Poking Holes in Swiss Cheese

As much as it may seem that there simply isn’t a need to continue to poke holes in the failed fear-mongering around Anthropogenic Global Warming, I must warn you that the issue is far from dead. Now that enough has been done to show that, despite the environmentalist claims, the science is not settled (in fact, it is apparently manipulated and distorted to create desired results rather than accurate ones), the environmental alarmists have begun to switch their tactics. Now, instead of telling us the world is ending, they are forced to rely on “Well, on the off-chance that we are right about man made global warming, the results would be catastrophic, so we must act.” Problem is, there simply isn’t any way to accurately predict the outcomes. But we should not let anything as silly as accuracy or reality get in the way of doom required government action, should we?

Below you will find a video presented on YouTube by a global warming activist. Oh he attempts to sound like he doesn’t have an agenda as be begins. He attempts to sound as though he just wants to test his theory. But at the end, he clears up where he stands on the whole topic by urging you to go out and share his conclusion with all your friends so that we can change the world. He begins by presenting that the future of the human race is at stake. Just that this level of fear mongering is happening up front should set off your warning bells. Then he makes the following statement (emphasis added is mine):

What if I told you that I found an argument that makes that whole bitter question of whether its really happening or not moot. An argument where we don’t need to know whether its true or not in order to decide what to do or not do. An argument that leads to a conclusion that even the most hardened skeptics and the most panicked activist both can agree on. Sounds impossible doesn’t it? It does to me too, which is why I am putting it out there to check to see if my reasoning is delusional. Because frankly, no one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it.

Well, I have to admit that when you make a statement like that at the end there, I am certainly going to listen a little further and see if I can, in fact find any holes in the theory. Alas, I was sorely disappointed. After a very short time of watching more I was already beginning to see flaws in his presentation. So I present his video in full here. Then I will ask Mrs. Weapon if I may borrow her shiny new tactical shotgun to make aeration an easier task. I will then ask all the man-made global warming skeptics to find other holes to poke in it, while simultaneously allowing those who support the nonsense being offered to defend what they can. First let’s watch the presentation (it is only about 9 minutes long):

Allow me to get right to the meat of what he presented. Because there were so many flaws in what was presented that I could almost devote an entire freshman level critical thinking course just using this video as the course materials. He begins with a grid with whether man-made global climate change is “True” or “False” on the y-axis and taking significant action as either “Yes” or “No” on the x-axis. Upon doing so he starts with the premise that any reasonable people can agree that we could be wrong on where we stand on the y-axis. In other words, reasonable people can agree that while they may believe that AGW is true or false, they could be wrong. I am OK with that statement. Certainly some are more sure of their position than others, but I think all can agree (at least those who seek a correct answer for the sake of getting it right rather than serving an agenda) that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

Just for discussion’s sake, I am going to label the boxes A through D so that you will know what box I am talking about without constantly referring to true, false, yes, and no. So the following is how I will refer to each:

A: Man Made Global Climate Change is FALSE and we DO take action (Global Depression)

B: Man Made Global Climate Change is FALSE and we DO NOT take action (Smiley Face)

C: Man Made Global Climate Change is TRUE and we DO take action (Smiley Face with $)

D: Man Made Global Climate Change is TRUE and we DO NOT take action (Catastrophe Econ, Pol, Soc, Envi. Health)

In building his boxes, the presenter makes his first critical thinking mistake, by presenting a logical fallacy right from the start. What is he guilty of? A false dilemma, also called false dichotomy or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. This is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. On the “True” and “False” side of things, there are multiple other possibilities that exist. Perhaps man does contribute to global climate change, but is instead only 1% of the contribution and therefore essentially irrelevant. Perhaps Global Warming itself is occurring but man doesn’t have anything to do with it. Perhaps the earth would be warming at a far faster rate if it weren’t for the planet saving carbon emissions that we are adding to the atmosphere (didn’t think of that one did ya!). I am sure others can come up with other ideas for what could go on that y-axis, but I think what I have done here is enough to poke the first hole in the flawless theory that he presents.

The presenter then goes on to ascribe results to each of the four boxes where true and false meet action or inaction. Here is where he begins to go off the tracks in terms of presenting a logical argument that stands up to the scrutiny of critical thinking. He assigns little smiley faces in boxes B and C. There is mistake number two. Because we cannot simply say that if AGW is true and we take action, then the world is saved and Mr. Smiley Face belongs in that box. Because as we have seen, many, if not all, of the proposed actions that have passed into implementation have had either no effect or the opposite effect that was intended.

Take, for example, the vaunted Kyoto Protocol. The first giant step in reducing the carbon footprint of human beings on the planet. Trillions of dollars spent. Billions of people affected. And the result. Carbon emissions in the countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol went UP instead of down. As a result, we have wasted money, an added strain on the global economy, and some countries, such as Australia, refuse to adopt any further measures to combat AGW. Epic Fail. And proof that putting a check mark in the “Yes” column for taking action doesn’t necessarily result in a smiley face in your box. What is that I see there? Oh yeah, hole number two.

He also talks about placing a “Yes” in the action box and assuming that AGW is “False.” If this is the route that we go, he only ascribes a single negative impact. He admits that the massive amount of money that would be spent could result in a global depression. However, he stops there, foregoing all the negative things that he will outline in a moment when talking about No action if AGW is True.

