

Today is the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Here are a couple of local newspapers with interviews of local veterans that survived the attack:

Times-News

Deseret News

The Christmas House

A Glorious Time of Year

"This is a glorious time of the year, simple in origin, deep in meaning, beautiful in tradition and custom, rich in memories, and charitable in spirit. It has an attraction to which our hearts are readily drawn. This joyful season brings to each of us a measure of happiness that corresponds to the degree in which we have turned our mind, feelings, and actions to the spirit of Christmas."

Thomas S. Monson, "What Is Christmas?" Ensign, Dec. 1998

BYU 33 Utah 31

Check out that finish!

Thou Shalt Thank The Lord Thy God In All Things

There are many great sermons on gratitude and giving thanks. The scriptures also can show us examples of gratitude. Once such example is found in the Book of Mormon, with the stories of Nephi and Laman.

1 Nephi 17 begins with Nephi recounting eight years of travel in the wilderness,

1 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and ^awade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our ^bwomen did bear children in the wilderness.

2 And so great were the ^ablessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon ^braw ^cmeat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.

3 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and ^astrengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did ^bprovide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness.

4 And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, *even eight years in the wilderness.

Nephi looked at his family's hardships and saw blessings. He saw the hand of the Lord in his people's ability to survive and prosper under those conditions.

His brother Laman, on the other hand, saw nothing but hardship,

20 And thou art like unto our father, led away by the foolish ^aimaginations of his heart; yea, he hath led us out of the land of Jerusalem, and we have wandered in the wilderness for these many years; and our women have toiled, being big with child; and they have borne children in the wilderness and suffered all things, save it were death; and it would have been better that they had died before they came out of Jerusalem than to have suffered these afflictions.

21 Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy.

Two men, both living with the same hardships, having the same experiences, with so very different perspectives. The major difference between them was a sense of gratitude.

Luke 17:12-19 tells the story of the ten lepers healed by the Savior, yet only one returned to give thanks. What of the other nine? While healed of their physical malady, they missed an opportunity for greater happiness and increased personal growth.

Perhaps gratitude has much to do with perspective. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Willie and Martin handcart companies. We have heard their stories, and learned of their tragedies. The inspiration derived from their story comes not only of their perseverance and faith in pressing forward, or of those sent to rescue them, but also, and perhaps most importantly, how they remembered the experience,

“A teacher, conducting a class, said it was unwise ever to attempt, even to permit them [the Martin handcart company] to come across the plains under such conditions.

“[According to a class member,] some sharp criticism of the Church and its leaders was being indulged in for permitting any company of converts to venture across the plains with no more supplies or protection than a handcart caravan afforded.

“An old man in the corner … sat silent and listened as long as he could stand it, then he arose and said things that no person who heard him will ever forget. His face was white with emotion, yet he spoke calmly, deliberately, but with great earnestness and sincerity.

“In substance [he] said, ‘I ask you to stop this criticism. You are discussing a matter you know nothing about. Cold historic facts mean nothing here, for they give no proper interpretation of the questions involved. Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes. But I was in that company and my wife was in it and Sister Nellie Unthank whom you have cited was there, too. We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Not one of that company ever apostatized or left the Church, because everyone of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with him in our extremities.

“ ‘I have pulled my handcart when I was so weak and weary from illness and lack of food that I could hardly put one foot ahead of the other. I have looked ahead and seen a patch of sand or a hill slope and I have said, I can go only that far and there I must give up, for I cannot pull the load through it.’ ” He continues: “ ‘I have gone on to that sand and when I reached it, the cart began pushing me. I have looked back many times to see who was pushing my cart, but my eyes saw no one. I knew then that the angels of God were there.

“ ‘Was I sorry that I chose to come by handcart? No. Neither then nor any minute of my life since. The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay, and I am thankful that I was privileged to come in the Martin Handcart Company.’ ”

President Hinckley has said, "May we live worthy of the glorious endowment of light and understanding and eternal truth which has come to us through all the perils of the past. Somehow, among all who have walked the earth, we have been brought forth in this unique and remarkable season. Be grateful, and above all be faithful."

I echo his sentiments. Let us all be grateful.

"Wouldn't the fetus...suffer a demise in seconds anyway?"

The US Supreme Court has begun listening to arguments concerning the partial-birth abortion ban law passed by Congress. Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the current makeup of the Court, this should be an interesting case.

According to Associated Press writer Mark Sherman, the justices had very pointed and graphic questions to ask of the two sides arguing the case. One such question, asked by Justice John Paul Stevens, is the title of this post.

The lines between the two sides have been clearly drawn. Those arguing for the law, including Solicitor General Paul Clement, say that this form of abortion simply goes too far. According to the AP story, 1.25 million abortions are performed each year, of which a few thousand are procedures doctors call "dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation". Opponents call these abortions "partial birth" abortions because they are performed during the middle third of pregnancy and involve "partially extracting an intact fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull."

Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood is arguing against the law banning these abortions. Her side argues that this method is sometimes the safest for women. She is quoted by the AP as saying, "What Congress has done here is take away from women the option of what may be the safest procedure for her. This court has never recognized a state interest was sufficient to trump the women's interest in her health."

It seems to me that the sides boil down to the same basic abortion debate: the interest of the fetus versus the interest of the mother. The difference here, though, is the especially graphic nature of this method of abortion.

How I Voted

The following is a list of major candidates and ballot measures that I voted on, as well as the early and in some cases still unofficial results. The candidate or measure I voted for is in bold.

Governor:
D-Jerry Brady 44%
R-Butch Otter 53%

US Representative Dist 2:
D-Jim Hansen 34%
R-Mike Simpson 62%

Lt. Governor:
D-Larry LaRocco 39%
R-Jim Risch 58%

State Controller:
R-Donna Jones 59%
D-Jacki Groves Twilegar 41%

State Treasurer:
R-Ron Crane 64%
D-Howard Faux 36%

Attorney General:
R-Lawrence Wasden 62%
D-Bob Wallace 38%

Superindendant of Public Instruction:
R-Tom Luna 51%
D-Jana Jones 49%

HJR No2:
Yes 63%
No 37%

SSR 107
Yes 58%
No 42%

Proposition One
Yes 45%
No 55%

Proposition Two
Yes 26%
No 74%

Advisory Note
Yes 72%
No 28%

Hussein Sentenced to Death by Hanging

On Sunday, November 5 2006 Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death stemming from the torture and execution of 148 people in the town of Dujail more than two decades ago. Trials for his other atrocities will continue, including the one I recently posted about. The prosecutors have stated they want an official record of Saddam Hussein's actions, and will carry on the trials even if he is put to death before all of them are done.

Here is how the sentencing is being reported:

Washington Post

NY Times

The NY Times also has an interesting editorial by Anne Applebaum about the validity of the trial. As you read through the previously linked articles you'll notice that they are awash in criticism. I think this editorial explains quite well the purpose and success of Saddam Hussein's trial.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Saddam Hussein's trial is not receiving the publicity it deserves. Recently however, Yahoo linked to a couple of articles that covered the trial.

Article One

Article Two

What Saddam Hussein did was murder 180,000 of his own citizens. Here are some excerpts of witness testimony:

It was dark when they brought a group of people (prisoners) in front of the vehicle. The drivers got out of our vehicles and turned on the headlights," he said.

Some prisoners tried to grab an automatic rifle from a guard, but failed because "we were so weak," he said.

Soldiers then opened fire. "I ran and fell into a ditch. It was full of bodies. I fell on a body. It was still alive. It was his last breath," said the witness. "It was really unbelievable, the number of people being killed like this."

Slightly wounded, he stripped off his clothes, thinking he was more likely to blend into the color of the sand if he were naked, the witness said. He then began running again.

"As I was running, I saw many pits, I saw many mounds, and I saw lots of people who had been shot," he said. "The desert was full of mounds that had people buried underneath."

The witness said he took refuge with Kurds living nearby, then traveled north. For the next 15 years he lived in hiding, moving frequently, until Saddam's ouster.

A Kurdish witness — Mutalib Mohammed Salman, 78 — told the court that his wife and 32 relatives disappeared in 1988 after troops overran his village in northern Iraq.

Salman said his wife's body and the remains of two other relatives were found in a mass grave after Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

Freedom And Fear At War

From the beginning, our nation's policy in the war on terror has been clear. On September 20, 2001 President Bush stood before Congress and addressed the country. He declared,

"Our war on terror begins with al Queda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."

He then reminded us that the attacks nine days previous were more than an attack on our nation. He said,

"Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time- now depends on us."

A few months later, President Bush again addressed the nation. He spoke of American values of service and freedom; freedom from fear, and freedom to be educated, to practice religion, and to determine one's own destiny. These are the values and rights of mankind. People the world over yearn for these liberties, regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

Then President Bush promised,

"America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."

What Do The Terrorists Want?

This essay was printed in the Times-News Monday, October 9 2006

In this War on Terror it is interesting to note the demands made by the other side. We know what terrorist want because they have consistently stated their demands and grievances in videos, audio tapes, letters, declarations, and websites.

A consistent theme is their demand that the US stop “meddling” in the Middle East, and to end our support for Israel. The United States' consistent support of a free society in Israel and efforts to give liberty to Iraqis, after decades of brutal dictatorship, stands in the way of the terrorist agenda. Liberty and freedom are the enemies of terrorists.

If we were to end our support of these free nations, as the radicals demand, terrorists will use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

This terrorist victory, and the control of a nation, will, the radicals believe, enable them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region.