See, when talking about the potential impact of not taking action if AGW is true, he outlines a world in turmoil, the very end of the human race is at stake. He shows that we would get the same economic catastrophe (at least he later presents it as the same even though in his box D explanation he makes it much worse) that we would have gotten from action with AGW being false. But there is so much more. In his words:

This is where it gets kinda ugly. Because we’ve got economic, political, social, environmental, and public health catastrophes, on a global scale. This is your worst case scenario. This is the sea level rising ten, twenty feet, entire coastal countries disappearing. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide displaced. Crowding in on their neighbors, causing widespread warfare over scarce resources and longstanding hatreds. We’ve got entire forests dying, burned. Massive droughts alternating with catastrophic floods. We’ve got the, uh, breadbaskets of the USA and Russian turned to dustbowls, causing catastrophic famines. Terrible disease epidemics spreading like wildfire. Hurricanes like Katrina becoming the norm. I mean this is a world straight out of science fiction. Economic collapse because the global economy has been hit by crisis after crisis. This is a world that makes Al Gore look like a sissy pollyanna with no guts who sugar coated the bad news.

And some of you have the gall to say that G-Man or BF is a doomsayer? This guy has certainly made a compelling case that this box being devoid of a smiley face is far better than that other box that is similarly lacking the “shit happens” moniker. But not so fast. Let’s first be realistic about the comparison of those two boxes. Because added into box A should be far more than the simple depression that he slyly presented as the worst case scenario there. He conceded economic catastrophe up front, even though he wasn’t willing to give it the same fervor he did in box D (Economic Collapse for box D but only Depression for box A). He ignored all the rest of the Box D results in Box A.

A global depression that makes 1930 look easy would impact all those other things as well. Political catastrophe? Yeah I would say so, based on the political catastrophes we are already having without a global depression. Social catastrophe? You bet. Can you imagine what would happen in the US when all the free cookies disappear? We have discussed this in detail elsewhere, but you get the point. A global depression would result in the same scarcity of goods and the same widespread wars outlined in box D. Terrible diseases and epidemics? Have you ever studied the spread of disease and famine associated with the poor? Especially since all the social programs and government health care won’t be around any more to take care of those who have become too dependent on government to remember how to take care of themselves. The only thing missing are the environmental “catastrophes”. I am sure that Japan, Indonesia and New Orleans are glad those are not happening. And for the record, the damage from Katrina was largely due to shitty levees, so stop using the scare word, Katrina, as an example of environmental catastrophes. He should have checked with Kanye. Katrina happened because George Bush hates black people. Hole number Three.

Let us not forget that he claims this is “a world straight out of science fiction.” I concede that he is correct. It has no basis in reality. I have grown tired of listening to the environmental activists throwing out all of these catastrophic scenarios of how the world will end based on global warming. You see, we have had the earth warm in the past, and it didn’t end. All the forests didn’t catch on fire. Sea levels never raised 20 feet. Coastal nations have never disappeared. The world that he paints a picture of is simply a lie, meant to scare you into accepting his solutions. Those are not the accurate results of what would happen to the environment even if AGW were true and we took no action. Hole number 4 (and that one is a big frackin hole given that his whole argument rests on the results of Box D being so much worse than Box A).

I could continue on, poking holes here and there. But I think I have done enough. It shows that the entire argument presented by this gentleman is flawed. Broken. Logically false. Dishonest. In short, the results in Box D are not nearly as bad as what he presents. He literally says “the end of the world” as the result of box D. And the results of Box A are far worse than what he presents. In fact, I would guess that the results from Boxes D and A are almost the same. Each results on economic, political, social, and public health catastrophe. So using his “column theory”, we then have to look at the other two boxes. Both have smiley faces, but Box C has cost associated with it. So obviously the only rational choice is Box B. See how easy that was?

So I will turn this over to all of you. What other flaws can you see in his thinking? What flaws can you find in mine? I won’t go so far as to arrogantly claim that I have no holes. Why did I bother with this guy’s silly argument? Because it has 8 million hits on YouTube. And he has enabled sharing and asked everyone who watches it to pass it on, share it with all, and together change the world. In the time since he originally did this video he has written books, done more videos, and had a liberal activist breakdown on stage. I may not get 8 million hits on this article. But I sure as hell will make sure the people who do come here are better informed than he is going to make them. And I do intend to post a comment on his page and invite him to come here and defend himself. I don’t imagine he will do so. Most people with an ideological agenda aren’t interested in logical debate. As for his claim that “frankly, no one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it,”…..

I would say it is time for him to get a smarter group of friends.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good morning USW….saw the article…threw up in my shorts…and discounted it completely. Global Warming is a sham. I would like to see the oceans rise and hope that Pelosi and Boxer are home with Reid visiting but I can dream, I guess. I have seen NO credible proof of global warming that cannot be debunked by typical cyclical change that has been going on for millions of years….542 million to be exact.

  2. Ray Hawkins says:

    @USW – interesting article you have presented – I think you’re a bit harsh wherein the author of the piece does state that this is essentially an oversimplification in presenting a grid-format that in longer format would/could contain extensive data points.

    I am curious on your data on the Kyoto Protocol – most of what I read and saved in links only references economic modeling versus hard costs (which are pretty harsh). Can you share your source on the real cost of Kyoto? Thanks!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A nice short article.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-say-kyoto-protocol-is-outdated-failure-397801.html

      Ray, many moon ago, when I was researching the Koyota Protocal, I had read many articles that said it did not reduce CO2 emmisions. But it did harm the economies of the many countries, many of which have been having major economic problems as of late, such as Ireland.

    • USWeapon says:

      @Ray – I understand your thinking I was a bit harsh on the author. I understand that he states that this is a simplification. But that is precisely why I felt the need to refute what he was saying. What he was presenting was more than a simplification, it was a presentation where he was giving quite biased information. I did my best to not attack the individual, but to stick to exposing logical fallacies or incomplete data. The reality is that he has 8 million page views. Let’s say that is 6 million people. How many of those 6 million will bother to take a moment and think critically about what he is presenting? My guess is fewer than half, maybe a lot less than that. The rest will simply accept his “simplified” agrument and go out attempting to change the world. And that is a very large part of where our issues begin in America. Populist demands based on simplified and biased explanations are the root of our problems from union members in Wisconsin to nealry every populist piece of legislation that goes through Congress.

      As for the Kyoto data. I have to admit that I don’t have it readily available. I can research it again soon. I am relying on memory from when I last wrote about AGW last year. The numbers I remember standing out were the implementation costs, not only to government at taxpayer expense but also to the corporations at their own cost. I don’t know that there are any “official” numbers that take all of that into account. Usually easy to find out taxpayer costs, but not so easy to find out private industry’s correlating costs. I will see what I can find in my saved links (I literally have thousands of saved links over the last couple years 🙂 ).

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        8 million hits? Wow. Have to wonder if the video is cross-linked a bunch of places. I do agree that his presentation is a bit flawed – a global great depression would most certainly lead to many other “catastrophes” which he really just ignores.

        I do suspect most of the economic numbers were just modeled numbers – just seems it would be really difficult to carve out Kyoto and explain it as sole root cause for any economic data – but maybe we could?

  3. No, it’s not dead issue. Still kinda expensive for us taxpayers.

    USDA funds research on crops and climate change
    By STEVE KARNOWSKI | Published: 3:24 AM 03/21/2011 |

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The federal government is investing $60 million in three major studies on the effects of climate change on crops and forests to help ensure farmers and foresters can continue producing food and timber while trying to limit the impact of a changing environment.

    The three studies take a new approach to crop and climate research by bringing together researchers from a wide variety of fields and encouraging them to find solutions appropriate to specific geographic areas. One study will focus on Midwestern corn, another on wheat in the Northwest and a third on Southern pine forests.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/21/usda-funds-research-on-crops-and-climate-change/#ixzz1HF4CnRVH

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning to All 🙂

    Ya gotta love it when some college boy gets a new toy and tries to use to prove what he is learning in college is actually useful. Of course, I’m assuming he is a college boy, and even if he isn’t whatever eduvation he recieved has been an epic fail.

    His claim is that global warming will take a long time for the end results to occur, so in column A and Column C, which is where I see his glaring contradiction, he claims that the same actions (taking action against global warming) regardless of whether it’s true or false will have different consequences. If we take an action that will result in a greater depression, how can it be that those same actions will not result in a greater depression? It is simply retarded to think that it can, and the climate can not change this. If, say, AGW is real (and pigs can fly as well), then the greater depression will also include everything in box D, with the only difference being that people suffer alot sooner because the effects of global warming may not occur for decades (using his ideals).

    Needless to say, this guy fails when it comes to a silver bullet theory, and swiss cheese has less holes than his 9 minute video.

    • USWeapon says:

      @GMan – He is actually a High School Science Teacher. At least he was when he made this video. He now has written books and been on speaking tours. He literally had the equivalent of a liberal activist nervous breakdown on stage at a climate summit in Q4 of last year and was forced to make a public apology for what he said.

      As for his education. I think he is a pretty smart guy and he seems to understand the concepts OK. He just doesn’t present accurate representations. AS for why that may be, only he can answer. Perhaps he simply lacks the ability to use critical thinking skills. Or perhaps he can do so quite well and presented what he did knowing full well that he was intentionally being dishonest in his presentation.

      USW

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A teacher! I hope he isn’t teaching kids in the same manner as he has made his presentation. I would like to believe that our teachers are better than that.

      • A TEACHER! No wonder he is a mental mess – and sadly, is violently infecting his “students” with it, no doubt.

        Any change in this nation must start by ending Communism:

        -No income tax
        – No public school
        – No central bank

        But the ending of public schooling is the most important.

  5. Boxes A and C cost the same. If box A is global depression, how is box C not? Just because we “fixed” the “global warming” does not mean it wont still kill the global economy in the process due to the money spent and the restrictive regulations involved. So it gets a smiley because the oceans dont rise and wipe people out, but we cant feed all those people so they die anyway.

    Nature will continue no matter what, it is only about saving ourselves and our way of life. Only box B actually does this.

    • USWeapon says:

      An excellent point Jon! He absolutely did gloss over the potential economic impact of the cost associated with with box C. He mentions cost but the cost would be the same as box A so the result should be the same. I didn’t catch that one.

  6. What about adding food prices increasing because of more farmers switching to corn to make bio-fuel because the price of corn is so high, therefore making other foods scarcer and driving up those prices because the demand of those foods did not go down (supply and demand).

    This also affects the price of a commodity that the US tried to ban and failed at miserably (US Gov. failing a recurring trend anyone?). Alcohol. Farmers are digging up their crops and replacing them with corn. Barley, blue agave (very slow growing plant used to make tequila that take 6-10 years to mature is not easily replaced now that they are digging up existing plants http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/trouble_in_marg.php#) even whiskey which uses corn will cost more.