The former terrorist leader in Iraq, Al Zarqawi, vowed, “we will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.” Fortunately for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, he achieved only one of his goals.

Mormons & Iraq

Let me begin by stating that I do not speak for the LDS Church. This essay is simply the fruit of my attempts to reconcile current events with what my religion teaches. However, there are many who share my faith but will not share the opinions I express. The LDS Church has not made a public statement regarding the “righteousness” of the Iraq War. So it falls to the members of the Church to use reason and faith to come to their own conclusions.

I am not one that believes that war is never justified. I believe the words of the prophets both modern and ancient are clear on the matter, and so I will not address that point here.

That leaves the question of when is war justified, and does the war in Iraq meet those qualifications?

I will use as the basis for this essay a talk given by President Gordon B. Hinckley in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church. I encourage all to read it. This talk was given shortly after the war started. President Hinckley began by quoting Revelation 12:7-9 about the War in Heaven. He called it a “terrible conflict for the minds and loyalties of God’s children.” He says that most of the world’s conflicts have been fought for essentially the same reasons.

Later, President Hinckley says, “the question arises, where does the Church stand in all of this?”

The following paragraph is in my opinion incredibly important.

“In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.”

And what is the “overriding responsibility” of which he speaks?

He answers this question in part by remembering a particularly devastating war between the Lamanites and the Nephites recorded in Alma. The Nephites were fighting for “a better cause”, their “homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, for their rites of worship and their church.”

He goes on to say that, “It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

Through much thought I have come to the conclusion that liberty is a God-given right, but there are those that seek to oppress and have succeeded in stealing the liberty of millions of people, and it is our duty and obligation to “fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

This fight does not have to be by the sword, but often it does. Oppressors do not relinquish their ill-gotten power willingly. Saddam Hussein was one of those. Here was a man who mercilessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, if not more. He used biological and chemical weapons without remorse. When asked during his trial if he had ordered the massacre of a village’s entire population of men and boys, he said it was his right and privilege as president. He paid thousands of dollars to suicide bombers. He spent the better part of two decades procuring nuclear weapons capabilities with the intent to use them on anyone that stood in his way of world power. He stole the lives and liberty of countless people. It was, and is, our moral obligation to fight and defeat him and all those like him who seek for tyranny.

Gay Marriage and Procreation

There was an interesting letter to the editor in the Times-News yesterday about Idaho's upcoming vote on gay marriage. Even more interesting are the comments that follow at the bottom of the page. They mostly amount to a "gay is evil" vs. "Idahoans are anti-gay, hillbilly trailer trash" debate. However, one comment (the latest comment as of this post) stuck out,

"The arguments for limiting marriage to a man and a woman here all seem based, ultimately, on procreation. However, if marriage is only for the purpose of procreation why are women who have gone through menopause allowed to marry? Why are men who have had a vasectomy allowed to marry? Why aren't men and women tested for fertility before being granted a marriage liscense???"

That's a really good question. I have written about gay marriage here, here and here, but I have not answered the commenter's question. In the comments of my last post about gay marriage I alluded to this question and my intention to address it, but I have yet to do so. There is an answer, and hopefully I'll have time to write about it soon.

Liberty: A World Beyond Terror

A shortened version of this essay was published in the Times-News Saturday, September 23, 2006

On Tuesday, September 19 President Bush addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City. It was billed as a speech directed at Iran's desire for nuclear power, but it turned out to be much more.

President Bush declared, "At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace."

He envisioned a world "beyond terror", a world truly governed by the principles espoused in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says, "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world."

President Bush sees a world beyond terror only attainable if the world works together for the liberty of its inhabitants. While directing comments to the people of Iran, he said, "you deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential."

He then warned that the greatest obstacle to achieving this goal is Iranian leadership bent on "using your nation's resources to fund terrorism, fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons."

Is there any doubt that he is right? The greatest threat to terrorism and extremism is liberty and democracy. As our president notes, the past 60 years have seen the European continent emerge from a world war and the evils of communism to become "whole, free, and at peace." Asia also has made great strides in progressing freedom in many of its nations.

Now liberty is making inroads in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq have democratically elected governments and have seen dramatic increases in liberty. Many other Middle Eastern nations are taking steps to ensure and broaden the freedom and liberty of their citizens.

Naturally, as liberty advances, extremists and terrorists feel threatened. Extremists use terror as a weapon to steal the liberty of the citizenry. Moderate, freedom-loving people must stand up against the extremists and win this ideological war. The world must ensure that those who are choosing liberty and freedom are not denied.