    (I am sure you could do quick internet checking yourself to see what other industries that use food will be affected. But since comments with more then one internet link have to be approved by a moderator I will leave finding the links up to you)

    • Oh NO! Not the WHISKEY!!!

      🙂

      Actually that does concern me a lot….

      • Thats what I was thinking too.

        But another thing I just thought of was ethanol in gasoline right now has the collector car hobby worried right now. There are many discussions on how 10 or 15% ethanol in gas could be worse for motors designed for leaded fuel then current regular unleaded fuel. These discussions are on top of the motor oil formulation discussions on what to use for engines designed for leaded fuel.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          In Indiana, we have used a mix of 90% gasoline 10% ethanol for as long as I can remember (I have lived here most of the time since 1985, so at least 25 years).

          Two BIG problems with ethanol:

          1. When you distill ethanol, you get 95% ethanol 5% WATER unless you add a few drops of benzene. There is a bit of benzene in gasoline, but the ethanol is added to the gas AFTER distillation, so the ethanol they mix with gas very likely contains 5% water. What does water do? It is highly corrosive! Studies have shown in Indiana that fuel pumps, fuel filters, fuel lines, and engine components wear out faster due to corrosion. Ethanol itself is corrosive also, although not as corrosive as simple water.

          2. Ethanol does not burn as efficiently (produce as much energy per gallon) as gasoline. By diluting gasoline with 10% ethanol, you subsequently reduce vehicle mileage. Anecdotally, my big SUV got 20mpg in Colorado at 6000′ + in altitude (altitude is supposed to lower fuel mileage from what I have generally been told), and in Indiana, that same vehicle is lucky to get 16 mpg. I keep the vehicle well-maintained, and I do about the same ratio of city/highway driving as I did in Colorado. There is no other explanation I can come up with than 10% ethanol in my gas that has reduced my mileage by 20%.

          • I Don’t think E10 is “required” in Indiana. Look around, Ethanol free gasoline is available. Here is a start: http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=IN

            I have to drive nearly 50 miles to get ethanol free gas for my chainsaw, it refuses to run on E-10. Certainly not practical for an everyday fill-up.

            • Most metropolitan areas require oxygenates in the gasoline to reduce emissions. Popular oxygenates are EtOH, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), TAME (tertiary amyl methyl ether), ETBE (ethyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE was the most popular additive until it started leaking into the water supply. It is now baned in many places including CA. EtOH has been the most popular substitute but refiners do not like it because they don’t make it. All or these oxygenates reduce fuel consumption but maintain or improve octane numbers. They are used because of their high octane values. Oxygenate additives started in Denver.
              Why we add oxygenates to fuel is another debate.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Several leading “climate scientists” have admitted that the theory of global warming is NOT A FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS.

    What does this mean? It means that it is NOT VALID SCIENCE!!! In order to be valid science, an hypothesis MUST be falsifiable.

    The EPA ITESLF has admitted that under their proposed regulations, the total cost of lowering the mean global temerature by 1 degree would be 1.9 QUADRILLION (No, I am not kidding) dollars.

    NEXT!

  8. Ray,

    The video presenter attempts to use the false dichotomy fallacy.

    He cannot attribute economic costs, for such knowledge does not exist.

    He fails to assign any POSITIVE value for warming – when all human history in contradiction to his view significantly improves our lives when it is warmer than colder

    And lastly, his appeal is emotional, not scientific.

    He infers his review is scientific, but he fails to follow any scientific methodology.

    Hypothesis, experiment, falsification/confirmation

    He provides a conclusion (man causes warming), provides an emotional appeal (man must stop), then offers a hypothesis (warming is bad).

    He is a moron – but as USWep said, in the matters of reasoning and science, the vast majority of the People are illiterate – and are easy prey.

    • “He fails to assign any POSITIVE value for warming – when all human history in contradiction to his view significantly improves our lives when it is warmer than colder”

      When we talk about it being really hot, we think desert like found in the Middle East. Hot like the equator. So is it not reasonable to think rain forests?

      We have desert in the USA. We also have a lot of fertile land. And the horror if the grain belt shifted north to Canada, Alaska & Siberia. What chance is there they would trade or share?

      • LOI,

        Utter blubber that 0.6C increase over 100 years creates deserts.

        Thus the trouble with weak, subjective, adjectives of “hot” – which is why this topic belongs in science and not a TV soap-opera.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I don’t know if we have an accurate representation of the % of the earth covered by desert 100 years ago and the % of the earth covered by desert today, but if there is such a comparison (and it is accurate) I would find that interesting.

          • Peter

            I don’t have the citation handy but I read some research several years ago stating that the deserts had expanded.

            Obviously any measurements before satellite photography is not completely comparable. But the study also indicated that the deserts have continued to expand.

            Remember, much of the world has suffered several multi year droughts since the 1960’s.

            Of course now we are told that warming is the cause of increased flooding as well. 🙂

            I out of here…..have a great week.

            • JAC

              True, deserts have expanded, and it has nothing to do with man or global warming.

              • At one time the Sahara was forested. One explaination for its expansion is the contunual cutting back of the forest along its boundaries. The forest hold and attact moisure. Once gone, deserts result. India at one time had an effort to reforest its interior to essentually durn waste land into useble land.

  9. USW

    There actually is geologic evidence that the oceans have been as much as 20 feet higher than they are today.

    There is also evidence that they have been much lower.

    One other fallacy, that of false assumptions. Although it is part here of the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is in effect what makes the dichotomy false.

    The assumption is that taking action will halt warming, if warming is true, yet the science shows it will not stop in time to prevent much of the predicted detrimental effects. Even if we basically stopped burning carbon today.

    ie.,; We might get an ocean of plus 6 feet instead of 20 feet.

    So you get some of the warming impact with action, thus diluting the positive effects of acting if warming is true.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      Whatever actions humans have taken since (for example) the start of the Industrial Revolution have had, at most, a minisule, barely measureable effect on the “climate signal” overall.

      Any action we take henceforth to limit or eliminate our miniscule, barely measureable effect is going to be miniscule and barely measureable.

      As I stated in a previous post, the EPA itself admits that the current proposed regulations would lead to a cost of 1.9 Quadrillion dollars to lower global mean temperature by 1 degree. That is, of coure, assuming that the basic science is even correct to begin with (which it likely is not).

      So perhaps this guy’s talk should have been, do we do nothing, in which case we probably have very little effect on climate, or do we spend potentially nearly 2 Quadrillion dollars in which case we probably have very little effect?

      The flaw in the argument of “we might get an ocean of plus 6 feet instead of plus 20 feet” is that current evidence shows that at current rates, either of those numbers would take many, many thousands of years.

  10. AGW 🙄

  11. Re; Convicted of Counterfeiting Story

    “Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As I recall, in the early days of the “Liberty Dollar”, they were actually ADVERTIZED as an alternative to the US Dollar.

      If I am remembering correctly, that would have violated the above quite clearly.

      This is probably how the US Government can make the CLAIM that the Federal Reserve is constitutional… because the Federal Reserve is “authorized by law” to print and mint “current money”.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Everyone should read this, it is simple, straightforward, and scientifically correct.

    http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=26

  13. Liberal solution to AGW:

    “It’s caused by humans, so we get rid if all humans.”

    Conservative solution to AGW:

    “Liberals first!”

  14. Just curious about something: Does anyone here support US involvement in Libya?

    • No, I do not!

      • I figured most people don’t. I’m curious is anyone does

        • After much thought, No I don’t-how about you?

          • Nope.. but I can’t help feel that I’m missing an important detail in the Obama thought process.

            Something’s not right with all this. I’m tempted to just write it off as a deliberate distraction from domestic troubles, but I just keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “I’m tempted to just write it off as a deliberate distraction from domestic troubles…”

              ^ This

            • Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton
              By HELENE COOPER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
              Published: March 18, 2011

              WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.

              At the White House on Friday, President Obama spoke about the situation in Libya, where he has approved military action.

              Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

              Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government.

              The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited — no ground troops — and finite. “Days, not weeks,” a senior White House official recalled him saying.

              The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.

              The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

              Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.

              Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the early advocates for military action in Libya, described the debate within the administration as “healthy.” He said that “the memory of Rwanda, alongside Iraq in ’91, made it clear” that the United States needed to act but needed international support.

              In joining Ms. Rice and Ms. Power, Mrs. Clinton made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to Al Qaeda.

              The administration’s shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.

              “Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This “puts the United States in a much stronger position because they’ve got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war.”

              Ever since the democracy protests in the region began three months ago, the Obama administration has struggled to balance America’s national security interests against support for democratic principles, a struggle that has left Mr. Obama subject to criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. And by taking a case-by-case approach — quickly embracing protesters in Tunisia, eventually coming around to fully endorse their cause in Egypt, but backing the rulers in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — the administration at times has appeared inconsistent. While calling for Colonel Qaddafi’s ouster, administration officials indicated Mr. Obama was more concerned with unfolding events in Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt than with removing the Libyan leader.

              There was high drama right up to the surprising Security Council vote on Thursday night, when the ambassador for South Africa, viewed as critical to getting the nine votes needed to pass the resolution, failed to show up for the final vote, causing Ms. Rice to rush from the chamber in search of him.

              South Africa and Nigeria — along with Brazil and India — had all initially balked at authorizing force, but administration officials believed they had brought the Africans around. Mr. Obama had already been on the phone pressing President Jacob Zuma of South Africa to support the resolution, White House officials said. Eventually, the South African representative showed up to vote yes, as did the Nigerian representative, giving the United States one vote more than required. Brazil and India, meanwhile, joined Russia, China and Germany in abstaining.

              The pivotal decision for Mr. Obama came on Tuesday though, after Mrs. Clinton had called from Paris with news that the Arab governments were willing to participate in military action. That would solve one of Mr. Gates’s concerns, that the United States not be viewed on the Arab street as going to war against another Muslim country.

              Mrs. Clinton “had the proof,” one senior administration official said, “that not only was the Arab League in favor, but that the Emirates were serious about participating.”

              During a meeting with Mr. Obama and his top national security aides — Ms. Rice was on video teleconference from New York; Mrs. Clinton from Paris — Ms. Rice sought to allay Mr. Gates’s concern that a no-fly zone by itself would not be enough to halt Colonel Qaddafi’s progress, recalled officials attending the meeting.

              “Susan basically said that it was possible to get a tougher resolution” that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east, administration official said.

              “That was the turning point” for Mr. Obama, the official said. The president was scheduled to go to a dinner with military veterans that night; he told his aides to draw up military plans. And he instructed Ms. Rice to move forward with a broader resolution at the Security Council.

              She already had one ready — drawn up the week before, just in case, officials said. Besides asking for an expanded military campaign, Ms. Rice loaded up the resolution with other items on the American wish list, including the authorization to use force to back an arms embargo against Libya. “We knew it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through; our view was we might as well get as much as we could,” Ms. Rice said in a telephone interview.