Global Warming Letter in Times-News

This letter was printed in the Times-News August 30, 2006

The purpose of the letter is to get some feedback. The points I write about are from "A Long Term Perspective on Global Warming" by Petr Chylek. I found the essay during my "debate" on JuniperWest's blog, of which I recently wrote. As I described in that post, I didn't get any useable information from them, so I thought I'd write this letter in hopes of causing more discussion. If you follow the link above to the online version of the newspaper, scroll down to the bottom and there are reader comments. I have to admit, the moon thing has got me stumped. If I see any response letters in the upcoming days, I'll post links to them as well.

Here's the letter:


People talk about global warming as if it's a new phenomenon. It's not. We have ice core-derived temperature data for the last 420,000 years. This data shows that global warming periods have occurred in the past. Our current warming period started 11,000 years ago. It has made the development of our civilization possible. It truly is a remarkable period of the Earth's existence.

In more recent terms, there have been two distinct warming periods in the last 120 years. The first lasted from 1890-1940. We are currently in the second period, which began in 1970. In between, there was a noticeable cooling period from 1940-1970. The drop in temperature during these decades alarmed many scientists, with some even predicting imminent global catastrophes.

The warming trend that began in 1890 was not caused by CO2. The warm periods that occurred 130, 240, 320, and 420 thousand years ago were not caused by CO2 either.

An important predictor of the future is the past. In the midst of the current global warming period, we should be striving to understand our planet's past warming trends in order to better understand the present and prepare for the future.

There Is No Global Warming Consensus

I have recently been involved in an online discussion centered around global warming. It started out innocently enough, when in response to a blog post touting the global warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth", I expressed my uncertainty on the subject. I was then asked by another commenter to provide proof of scientists that don't subscribe to the "truth" that global warming is mankind's fault. So I did.

Apparently the blog owner and the commenter didn't appreciate it.

I asked them to critique my initial findings, but instead I was told I was biased and immoral. They accused me of refusing to listen to their mountains of scientific evidence; the only problem with that being they never provided any. I was amazed and dismayed by how quickly they backtracked from discussing science.

I had no idea what a hornet's nest I was uncovering by daring to ask questions. Coincidentally, Reach Upward posted on the subject of the almost religious fanatacism of environmentalists about the same time I was busily swatting hornets. It has been a fascinating experience for me. Here I was, an honest seeker of knowledge, and my very integrity was called into question.

It was not all a loss, however. While I didn't get much pro-global warming info from Juniper West and friends, I did find enormous evidence that a scientific consensus does not exist. In presenting this evidence, I have realized that the global warming community desperately wants to move past actually discussing their theories. They want action, and they want it NOW. This is why they incessantly claim that the "science has spoken", a consensus has been reached, and wo to anyone that stands in their way.

Here are a few dissenting voices for your consideration:

On April 6, 2006 60 scientists signed a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada asking him to "examine the scientific foundation of the federal governments climate change plans." They go on to say that, "We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy."

Richard Lindzen is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and also one of the most outspoken critics of the global warming hysterics. On July 2, 2006 his op-ed was printed in the Wall Street Journal. His was a piercing critique of "An Inconvenient Truth."

"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended- at least not in terms of the actual science."

Indeed, natural climate variability and our own inability to really understand the compliated and convoluted forces that make up the Earth's climate seems to be a common thread amongst dissenters. A Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, worte a fascinating paper entitled, "A Long-Term Perspective on Climate Change." I have been too busy swatting hornets to delve deeper into his claims, but he makes a strong case for our current warm spell being nothing more than natural climate activity, especially when viewed in the context of thousands of years worth of the Earth's temperature. He claims, among other things, that we are currently in one of a few of the warming periods the Earth has experienced over the las 420,000 years. Temperatures have consistently risen and fallen over time, we are simply in a rising period that has been extremely beneficial to humankind, allowing us to live and prosper.

Basically, what many of these scientists seem to be saying is that we don’t understand the weather. Crazy, I know. In fact, the text of the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report reads, “…the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing.” There are so many factors involved in the earth’s constantly changing weather that great uncertainty remains as to what the major causes may be; or if there even is one major cause.

The scientists I have quoted here are not alone. Lest you think that there are only a few, and that those few are greedily taking Big Oil’s money in return for their dissenting view, I refer you to a petition compiled by the Oregon Petition Project, and signed by over 19,700 scientists since 1998. The petition says, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Claims of a scientific “consensus” are false. It is the product of desperate people desperately seeking to steamroll their agenda over anything and anyone in their way. It is unfortunate that the discussion has come to this. Discussions of public policy choices should be just that: Discussions. Instead, my own foray into the world of environmentalists seems to be the rule and not the exception, even among scientists. Those that dare to speak up and speak out are treated as heretics; rarely is their science even discussed, rather they themselves are attacked and belittled. Unfortunately, in so doing, science and scientists lose sight of what is most interesting and most beneficial about their work: the search for truth.