              On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire — well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they “put it in blue” ink — U.N. code for calling for a vote.

              “It was a brilliant tactical move,” an American official said. “They hijacked the text, which means it could be called to a vote at any time.”

              On Thursday, the South Africans, Nigerians, Portuguese and Bosnians — all of them question marks — said they would support the tougher resolution.

              Even after getting the Security Council endorsement, Mr. Obama made clear that the military action would be an international effort.

              “The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power,” the president told reporters at the White House on Friday. “Ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world.”

              http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?pagewanted=2

            • “Obama thought process” – same as global warming – there is no such thing.

              You sound a little bit like a conspiracy theorist Mathius!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I posted an article from kitco around 2 weeks ago or so, which predicted exactly what was going to happen in Libya and why.

      It is merely another distraction.

    • lol! you’re funny Matt…

    • If Warren Buffet wishes to pay and raise his own troops and aircraft to defend Libya, good for him.

      The US government? Never.

  15. Just wanted to let everyone know I will be on the road most if not all week.

    Will try to check in from motel computers, if they have one.

    Thoughts on the counterfeiting conviction.

    The US Constitution DID NOT give the Federal Govt a complete monopoly on creating “money”. If it had, there would not have been various forms of money within the Union for decades after its ratification.

    The law cited by BF is just further evidence of how the lawyers find ambiguity where they want and then pass laws to further erode our liberty.

    It is that freakin simple. Give them any crack what so ever and they will push a truck load of bulldookey right through it.

    Best Wishes to Everyone

    And of course

    To Be Free You Must Live Free.

    JAC

  16. Another useful question-Is anything they are doing to conserve energy actually working?

    “Is Environmentalism Really Working?

    Germany is among the world leaders when it comes to taking steps to save the environment. But many of the measures are not delivering the promised results. Biofuels have led to the clear-cutting of rainforests, plastics are being burned rather than recycled and new generation lightbulbs have led to a resurgence of mercury production. A SPIEGEL survey.

    As usual, ordinary Germans were to blame. Everything had been prepared for the green revolution: fresh supplies and new signs at the gas stations, and the refinery depots were full to the brim with the new wonderfuel. But then drivers turned their backs on the new era. They didn’t want to buy E10, a blend of ethanol and gasoline, even through it cost almost 10 cents less per liter than conventional gas.

    “It’s annoying but there’s no question of stopping the sale of E10,” said Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen. E10, Röttgen said with a hint of threat in his voice, was a milestone of German climate control policy.

    When it comes to the environment these days, all other interests must take a back seat, including possible engine damage from E10. After all, the United Nations has proclaimed that ensuring environmental sustainability is one of its “millennium goals,” and greater importance is assigned to climate negotiations among the big industrial nations than to economic summits these days.

    All the serious political parties devote large parts of their policy programs to environmental policy. In the coalition deal between Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and the pro-business Free Democrats, protecting the climate comes ahead of education and internal security in the list of policy priorities. The government is as committed to promoting the development of electric cars as it is to expanding renewable energies and protecting fish stocks in German rivers.

    There is no issue that produces such unanimity among the parties. A proposal to increase tax credits for employees led to weeks of political debate, while the 2009 European Union ban on conventional light bulbs was approved without a single debate in parliament. As soon as the word environment is mentioned in any policy initiatives, all discussion becomes redundant.

    Great Crested News and 50 Million Euros

    And no price seems too high. Germany even spends tens of millions of euros on redirecting roads or building tunnels to protect animal species. Last August, for example, a four kilometer long, €50 million tunnel was approved for a highway in the state of Hesse. The reason? A colony of great crested newts had to be protected.

    Germans usually obediently go along with environmental measures, in fact they’re a model people when it comes to green living. They carefully sort their rubbish, take their bottles back to the supermarket and put their batteries in special containers. When they were told to have carbon filters fitted to their cars, they did so without complaining. And of course they’re at the forefront when it comes to attaching solar panels to their roofs or insulating their homes.

    Germans only rarely question environmental policies. The light bulb ban was one example. Most didn’t see the need to scrap conventional bulbs when the simplest way to save electricity was just to turn off the light. And Germans have been unusually stubborn about the biofuel E10 — the name refers to the 10 percent ethanol admixture. They would prefer to pay a few more cents fpr a liter of gas than put their car engines at risk.

    Many haven’t yet fully realized that E10 is an ecological swindle. People who want to help the environment shouldn’t use it. Nine large European environmental associations recently conducted a joint study which concluded that the bottom line impact of the fuel on the environment is negative. Rainforests are being clear-cut in Brazil and Borneo to make room for sugarcane and oil palm cultivation. At the same time there’s a shortage of arable land for food production, which is leading to the threat of famine in parts of the world. Last year, the price of grain rose sharply in the global market.

    A single full tank of bio-ethanol uses up as much grain as an adult can eat in a whole year. In order to cover the German requirement for biofuel, an arable area of around one million hectares would be needed. That is four times the size of the south-western German state of Saarland, which would need to be fertilized, treated with pesticides and intensively farmed. Environmental groups say that across Europe, farming for biofuels would create up to 56 million tons of additional greenhouse gases — an environmental crime they say must be stopped immediately.

    Diminishing Utility

    But it’s too late for that. Farming and industry have already made the conversion. Germany has devoted huge tracts of farmland to producing maize (for biogas), rapeseed (for biodiesel) and sugar beet and wheat (for biopetrol).

    Not everything that looks green serves the environment. The ecological principle of proceeding with care doesn’t seem to apply to environmental policy. The more, the better, seems to be the principle. No one is calculating whether all the billions being invested in protecting the environment are actually being spent wisely. Ordinary citizens can’t judge it and many experts have no interest in shedding any light on this aspect because their livelihoods are at stake.

    A large amount of money flows into studies, risk assessments and providing seals of approval. In many cases, a closer look at environmental measures reveals that they’re expensive and don’t have much effect. German environmental standards are so high already that it would require an enormous expense to achieve further improvements — especially in comparison with less developed nations such as China, India or the former Eastern bloc states.

    In economics, it’s called the law of diminishing marginal utility. The first glass of water you drink will help a lot to quench your thirst. The second will help a little less and so on. By the 10th glass you will be feeling unpleasantly full or even sick. That’s the worst aspect: some major environmental policies aren’t just ineffective — they are counterproductive.”

    There are 6 more parts to this article-didn’t want to post them all so click on the link if you want to read the rest.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751469,00.html

  17. Bankruptcy start like this:

    Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws

    http://www.fightbacknews.org/2011/3/15/minnesota-republicans-say-poor-people-money-should-be-outlaws

    • How so? I assume they are trying to fight welfare fraud and drug and alcohol purchases. Not sure this is the right method (or even if the bill reads that way), but don’t make the connection to bankruptcy. Explain.

      • Kathy,

        When rules change for the specific purpose of eliminating enrollment into a program where such “rules” did not exist before, it is a sign of a withdrawal of services.

        This is how governments goes bankrupt – they stop paying for promises.

        • Or, perhaps, this is how they cut back on entitlements?

          • Kathy,

            Yes – exactly.

            But if the promise was made to “pay this” – then it is “retracted”, it is a failure to meet your promise.

            • missingtexas says:

              BF, I went looking for the info on the link you posted and found this info relating to the $20 “outlaw” This is the info in House file 171.

              “Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.

              Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household’s name printed on the card. The card must also state that “It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages.” This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient’s name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section.(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from vendor.”
              I have been reading with interest your postings on the bankruptcy and wondering if this change falls into the “fails to pay” by changing the rules?

              • Missingtexas,

                Though minor, it is an indication of the “changing of the rules”.

                I only make note of it as a preliminary example.

                Remember governments do not go “bankrupt” like you or I. There is no property seizure, debt court, etc.

                So this will manifest differently, such as
                -by some bills not paid, while other are paid
                -reduction in services
                -change of rules to access services
                -delays of payments
                -delays of entering into programs
                -cut backs
                -means test
                -economic triage (too sick to treat)

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  19. Okay, here is my two-cents worth . . .

    First of all let me point out that the guy in the video is a true nutcase. Why? He has Pepsi-Cola products on a shelf in the background. Anyone who likes Pepsi has to be a true nutcase. Why? Because I am a Coca-Cola fanatic, that’s why!

    Secondly, way back when I was in the fifth grade in a public school system in one of the most liberal states in the then 48 states – we learned that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not a perfect orbit, that it actually wobbles in and out. This wobbling takes hundreds if not thousands of years, and that is why we had an ice age and now we don’t. We also learned that eventually, maybe in hundreds or thousands of years in our Earth’s future there will be another ice age. However, until then, the
    earth will remain warm.

    We also learned sometime later (after our man-made satellites measured the size and shape of the Earth) that the Earth is not a perfect sphere and that this egg-shape of the Earth contributes greatly to the unpredictable nature of our weather patterns that seem to change from year to year.

    And finally, if you care to check it, water when frozen almost doubles in size. And since nine-tenths of an iceberg is underwater, I would hazard a non-scientific guess that if all the polar ice caps would suddenly melt we might even see that water level go down rather than rise.

    Oops, I almost forgot . . . we Humans actually exhale C02, and that carbon is one of the most plentiful elements in our universe. It is actually renewable. Yes, even crude oil is renewable. No, its not rocket science, it is just plain fact. And since I am lazy and my wife’s hair is now curled and I am hungry (taking her out to brunch at a local eatery), I shall implore all of you to just look it up . . maybe google it.

    TTFN 😉

  20. The Earth NOT warming would be bizarre.

    We are in an inter-glacial period – the Earth is “normally” half-frozen. One would expect that the Earth has to be warming for it to melt the glaciers.

    If we are not warming, we are in deep trouble.

    • I hate the cold. Is there any good way to speed up the warming?

      PS: It’s snowing today. Mathius is not pleased.

  21. Mathius,

    RE: Get warm faster

    Solution: Burn more fuel

    • But fuel is expensive. Surely there must be a way to harness the hot air coming out of Washington..

      • Their hot air is also poisonous and dangerous to human life.

        • Maybe some sort of closed loop that radiates heat? I assume the air is also corrosive so we’ll have to take that into consideration…

          OK, now for a serious and unrelated question: I have the idea for a good startup. What I do not have is the free cash to finance it (probably in the neighborhood of 200k). What would you say makes the most sense in terms of raising funds: VC, small business bank loans, apply for small business government loans, other?

          Or should I just hustle poker and pool until I have enough?

          • Mathius,

            200K is peanuts.
            Do waste your time and shares with VC’s.

            Bank loans – are you able to make payments until you have enough earnings?

            Best: Angels.
            Go find someone (family, friends) who believe in you. 200K is not a lot of money, you should be able to put it together from them.

            • Argg – missed a “Not”
              Do NOT waste your time and shares with VC’s.

            • Hey, BF.. I have this idea.. how do you feel about putting 200k (more or less) toward it? It’s a really good idea.

              And, no, I am not interested in giving you an equity stake.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Been busy outdoors, but would like to catch up.

    @Matt: We should not have anything to do with Libya, they are not our problem. So, I’m totally against these actions. OH, Obama has no thought process, he is a puppet with ears and a mouth, but he says what others want him to say. No thinking required. He spent more time on his March Madness picks than he has over any issue involving the country. 🙂

    That poor guy in the video was promptly destroyed of all credibility. He is a moron, and shamefully teaches kids, who will likely be morons too if they believe this guy.

    Obama is a moron…….that says it all.

  23. Mathius,

    I’m willing to pay a moderate interest rate.

    25% per annum, paid monthly?

    Or you could do it because you like me.

    I like you.
    But this is business.

    I charge my own daughter services fees, interest and equity….

    • Pass.

    • You are a cruel and evil parent teaching your children how to manage financial affairs . . . don’t you realize that all parents have to do is just have the children and the government will take care of teaching them what ever it is the government wants them to know?

  24. A: Man Made Global Climate Change is FALSE and we DO take action (Global Depression)
    (Meaning millions of deaths, shorter lifespans,wars)

    B:

    C: Man Made Global Climate Change is TRUE and we DO take action (Smiley Face with $)
    (Why would we be smiling? Our economy is in shambles. The world is fighting for resources. Our actions on the 0.28% of greenhouse gases might slow climate change until the next volcano erupts or undersea earthquake releases the methane our government will not let us extract and use.)

    D: Man Made Global Climate Change is TRUE and we DO NOT take action (Catastrophe Econ, Pol, Soc, Envi. Health)
    (We will be better able to adapt to changes in climate if we maintain our economy and continue advancing our technology. Modern farming allows us to feed billions more than scientists predicted the earth could support. A viable economy with a sound transportation system can react. Doing away with power plants and diesel trucks and tractors would be suicide. And there are many millions of people more concerned about eating than it getting a little warmer. Looks to me overpopulation might be a more urgent concern)

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/we_are_all_adrift_on_a_ship_of.html
    Here are a few bits of demographic trivia. The population of Egypt has tripled in the past 50 years. It has reached 80 million people, by far surpassing both France and England. Twenty percent of Egyptians live on less than $1 a day. The population of Pakistan has increased 3.6 times in the same period. It stands at 184 million people now, thus surpassing Russia. Twenty-two percent of the Pakistanis live on less than $1 a day. The populations of Sudan and Yemen have quadrupled during the same time. Even if the growth rates in these and many other countries slow down, or even if the populations stabilize at the current levels, these levels are unsustainable.

    • LOI,

      these levels are unsustainable

      …but isn’t this statement self-evidently contradictory?

      Human population grows because the conditions of growth must exist. If there was widespread famine and death, the population would not grow.

      But you offer evidence of not mere growth, but large growth – which evidence of a substantial ability to support such a population.

      So it is obviously sustainable, or else there would be massive starvation, death and population shrinkage.

      So something is wrong with your hypothesis and conclusions here.

      • “So something is wrong with your hypothesis and conclusions here.”

        Not mine, I just copied part of that article for the population numbers. My hypothesis would be to embrace AGW theory and “fight” climate change, it will result in countless deaths and suffering worldwide. Ex. 184 million Pakistanis start to starve, think it won’t spill over to say, India? What if, fighting AGW causes WW3?

        • LOI

          It would cause WW3 or worse – end Western Civilization.

          Energy and prosperity are co-linked. You cannot have the latter without the former.

          Destroying energy use destroys prosperity. But we are too far gone in Western society. We depend on the prosperity of others for our own – the high division of labor.

          This would collapse – and unless you know how to build a plow, how to hitch it to horse and drive that horse to plant wheat on the farm you don’t have – you’re dead.

  25. Truthseeker says:

    I haven’t gotten through all the comments yet but I wonder if the Evironmentalists and Climate change people ever considered that the Climate isn’t everything? Think about it. A Super Volcano, Earthquake, Tsunami can do far more damage than our SUV’s and Factories affecting any type of worldwide weather. Think about it. There are far more scarier things than the temperature going up a few degrees…

  26. T-Ray

    Re: Sahara history.

    At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today.

    But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.

    During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.

    The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.

    When the rains came

    Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

    But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

    This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher’s 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

    “The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years,” said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

    Frolicking in pools

    In the Egyptian Sahara, semi-arid conditions allowed for grasses and shrubs to grow, with some trees sprouting in valleys and near groundwater sources. The vegetation and small, episodic rain pools enticed animals well adapted to dry conditions, such as giraffes, to enter the area as well.

    Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.

    In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.

    “Wildlife included very demanding species such as elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, and more than 30 species of fish up to 2 meters (6 feet) big,” Kroepelin told LiveScience.

    A timeline of Sahara occupation [See Map]:

    * 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

    * 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.

    * 9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

    * 7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

    …..

    So nothing about the Sahara desert begin a desert has anything to do with humans at all.

    It’s existence and flourishing and desertification all occurred due to NATURAL forces – and its physical location geographically.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    More batshit crazy rantings from the G-Man 🙂

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-libyan-message/

  28. EXCLUSIVE: An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

    British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

    The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

    In this case, the news media becomes combatants.

%d bloggers like this: