Sunday, October 24, 2010
MIRACLE AT THE CROSBY FAMILY FARM
As many who have read the archives of my blog realize, I depend on science to explain a whole host of unknowns. In debate, I stress that my disbelief in a Spirit God snapping His fingers, I should say, speaking the word, and there the sun stood, has nothing to do with the faith that I have, that somehow He was able to do it. I explain that God knows a great deal more about science than anyone on earth, and uses it often in the implementation and expansion of His great plan for our universe. I go on to state that I find it very easy, yet less scientific, for a bunch of fishermen to come up with enough fish to feed a multitude gathered around a popular sea shore during a day of sermonizing. Not sure how the bread got there but I bet there were a bunch of women who missed the afternoon lecture, but that, in no way lessens the impact and spirituality of the words and deeds advanced on that miraculous day. Indeed I state, miracles are likely, easily explained, but we’ll just have to wait for heaven on that.
The next thing I’d like to state is that when my family coins the title, “Crosby Family Farm”, there should in no way be the supposition made that we are farmers. Yes, we are learning as if we were first graders, no kindergartners, the knowledge and science needed to care for animals/birds like chickens and pigs. This leads us to a story, a miracle, if you will, about something that happened on our “farm”.
It just so happens that Erin had invited some friends over for her birthday party on the 14th of Aug. Hers actually is on the 10th but weekends are far better for parties. It was early afternoon and the barbeque had been lit. That was my job, ya know, the manly thing to do. At a point, Erin asked if she could go feed the chickens some scratch. With her friends in tow and explaining everything under the sun about chickens, she proceeded. At a point about ten minutes later Erin came running to the barbeque where I was fully involved in the manly thing, ya know, flipp’un hamburgers. She had big tears running down her cheeks. “Papa”, she cried, “I think I killed one of the baby chickens” (not so much a baby, about two months old). My response was, “No you didn’t, now go away, I’m cooking!” UM, WRONG! Wrong answer, dude! How’d I miss those big tears? “NO, I think I did!”, she cried. I do love my grandkids, and I do try to listen to them, and I did get the message the second time around. So, out to the coop we went, and sure enough, there was one of the “babies”, Geegee, (yes chickens get named on this farm) feet straight up in the air. OK, that’s never a good sign and even a rookie farmer like me can see this isn’t going to work out like some children’s fairy tale. Ok so you get the picture, sad ending to the day, but not the story or the miracle.
Fast forward to the last part of September. We suddenly realized that free-range brown eggs are a popular commodity and wanted by those willing to part with a good chunk of their hard earned money to have/eat. OK, being the experienced farmers that we were, we decided to hatch some eggs and well, ya know, raise some egg layers, so to speak. Several of our hens seemed perfectly willing, well adamant, about sitting and warming a “few” eggs, oh say for about a month, give or take a few days. Ya know, farmers like us have it down to a science. I’m the science guy; you read my blog don’t you?!? And hey, why not just put some of the neighbors eggs in there, too, and a few days later, well, while we’re having chicks, maybe just a few more of those from that hen over there. At some point there were 16 eggs under two hens in the same nest. Figured that was ok since one hen was having a hard time covering all the eggs….NO!, not taking any eggs back out. If one is determined to have chickens, why not go all the way.
About three weeks later I got a complaint from one of my buyers at work that one of the “eating” eggs had plopped out into the frying pan, a, well, for lack of a better farming term, half baby chicken, um, so to speak. Now I’m not much of a chicken farmer, but I am a good businessman. I immediately produced another dozen eggs that I supplied for free. Then I had a meeting with my work force. That would be the chief egg collector, one, Miss Erin. “Oh no, I didn’t take any eggs out from under the mother hens”. Sure ya didn’t! And what ever ya didn’t do, don’t do it again!”
The following week, baby chicks start arriving at the family farm. One afternoon, egg-collecting time, Erin brought in the usual 7-8 eggs and began the washing process. I know, you are not supposed to wash off eggs. They last longer if you don’t. But my wife has a science streak in her as well and she says anything that comes out of a butt needs to go through a bit of a wash cycle. Yep, she does the laundry around our farm too and yells at any of us who get the slightest amount of dirt or mud on us. Sure, you get the type! As it so happens on this afternoon at the washing station, Erin declared that she hear a chirp in an egg. Between yelling at Erin for collecting eggs, AGAIN, from under the mother hens and trying to figure out what to do with the egg, they found themselves out at the hen house, Debbie, still complaining about “labor”, and wondering how to save the baby chick.
What good scientific farmer wouldn’t want to know the answer to that question rather than just putting the egg back under the hens. So they peeled the egg and out came a wet, a little bit bloody, mess. About that time I came home and Layne, who was in the house playing Zelda, and who by the way, might just be a better farmer than all of us combined, answered the question of where grandma and Erin were this way. “Oh, they’re out killing chickens”. WHAT! This was my original plan, to raise meat for my family, ya know the survivalist type. That’s me! And my family was buying into the dream? WHAT! Were these the same folks who gave names to all the chickens and told me they would NEVER eat any chicken from this farm! So, out to the coop I went. There they were, holding this, whatever it was, and I took my turn holding it, and Debbie rubbed its little semi-feathered back, and every now and then seemed like it convulsed for air, and I said the next one would be it’s last, and Erin said, “NO! God brought Geegee back to me!” OH yes, you’ve got that right, that’s the feet upside down, sticking straight up in the air, bird from the first part of this story. Am I going to throw this bird over the fence to nature like I did the original Geegee? Are you kidding me? What God giveth, He can go ahead a take away without my help! So under the heat light the little blob went, and the following morning, it was a little blob of yellow feathers running around with its “brothers and sisters”.
For the egg farms sake, can we all pray that there are more sisters than brothers and while you are at it, since you just might have a better connection than I do, say thanks for the Crosby’s, for sending Geegee back, the Crosby Family Farm miracle. Erin will thank you. By the way, Erin was not allowed to go into the hen house to collect eggs by herself after the last mishap. Well at least not until Thursday last week when her and grandma went out to collect eggs and again in the washing process heard another chirp. OH REALLY! Erin was telling the truth after all. How are eggs about ready to hatch getting next door in an “eating egg” nest you ask? So now, the Crosby Family Farm, which not only had a miracle happen on it, has a mystery to solve. And that’s all I have to say about that, for now.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A WITNESS FOR THE CAUSE
We all new what a beautiful day that 12th of September 2010 was going to be. A light cool breeze blew through Riverbend Park, Oroville California, at about 9 am. We loaded our gear into the under belly of the rented bus and headed for Sactown. We were purpose focused and in full agreement as to our mission. That is to say that though the onlookers would paint us radical, we are a diverse cross section of "American Pie". Put two of us together and the answer to any question could be found at both ends of the spectrum. But any answer received by the onlooker will only mean one thing. Less government and more freedom.
Some might consider war a deal breaker, in any year, but not this year, not at this time, not for this crowd. That same anti war activist might believe that abortion is a necessary evil and that we must put up with it. But today as we walk down the steps of the bus and meander out onto a vast lake of blacktop and set up our portable shade, I must accept that person as my brother in a cause to limit the power of a government out of control. There will come a day when my fellow patriot and I debate on the issues of war and peace and the destruction of human life. I will stand against those who believe my country was involved with a conspiracy to bring down the towers on 9/11. BUT not today, not here. Not now. There is a dark cloud of tyranny that threatens to destroy the freedom our children were promised and given by our founders. They warned us that each generation would have to defend the cause. This generation, the one we 50 year olds were assigned to instill into our children, the gifts of liberty and the defense of freedom, was left to its own devices to long. We have risen in time and we have come to this place to activate our duty.
I sat in my fold out chair and listened to Armstrong and Getty, being no less inspired than any other day at 6am. The gentlemen are a staple of every early morning five days a week on my commute from my home town, where I boarded the bus to come here, and the destination just across town where I arrive to do my daily labor. each weekday. A familiar face with a mic and a news camera in tow caught my eye as they seemed to be headed directly on a path right at me.
"Can I ask you some questions?" "Sure" I replied. It went something like this.
"Why did you come here today?" My answer was this.
I believe in a set of values. My values system is under attack. It is eroding every day, challenged by a government that displays a disregard for what I believe. That values system was written into the Constitution by our founding fathers, but it was not there that they were discovered and instructed. It goes far back to another founding, the very Creation of our world and later written on a tablet of stone. I think I can speak for every individual here today that there is where our freedom was gained and where our liberty was born. No mans government can neuter God given rights.
"Do you think you will make a difference in the coming election." I answered.
It matters in no way what happens this year. We are a ground up organization with leadership that walks the same street that I do. We can see great change already so your question is being answered in the positive every day. If you ask the same question in ten years, this crowd will be doubled and the question will be irrelevant. I expect that God will have delivered freedom and liberty back to the people by the hands of His messengers that you see here today.
With that, he said, "Thank you".
I hope I served you well my fellow patriots.
Forever will we be a free people, by the grace and protecting hand of God. BC
Some might consider war a deal breaker, in any year, but not this year, not at this time, not for this crowd. That same anti war activist might believe that abortion is a necessary evil and that we must put up with it. But today as we walk down the steps of the bus and meander out onto a vast lake of blacktop and set up our portable shade, I must accept that person as my brother in a cause to limit the power of a government out of control. There will come a day when my fellow patriot and I debate on the issues of war and peace and the destruction of human life. I will stand against those who believe my country was involved with a conspiracy to bring down the towers on 9/11. BUT not today, not here. Not now. There is a dark cloud of tyranny that threatens to destroy the freedom our children were promised and given by our founders. They warned us that each generation would have to defend the cause. This generation, the one we 50 year olds were assigned to instill into our children, the gifts of liberty and the defense of freedom, was left to its own devices to long. We have risen in time and we have come to this place to activate our duty.
I sat in my fold out chair and listened to Armstrong and Getty, being no less inspired than any other day at 6am. The gentlemen are a staple of every early morning five days a week on my commute from my home town, where I boarded the bus to come here, and the destination just across town where I arrive to do my daily labor. each weekday. A familiar face with a mic and a news camera in tow caught my eye as they seemed to be headed directly on a path right at me.
"Can I ask you some questions?" "Sure" I replied. It went something like this.
"Why did you come here today?" My answer was this.
I believe in a set of values. My values system is under attack. It is eroding every day, challenged by a government that displays a disregard for what I believe. That values system was written into the Constitution by our founding fathers, but it was not there that they were discovered and instructed. It goes far back to another founding, the very Creation of our world and later written on a tablet of stone. I think I can speak for every individual here today that there is where our freedom was gained and where our liberty was born. No mans government can neuter God given rights.
"Do you think you will make a difference in the coming election." I answered.
It matters in no way what happens this year. We are a ground up organization with leadership that walks the same street that I do. We can see great change already so your question is being answered in the positive every day. If you ask the same question in ten years, this crowd will be doubled and the question will be irrelevant. I expect that God will have delivered freedom and liberty back to the people by the hands of His messengers that you see here today.
With that, he said, "Thank you".
I hope I served you well my fellow patriots.
Forever will we be a free people, by the grace and protecting hand of God. BC
Friday, May 28, 2010
MY FATHER HUNG THIS ON MY WALL
From Sports Illustrated
I think the year was 1968
Titled: WHAT DOES A FATHER SAY TO HIS SON BEFORE HIS FIRST GAME.
This is your first game, son.
I hope you win.
I hope you win for your sake
not for mine
Because winning's nice.
It's a good feeling.
Like the whole world
is yours.
But it passes, this feeling.
And what lasts is what
you've learned.
And what you learn about
is life.
That's what sports are all about.
Life.
The whole thing is played out
in an afternoon.
The happiness of life.
The miseries.
The joys.
The heartbreaks.
There's no telling
what'll turn up.
There's no telling
whether they'll toss you
out in the first five minutes
or whether you'll stay for
the long haul.
There's no telling how
you'll do.
You might be a hero
or you might be
absolutely nothing.
There's just no telling.
Too much depends on chance.
On how the ball bounces.
I'm not talking about the
game, son.
I'm talking about life.
But it's life that the game
is all about.
Just as I said.
Because every game is
life.
And life is a game.
A serious one.
Dead serious.
But that's what you do
with serious things.
You do your best.
You take what comes.
You take what comes
and you run with it.
Winning is fun.
Sure.
But winning is not
the point.
Wanting to win is the
point.
Not giving up is the
point.
Never being satisfied
with what you've done
is the point.
Never letting up
is the point.
Never letting anyone down
is the point.
Play to win.
Sure.
But lose like
a champion.
Because it's not winning
that counts.
What counts is
trying.
I think the year was 1968
Titled: WHAT DOES A FATHER SAY TO HIS SON BEFORE HIS FIRST GAME.
This is your first game, son.
I hope you win.
I hope you win for your sake
not for mine
Because winning's nice.
It's a good feeling.
Like the whole world
is yours.
But it passes, this feeling.
And what lasts is what
you've learned.
And what you learn about
is life.
That's what sports are all about.
Life.
The whole thing is played out
in an afternoon.
The happiness of life.
The miseries.
The joys.
The heartbreaks.
There's no telling
what'll turn up.
There's no telling
whether they'll toss you
out in the first five minutes
or whether you'll stay for
the long haul.
There's no telling how
you'll do.
You might be a hero
or you might be
absolutely nothing.
There's just no telling.
Too much depends on chance.
On how the ball bounces.
I'm not talking about the
game, son.
I'm talking about life.
But it's life that the game
is all about.
Just as I said.
Because every game is
life.
And life is a game.
A serious one.
Dead serious.
But that's what you do
with serious things.
You do your best.
You take what comes.
You take what comes
and you run with it.
Winning is fun.
Sure.
But winning is not
the point.
Wanting to win is the
point.
Not giving up is the
point.
Never being satisfied
with what you've done
is the point.
Never letting up
is the point.
Never letting anyone down
is the point.
Play to win.
Sure.
But lose like
a champion.
Because it's not winning
that counts.
What counts is
trying.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
SHALL WE CONTINUE, SLOWLY
I have not been able to sit in front of this tool and generate any interest in our little debate due to the constraints of time. The production of my subjective material will be delayed this Sabbath morning. This is the designated point in time when much of my messages and thoughts are written. Yes of course I know it’s Saturday, have you not been reading the Blog! So it is, that the thing called Little League has pushed ahead of Blogging. In other words, ya don’t just get assigned the job of pitching coach, and go out and coach. Fact is, I have pitched. Fast pitch softball. Didn’t have a clue how to teach a 7 year old how to pitch a baseball. That’s right, baby! I’ve been researching! “My” great success, already, was my own grandson who pitched for the first time two weeks ago. Two innings of no run baseball. That’s right, IT WAS ALL ME! The following game they scored 10 runs on him and there is a five run rule for each inning. Guess I need to do some more research.
All kidding aside, sports is an area that we as parents and grand parents have the opportunity to instill some of the lessons in life that stay with our children throughout their lives. I must get back to it because, REALLY!, I don’t have a clue.
But, I do want to continue with our discussion and I have decided in lieu of my normal expostulations, I will introduce a Biblical text on which we all can comment on as part of the subject matter and can return to at any time as a reference for any future point being established.
So, here is the first one (with no comment today, back to baseball)
2 Corinthians 9: 6-12
6) Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
7) Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
8) And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
9) As it is written: “He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.” (Psalms 112: 9, but read 1-10)
10) Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for the food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
11) You will be made rich in everyway so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through, as your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
12) This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of Gods people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
Now you all have a good Sabbath and/or I'll see you in church tomorrow. Oh! I am SO in trouble with God!
All kidding aside, sports is an area that we as parents and grand parents have the opportunity to instill some of the lessons in life that stay with our children throughout their lives. I must get back to it because, REALLY!, I don’t have a clue.
But, I do want to continue with our discussion and I have decided in lieu of my normal expostulations, I will introduce a Biblical text on which we all can comment on as part of the subject matter and can return to at any time as a reference for any future point being established.
So, here is the first one (with no comment today, back to baseball)
2 Corinthians 9: 6-12
6) Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.
7) Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
8) And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
9) As it is written: “He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.” (Psalms 112: 9, but read 1-10)
10) Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for the food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
11) You will be made rich in everyway so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through, as your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
12) This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of Gods people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
Now you all have a good Sabbath and/or I'll see you in church tomorrow. Oh! I am SO in trouble with God!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
SO YA THINK YOU CAN ONE UP JESUS! REALLY?
Throughout the Bible, there is verse following verse, given by authors inspired by the glory of God, which compel us to allocate our wealth and our gifts to those less fortunate and in need. As you see in Exodus 23:4, “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again”. The command by God is not just directed at the poor, but the needy as well.
In many cases the biblical authors explain to us the special place God has set aside for the poor in His kingdom. But it is not just those who have not acquired material goods but in other areas as well. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:3, you will read those legendary words of Jesus, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The command goes far beyond the rich mans ability to spread his wealth. In Luke 4:18 Christ quotas the prophet Esaias “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised”. James reminds us in chapter 2, verse 5, “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”
But in Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8 Jesus says (quoted from Mark) “For ye have the poor with you always.”And in 1 Corinthians 13:3 Paul writes, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”. You ought to discover a bit about how the Bible speaks to charity on your own. And in verse 10, “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away with.”
So my friends, no amount of vast government spending will alleviated the suffering of the poor. Instead we should be good stewards of the resources we have available locally to produce the best and most desired effects. Strive to be a quality parent and family member. Join community not for profit organizations and give abundantly to those on which you can keep a watchful eye. Use your talents to expedite the unleashing of a unifying spirit that will spread to the four corners of the earth.
And PLEASE!, leave to government that which the founders so clearly outlined and guard against its gobbling up of power that only afflicts the poor and weak. I would never suggest that my opponents in this debate have an ulterior motive in using government. I just believe they are using the wrong methods to achieve goals we all desire.
That would be to answer Christ’s call to do all we can to help those in need.
The Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and the people. During the debate over adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution’s advocates also enumerated powers the federal government absolutely would not have. Therefore. The Bill of Rights-including the Tenth Amendment-was adopted.
The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In a variety of speeches, articles, letters, and pamphlets, the “enumerators”, including, among others, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, John Marshall, and of course, James Madison, listed some powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere.
The one’s we are interested in for this discussion but not limited to, are: family affairs, control of personal property outside of commerce, education, and oh my, here it is, services for the poor and unfortunate.
I bet they knew all about Jesus’ claim that the poor would be with us always and were determined to leave the federal government out of trying to make Jesus a liar. Any such attempt by those who adore big government can be witnessed as an abject failure.
And so it will be until the end of time.
In many cases the biblical authors explain to us the special place God has set aside for the poor in His kingdom. But it is not just those who have not acquired material goods but in other areas as well. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:3, you will read those legendary words of Jesus, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The command goes far beyond the rich mans ability to spread his wealth. In Luke 4:18 Christ quotas the prophet Esaias “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised”. James reminds us in chapter 2, verse 5, “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”
But in Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8 Jesus says (quoted from Mark) “For ye have the poor with you always.”And in 1 Corinthians 13:3 Paul writes, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”. You ought to discover a bit about how the Bible speaks to charity on your own. And in verse 10, “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away with.”
So my friends, no amount of vast government spending will alleviated the suffering of the poor. Instead we should be good stewards of the resources we have available locally to produce the best and most desired effects. Strive to be a quality parent and family member. Join community not for profit organizations and give abundantly to those on which you can keep a watchful eye. Use your talents to expedite the unleashing of a unifying spirit that will spread to the four corners of the earth.
And PLEASE!, leave to government that which the founders so clearly outlined and guard against its gobbling up of power that only afflicts the poor and weak. I would never suggest that my opponents in this debate have an ulterior motive in using government. I just believe they are using the wrong methods to achieve goals we all desire.
That would be to answer Christ’s call to do all we can to help those in need.
The Constitution created a federal government with only enumerated powers. All powers not listed were reserved to the states and the people. During the debate over adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution’s advocates also enumerated powers the federal government absolutely would not have. Therefore. The Bill of Rights-including the Tenth Amendment-was adopted.
The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In a variety of speeches, articles, letters, and pamphlets, the “enumerators”, including, among others, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, John Marshall, and of course, James Madison, listed some powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere.
The one’s we are interested in for this discussion but not limited to, are: family affairs, control of personal property outside of commerce, education, and oh my, here it is, services for the poor and unfortunate.
I bet they knew all about Jesus’ claim that the poor would be with us always and were determined to leave the federal government out of trying to make Jesus a liar. Any such attempt by those who adore big government can be witnessed as an abject failure.
And so it will be until the end of time.
Friday, April 16, 2010
THE SPEECH THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
On APR. 15, 2010 a Tea Party Patriots rally was held in downtown Chico CA at the Chico City Plaza. I was a late entry to be on stage that day and as fate would have it, got pre-empted by the Butte County District Attorney. Maybe that was a get even moment for him. About fifty years earlier, Mike, another friend Jeff, and I were swimming at Feather Plunge and I hit my head on the side of the pool and we lost about 3 hrs of swimming that day. Obviously, Mike never got over that! As it turns out, I was not afforded the time to speak, even at the very end. I guess the time was up. In any event, I wanted you all to be able to read the rousing speech. Here it is. BC
Good Morning Tea Party Patriots. As was just stated, I am Bob Crosby… Now!…you can just forget the name. I’m not a politician! I’m not running for any office!
I do want to apologize right here. I am a writer….NOT a public speaker
But we….each one of us….YOU and YOU and YOU Right Out THERE…..we need to get out of our comfort zone
TODAY IS THAT TIME!
In an August of 2008 interview, Rick Warren posed the question to candidate Obama. WHAT IS OUR NATIONS GREATEST FAILING? Mr. Obama quoted Jesus.
"Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me".
In August of 2009, President Obama pulled out the scripture card again during an Internet phone call with a bunch of, so called “religious leaders”. He used the words,
“I am my brothers keeper”
That is a core ethical and moral obligation....AND......I ALSO..believe that to be true.
BUT!...The context was not for a personal commitment but to muster support for a one payer universal health care system
Politicians love to invoke the name of GOD and the life of JESUS to bolster support and creation of a greater and more intrusive welfare state.
In the last several election cycles, new technologies and new media have been used very effectively against conservatives.
Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and all sorts of other networking tools.
We must do the same!
We have started a debate at my blog
I invite you to come over to: bcandafter.blogspot.com
Join the debate….Get out of your comfort zone!
TODAY IS THE DAY TO STAND UP!
You have done so by coming here today
Go away from here today inspired to change one heart, one mind
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! CHANGE ONE HEART!
Be determined……BELIEVE YOU CAN CHANGE ONE MIND!
I BELIEVE YOU CAN! TEA PARTY PATRIOTS!
DO YOU BELIEVE? TEA PARTY PATRIOTS, DO YOU BELIEVE?
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS! BELIEVE!
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS! BELIEVE!
THANK YOU!
Good Morning Tea Party Patriots. As was just stated, I am Bob Crosby… Now!…you can just forget the name. I’m not a politician! I’m not running for any office!
I do want to apologize right here. I am a writer….NOT a public speaker
But we….each one of us….YOU and YOU and YOU Right Out THERE…..we need to get out of our comfort zone
TODAY IS THAT TIME!
In an August of 2008 interview, Rick Warren posed the question to candidate Obama. WHAT IS OUR NATIONS GREATEST FAILING? Mr. Obama quoted Jesus.
"Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me".
In August of 2009, President Obama pulled out the scripture card again during an Internet phone call with a bunch of, so called “religious leaders”. He used the words,
“I am my brothers keeper”
That is a core ethical and moral obligation....AND......I ALSO..believe that to be true.
BUT!...The context was not for a personal commitment but to muster support for a one payer universal health care system
Politicians love to invoke the name of GOD and the life of JESUS to bolster support and creation of a greater and more intrusive welfare state.
In the last several election cycles, new technologies and new media have been used very effectively against conservatives.
Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and all sorts of other networking tools.
We must do the same!
We have started a debate at my blog
I invite you to come over to: bcandafter.blogspot.com
Join the debate….Get out of your comfort zone!
TODAY IS THE DAY TO STAND UP!
You have done so by coming here today
Go away from here today inspired to change one heart, one mind
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! CHANGE ONE HEART!
Be determined……BELIEVE YOU CAN CHANGE ONE MIND!
I BELIEVE YOU CAN! TEA PARTY PATRIOTS!
DO YOU BELIEVE? TEA PARTY PATRIOTS, DO YOU BELIEVE?
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS! BELIEVE!
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS! BELIEVE!
THANK YOU!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Bill Has Joined
ThanX Bill, for joining. And no, we are not interested in "babble". But I expect that at times the conversation may start to sound like we are reenacting the lives of folks who lived in the land of Shinar and built the tower of Babel. Some folks will not understand what we are doing here and try to subvert the conversation by leading it off on some tangent. It is my job to steer as well as rebut.
So your point, “without an end game, why even entertain the examination of Christ’s words?”
While I agree with you in principle, there is an added ingredient. Christians believe we are on this sphere only as a stopping point on the road to where we are going and sometimes I believe many demonstrate the utter disregard for anything secular. Christians often seem less inclined to effect the government because their controlling authority is a supreme power and there is nothing they need to do concerning this terrestrial power. But I’ve noticed, not just lately, that politicians like to call out Christians by summoning our God to their side, almost to the point of being provocative. Using the Bible and the words of Jesus to support one or any of their big government grandiose schemes. That is the conversation here. I am the disciple who cut off the ear of the Roman guard in The Garden as they followed Judas up the hill to betray Jesus. Right or wrong, it's time for action! I’m a bit hesitant to wait on an end game to make the lives of my grandkids complete. I expect to fight regressive earthly powers. My friends, the time is NOW! BC
So your point, “without an end game, why even entertain the examination of Christ’s words?”
While I agree with you in principle, there is an added ingredient. Christians believe we are on this sphere only as a stopping point on the road to where we are going and sometimes I believe many demonstrate the utter disregard for anything secular. Christians often seem less inclined to effect the government because their controlling authority is a supreme power and there is nothing they need to do concerning this terrestrial power. But I’ve noticed, not just lately, that politicians like to call out Christians by summoning our God to their side, almost to the point of being provocative. Using the Bible and the words of Jesus to support one or any of their big government grandiose schemes. That is the conversation here. I am the disciple who cut off the ear of the Roman guard in The Garden as they followed Judas up the hill to betray Jesus. Right or wrong, it's time for action! I’m a bit hesitant to wait on an end game to make the lives of my grandkids complete. I expect to fight regressive earthly powers. My friends, the time is NOW! BC
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Welcoming Jim
Jim Wheeler and Robert have been starting up a discussion back under a 2008 post titled "Yeah, About That". First, that's great! Second, everyone would like to read any and all comments. So, we need to keep the debate/discussion under my posts that are current and labeled "Debate/Jesus", if you all don't mind. I would call on both Jim and Robert's attention to what the debate is centered on. Yes, it is Jesus. So we all know who the character is. At that point I'm not sure it's relevant to debate whether one believes Christs name, or origin of His name, is one or from some other. We are here to discuss His words, not whether His name was Bill, George, anything but Sue! (Thanks Johnny Cash)
Gordon has left a challenging comment for Robert, but I am still about a week out from charging in with my own challenges, so I'm just sitting back and trying to get as large a group in here so that the fun can start.
But welcoming Jim brings additional satisfaction. The dude can cook some tasty looking meet. How do I get him on my side? BC
Gordon has left a challenging comment for Robert, but I am still about a week out from charging in with my own challenges, so I'm just sitting back and trying to get as large a group in here so that the fun can start.
But welcoming Jim brings additional satisfaction. The dude can cook some tasty looking meet. How do I get him on my side? BC
Friday, April 9, 2010
Welcoming Robert
I'd like to refer you to the comments under the post, "Commentary On Big Government". It is labeled "Political" but those who have commented there have lead us back to the label, "Debate/Jesus". If you are following the blog just for the debate and are not interested in following my opinions or stories, just click on the label you are interested in. But I hope all will go back to the archives and catch up on who I am and what we are doing here at B.C. and After
Thank you Robert for your contribution. I will allow Gordon the opportunity to defend his own comment. At any point as the discussion unfolds, I may throw in with one side or the other. In an effort to gain clarity, I may assume the role of referee or I might attempt to push the conversation in a direction where I believe the proposition is being accurately defended or rebutted. At all times, whether noted or assumed, I would like the comments to be biblically supported. However, asking a question to get clarification from a commenter is a perfectly accepted tool or method to challenge and obviously has no need for any supporting text.
If I read your comment correctly, Robert, I believe you are stating that this whole undertaking is simply irrelevant and that Jesus directs no responsibility of humanity to any other authority than His own. I do not want to rebut something I have misstated. So I’ll try to defend you first. The provision of our salvation, that is, “eternal life”, is Christ’s alone. Nowhere in the Bible can I find an assignment of our responsibility to that end, lent or given “joint custody” to a civil government. So you are correct on that point. But Christ was not silent about government. He was, however, unequivocal in delineating two separate spheres of authority and activity, the sacred and the secular. In Mark 12:17, Jesus tells His followers, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”.
That is part of what has brought us to this discussion on this blog. Since it is Christ who introduced government into the discussion, not myself, the question becomes, “What part, if any, of His command to love our neighbor, or the Christian charitable mission, should be given over as the responsibility of an entity such as the federal government, and if any, how much?”
Thank you Robert for your contribution. I will allow Gordon the opportunity to defend his own comment. At any point as the discussion unfolds, I may throw in with one side or the other. In an effort to gain clarity, I may assume the role of referee or I might attempt to push the conversation in a direction where I believe the proposition is being accurately defended or rebutted. At all times, whether noted or assumed, I would like the comments to be biblically supported. However, asking a question to get clarification from a commenter is a perfectly accepted tool or method to challenge and obviously has no need for any supporting text.
If I read your comment correctly, Robert, I believe you are stating that this whole undertaking is simply irrelevant and that Jesus directs no responsibility of humanity to any other authority than His own. I do not want to rebut something I have misstated. So I’ll try to defend you first. The provision of our salvation, that is, “eternal life”, is Christ’s alone. Nowhere in the Bible can I find an assignment of our responsibility to that end, lent or given “joint custody” to a civil government. So you are correct on that point. But Christ was not silent about government. He was, however, unequivocal in delineating two separate spheres of authority and activity, the sacred and the secular. In Mark 12:17, Jesus tells His followers, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”.
That is part of what has brought us to this discussion on this blog. Since it is Christ who introduced government into the discussion, not myself, the question becomes, “What part, if any, of His command to love our neighbor, or the Christian charitable mission, should be given over as the responsibility of an entity such as the federal government, and if any, how much?”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
COMMENTARY ON BIG GOVERNMENT
Before I state my first proposition, (which will not be until as many folks can become aware, and letters to the editor are published) let me make something very clear about what I believe to be a scourge in our country. Let me point out the elephant in the room. You may consider my opinion to be that of resentment or disgust of the poor and less fortunate. That could not be farther from the truth. It seems to me that the federal government redistributes a great amount of wealth to the rich and powerful, too. If we are going to limit the welfare state, we must start by ending the obscene practice of using the power of the government through the treasury in bailouts and handouts to corporations, subsidies to wealthy conglomerates, funding to the politically connected, dead end study and research grants to universities, and higher education scams that indoctrinate instead of educate. Our founding fathers had it right! Washington likened government to fire--useful when carefully confined and controlled, but fearsomely destructive when it surges out of control. Jefferson said that Americans should diligently use the chains of the Constitution to prevent government from “mischief.
But one thing must be added, not in defense of big business or corporations, but just a question in passing as we head to the spiritual side and the study of Christ. Is government really like God, with bigger being better? Would you really empower executives from major corporations, (you know, the ones you love to hate) oh say, like Bear Stearns, Citibank, or AIG to control your life. How about letting them determine your tax burden, devise school curricula, and regulate your business. That’s frightening to those suffering from “corpora phobia”, and guess what, I cringe from the idea myself. But why hand over such power to the federal government? Upon acquiring positions in government, folks just don’t suddenly become angelic or receive special dispensation from the frailties of human existence. Are politicians any less elitists or vastly more diverse? Would you place your children in a corporate daycare center whose executives make the decisions 1000 miles away or in your local “Teddy Bear and Hugs Daycare”? What about your local sheriff? Do you expect me to believe Butte Co. is going to suddenly contract the service to, oh let’s say, Blackwater? There are a lot of good folks in Chico CA. who have waged a campaign against Wal-Mart. Your idea or vision of Mr. Pop, half owner of “Mom and Pop’s Grocery”, is that of a fellow you meet as you walk down the street, or who offers personalized service when you’re searching for a special kind of cereal. In contrast, you disdain the big wigs from corporate USA whose rarefied air you not only will never breath but would even have trouble locating.
So, why the allegiance to the giant entity in the public arena, when the opposite is true in the private?
The principle of “subsidiarity”, coined recently by Selwyn Duke, “which states that the smallest unit of society capable of performing a given function should be the one to do so. This is why small government shouldn't be a Republican, conservative or even just a constitutionalist idea; it is simply a correct idea. It is why it’s not even just a government idea; it applies to everything. If the “family government” can handle a task, a community organization’s “government” cannot do a better job; if the former cannot tackle something but the latter can, there’s no reason to involve local government".
And the feds are the last in the chain! BC
But one thing must be added, not in defense of big business or corporations, but just a question in passing as we head to the spiritual side and the study of Christ. Is government really like God, with bigger being better? Would you really empower executives from major corporations, (you know, the ones you love to hate) oh say, like Bear Stearns, Citibank, or AIG to control your life. How about letting them determine your tax burden, devise school curricula, and regulate your business. That’s frightening to those suffering from “corpora phobia”, and guess what, I cringe from the idea myself. But why hand over such power to the federal government? Upon acquiring positions in government, folks just don’t suddenly become angelic or receive special dispensation from the frailties of human existence. Are politicians any less elitists or vastly more diverse? Would you place your children in a corporate daycare center whose executives make the decisions 1000 miles away or in your local “Teddy Bear and Hugs Daycare”? What about your local sheriff? Do you expect me to believe Butte Co. is going to suddenly contract the service to, oh let’s say, Blackwater? There are a lot of good folks in Chico CA. who have waged a campaign against Wal-Mart. Your idea or vision of Mr. Pop, half owner of “Mom and Pop’s Grocery”, is that of a fellow you meet as you walk down the street, or who offers personalized service when you’re searching for a special kind of cereal. In contrast, you disdain the big wigs from corporate USA whose rarefied air you not only will never breath but would even have trouble locating.
So, why the allegiance to the giant entity in the public arena, when the opposite is true in the private?
The principle of “subsidiarity”, coined recently by Selwyn Duke, “which states that the smallest unit of society capable of performing a given function should be the one to do so. This is why small government shouldn't be a Republican, conservative or even just a constitutionalist idea; it is simply a correct idea. It is why it’s not even just a government idea; it applies to everything. If the “family government” can handle a task, a community organization’s “government” cannot do a better job; if the former cannot tackle something but the latter can, there’s no reason to involve local government".
And the feds are the last in the chain! BC
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Just A Comment
I have given four newspapers in my local area, letters to the editor to be published soon, announcing our discussion. I'm trying to come up with other ways to get more traffic into the comment section. Anyone who spreads the word gets a.....Well isn't that what Christ compels us to do!
Yesterday (Apr. 5) I wrote 600 words but can not offer them to you as they are, because I broke my own rules. I'll edit and shorten and publish today or tomorrow. BC
Yesterday (Apr. 5) I wrote 600 words but can not offer them to you as they are, because I broke my own rules. I'll edit and shorten and publish today or tomorrow. BC
Sunday, April 4, 2010
PART TWO
RULES OF DEBATE
What we do not want to do here is jump around all over the place, winding up confluent and incoherent. It is my blog, so we will be credible and with biblical references, taking it slow, hashing out a specific stance. In other words, those of you on the opposing side might state Jesus’ encounter with the rich man in Mark 10, (underscoring the debate for and against redistribution of wealth). In the middle of laying out one’s perspective on that story, let’s not allow another participant to change the subject to charity that could be found in say, Matt. 22:37-39, or Mark 12:29-31. I’m just saying at the very least that we will agree to disagree before moving on to highlight another event, sermon, or parable in the life of Jesus. When I said above, “take it slow”, hey! I have some responsibilities in life! There are going to be times that I will not be able to rebut comments immediately. So don’t go talking on top of yourself, we won’t solve the problems of the world this or next week. Let us reason together.
I am not inviting you all to my blog in an attempt to make someone look bad and will carefully with an open mind consider your viewpoints. I have not exaggerated my claim of the desire to alleviate the suffering of the poor and afflicted. The ultimate end to this debate is to further my attempt to do so, that is, to alleviate suffering where it is possible, and to ask you who appose my methods to join me. That is to say, we, all of you who will visit my bog and make comments over the next several months, and myself, will together come to a conclusion and then take systematic and curative action. I hope you will join me to that end.
And you thought I was going to suggest a lengthy (common to any Crosby list) compilation of subjective decrees in an attempt to stifle dissent.
Tomorrow, The Start of Debate. I hope you all will allow me a bit of editorializing as I initiate debate in the morning. Thanks, BC
RULES OF DEBATE
What we do not want to do here is jump around all over the place, winding up confluent and incoherent. It is my blog, so we will be credible and with biblical references, taking it slow, hashing out a specific stance. In other words, those of you on the opposing side might state Jesus’ encounter with the rich man in Mark 10, (underscoring the debate for and against redistribution of wealth). In the middle of laying out one’s perspective on that story, let’s not allow another participant to change the subject to charity that could be found in say, Matt. 22:37-39, or Mark 12:29-31. I’m just saying at the very least that we will agree to disagree before moving on to highlight another event, sermon, or parable in the life of Jesus. When I said above, “take it slow”, hey! I have some responsibilities in life! There are going to be times that I will not be able to rebut comments immediately. So don’t go talking on top of yourself, we won’t solve the problems of the world this or next week. Let us reason together.
I am not inviting you all to my blog in an attempt to make someone look bad and will carefully with an open mind consider your viewpoints. I have not exaggerated my claim of the desire to alleviate the suffering of the poor and afflicted. The ultimate end to this debate is to further my attempt to do so, that is, to alleviate suffering where it is possible, and to ask you who appose my methods to join me. That is to say, we, all of you who will visit my bog and make comments over the next several months, and myself, will together come to a conclusion and then take systematic and curative action. I hope you will join me to that end.
And you thought I was going to suggest a lengthy (common to any Crosby list) compilation of subjective decrees in an attempt to stifle dissent.
Tomorrow, The Start of Debate. I hope you all will allow me a bit of editorializing as I initiate debate in the morning. Thanks, BC
OPEN LETTER TO A CHERISHED FRIEND
WAS JESUS A RADICAL BIG GOVERNMENT
LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE?
PART ONE
It is Easter 2010. I think for all Christians, and I include myself within that group, this holiday is one of the greatest weekends in history. Most significant, I assert. But what of 2010? How is this Easter any different or more important? In my small world it is, for one reason. For folks around this world who happened to have graduated from High School in 1970, it is theirs, and my 40th class reunion. Now, I included Easter in my proclamation, not to complain, but just to state in passing, that such a family oriented holiday would be the choice of organizers of an event such as a 40th class reunion. However, at Rio Lindo Academy, every year is the same. That is to say, that all classes show up, and that has been the way since the beginning in 1962. But there are highlight classes and one of those this year, was the class of ‘70. There were suggestions, by those doing diligence to detail, that we could start reconnecting on Facebook. I have to say that after creating my “wall” on Facebook, not only have I reconnected with classmates, but long lost friends around the world. It makes me feel a bit sad and guilty that I was not able to attend the “big event” and likely lost something I can never get back and that I would have cherished for the rest of my life. But I’ll look on the bright side, I’ve found Facebook and many of those friends are starting to rekindle old friendships and I intend to continue with that endeavor.
One of the difficulties you encounter when you have not spoken to a particular friend in twenty, thirty, and in some cases, forty years is that said friend has grown, matured, and been subjected to ideas and influences quite differently than one’s own. There become formulated, considered or calculated, spiritual or political, opinions that by the age of fifty-eight, almost certainly are set in stone. To discuss, challenge or debate these issues often can lead to discourse that may be abrasive, disrespectful, disconcerting and hostile. It is with one special friend that, shall we say, determined discussions have taken place. I don’t feel we reached the argumentative stage, and at no time did I sense any hostility. However, I have two different and competing dilemmas. I did not initiate any challenge and only stated certain highlights and identifiers on Facebook, which included my distinction as a conservative. At that point the challenge became, “Jesus was a radical at the other end of the spectrum”. I suppose that is to say, Jesus was a progressive, since liberals do not like the “L” word, that He could not have been a conservative because he spent His whole life alleviating the afflictions of the poor and needy, and that, “of coarse”, is counter intuitive to conservatism. But a second assertion, quite different than the labeling of Christ, brought us to an impasse. My good friend’s disputation is that Jesus was, and continues to this day, to be a “big government” activist, and so directs us, shall I say in my own words, to follow Him. It is my opinion that the two are counter competing views. While I gave my friend the benefit of the doubt, that we both desired the same end for the less fortunate of our world, the vehicle for realizing the conclusion of all suffering was the debate. But my friend did not offer me the same consideration. His argument seemed to be; since the instrument or mechanism I would employ to alleviate suffering, private entities and personal charity, did not meet his litmus test of a welfare state, then it must logically follow, I, Bob Crosby, could really care less about the plight of the poor and less fortunate. How do you argue against a straw man insinuation or allegation? I chose to pull back. But something keeps nagging at me. He has no right to categorize Christ in his own terms. Therefore I set out to rethink my position strictly from a biblical standpoint. Prayer and study did not change my position. Seeking advice from those who mentor me and disciple me has not done so either. I must now stand up for Jesus and defend my position, and I believe, biblical fact. I seek to do this in a public arena, my blog. There, folks can leave comment, and no identities need be acknowledged and my class mate can debate or not. The above word “public” I hope will lend credence to the fact that I am open and willing to an honest debate at a location with facts and challenges documented for all time. So, the question stands; was Jesus a big government liberal? Part Two to follow, after I’ve announced the challenge. Rest assured, I will continue with or without my good friend, for there must be others who would stand in for him should he wish not to debate. Any and all are welcome.
LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE?
PART ONE
It is Easter 2010. I think for all Christians, and I include myself within that group, this holiday is one of the greatest weekends in history. Most significant, I assert. But what of 2010? How is this Easter any different or more important? In my small world it is, for one reason. For folks around this world who happened to have graduated from High School in 1970, it is theirs, and my 40th class reunion. Now, I included Easter in my proclamation, not to complain, but just to state in passing, that such a family oriented holiday would be the choice of organizers of an event such as a 40th class reunion. However, at Rio Lindo Academy, every year is the same. That is to say, that all classes show up, and that has been the way since the beginning in 1962. But there are highlight classes and one of those this year, was the class of ‘70. There were suggestions, by those doing diligence to detail, that we could start reconnecting on Facebook. I have to say that after creating my “wall” on Facebook, not only have I reconnected with classmates, but long lost friends around the world. It makes me feel a bit sad and guilty that I was not able to attend the “big event” and likely lost something I can never get back and that I would have cherished for the rest of my life. But I’ll look on the bright side, I’ve found Facebook and many of those friends are starting to rekindle old friendships and I intend to continue with that endeavor.
One of the difficulties you encounter when you have not spoken to a particular friend in twenty, thirty, and in some cases, forty years is that said friend has grown, matured, and been subjected to ideas and influences quite differently than one’s own. There become formulated, considered or calculated, spiritual or political, opinions that by the age of fifty-eight, almost certainly are set in stone. To discuss, challenge or debate these issues often can lead to discourse that may be abrasive, disrespectful, disconcerting and hostile. It is with one special friend that, shall we say, determined discussions have taken place. I don’t feel we reached the argumentative stage, and at no time did I sense any hostility. However, I have two different and competing dilemmas. I did not initiate any challenge and only stated certain highlights and identifiers on Facebook, which included my distinction as a conservative. At that point the challenge became, “Jesus was a radical at the other end of the spectrum”. I suppose that is to say, Jesus was a progressive, since liberals do not like the “L” word, that He could not have been a conservative because he spent His whole life alleviating the afflictions of the poor and needy, and that, “of coarse”, is counter intuitive to conservatism. But a second assertion, quite different than the labeling of Christ, brought us to an impasse. My good friend’s disputation is that Jesus was, and continues to this day, to be a “big government” activist, and so directs us, shall I say in my own words, to follow Him. It is my opinion that the two are counter competing views. While I gave my friend the benefit of the doubt, that we both desired the same end for the less fortunate of our world, the vehicle for realizing the conclusion of all suffering was the debate. But my friend did not offer me the same consideration. His argument seemed to be; since the instrument or mechanism I would employ to alleviate suffering, private entities and personal charity, did not meet his litmus test of a welfare state, then it must logically follow, I, Bob Crosby, could really care less about the plight of the poor and less fortunate. How do you argue against a straw man insinuation or allegation? I chose to pull back. But something keeps nagging at me. He has no right to categorize Christ in his own terms. Therefore I set out to rethink my position strictly from a biblical standpoint. Prayer and study did not change my position. Seeking advice from those who mentor me and disciple me has not done so either. I must now stand up for Jesus and defend my position, and I believe, biblical fact. I seek to do this in a public arena, my blog. There, folks can leave comment, and no identities need be acknowledged and my class mate can debate or not. The above word “public” I hope will lend credence to the fact that I am open and willing to an honest debate at a location with facts and challenges documented for all time. So, the question stands; was Jesus a big government liberal? Part Two to follow, after I’ve announced the challenge. Rest assured, I will continue with or without my good friend, for there must be others who would stand in for him should he wish not to debate. Any and all are welcome.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
And They Call It the News!
Printed as a letter to the editor in the OMR in Mar. '07.
On 02-26-07 this paper carried an AP story and placed it on the front page just below the fold. The AP would lead us to believe that the advocates for depression had won the debate on the cause of global warming. It’s not just that their whole premise is flawed unsupported by science but their own words as they describe their stand contradict their conclusion. Look at the 1st 39 words. They use “almost certainly”, but at the IPCC news conference that announced the “summary”, the VP of the group would not be pined down on what he considered to be the 100% certainty of the actual percent variable of human causation. In other words, they are certain it’s our fault but not sure to what extent. Now my friends, that’s scientific. The AP goes on in the 1st 39 words, that we are the cause of the most dramatic shift in a thousand years, never concerning themselves with what may have caused the previous most dramatic shift and why there is no correlation that may demonstrate a relational factor.
Then, in the 4th paragraph, the AP claims the IPCC to be a scientific body, which it is not, though scientists who have political motivations head it. The Ap buries half of the truth on the back page near the end of their piece where they finally (after they’ve scared you to death) alluded to the others in the scientific community (they say “some”, but there are far more than that) that claim the affects will be minimal. The AP also uses the words “not enough is known”, and the IPCC distances itself from the fanatical views of Al Gore and his extreme sea level predictions or the time frame for any rise happening. To the Oroville Mercury-Register, put gossip on a different page.
On 02-26-07 this paper carried an AP story and placed it on the front page just below the fold. The AP would lead us to believe that the advocates for depression had won the debate on the cause of global warming. It’s not just that their whole premise is flawed unsupported by science but their own words as they describe their stand contradict their conclusion. Look at the 1st 39 words. They use “almost certainly”, but at the IPCC news conference that announced the “summary”, the VP of the group would not be pined down on what he considered to be the 100% certainty of the actual percent variable of human causation. In other words, they are certain it’s our fault but not sure to what extent. Now my friends, that’s scientific. The AP goes on in the 1st 39 words, that we are the cause of the most dramatic shift in a thousand years, never concerning themselves with what may have caused the previous most dramatic shift and why there is no correlation that may demonstrate a relational factor.
Then, in the 4th paragraph, the AP claims the IPCC to be a scientific body, which it is not, though scientists who have political motivations head it. The Ap buries half of the truth on the back page near the end of their piece where they finally (after they’ve scared you to death) alluded to the others in the scientific community (they say “some”, but there are far more than that) that claim the affects will be minimal. The AP also uses the words “not enough is known”, and the IPCC distances itself from the fanatical views of Al Gore and his extreme sea level predictions or the time frame for any rise happening. To the Oroville Mercury-Register, put gossip on a different page.
Floating On Sea Ice
One more letter to the editor on the Global Warming scare.
I’m sorry I missed the letter writer’s name (my wife put the paper in the recycling), but he or she was concerned about the melting of the arctic sea ice, I guess rendering the world uninhabitable. You must have viewed the video of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Un Sec. Gen., standing some 700 miles from the pole (as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go), making a series of laughable statements, propaganda of the silliest kind. This undoubtedly frightened the writer into trumpeting the ridiculous gibberish
Sea ice melts every year, about 3.8 million sq miles, depending on the sun, not your tail pipe. Go to the Cryosphere Today web site (it has great pictures for those of you who aren’t into scientific data). There you will find that Sept. 2007, the sea ice was at its lowest point recently recorded. By the end of winter, 2008, it gained back an additional 500 sq km (about 190,000 sq miles) and the cold of the ‘09 winter saw another 500 sq km added on. By April 2010, it will be back up to 14 million sq miles. To get a sense of that, the great state of Texas is half a million sq miles.
Now, cold slows food production and if you need something real to be frightened about, there it is. Not me! I survive quite nice on red meat, and with all the new ice, it will soon be polar bear season.
I’m sorry I missed the letter writer’s name (my wife put the paper in the recycling), but he or she was concerned about the melting of the arctic sea ice, I guess rendering the world uninhabitable. You must have viewed the video of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Un Sec. Gen., standing some 700 miles from the pole (as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go), making a series of laughable statements, propaganda of the silliest kind. This undoubtedly frightened the writer into trumpeting the ridiculous gibberish
Sea ice melts every year, about 3.8 million sq miles, depending on the sun, not your tail pipe. Go to the Cryosphere Today web site (it has great pictures for those of you who aren’t into scientific data). There you will find that Sept. 2007, the sea ice was at its lowest point recently recorded. By the end of winter, 2008, it gained back an additional 500 sq km (about 190,000 sq miles) and the cold of the ‘09 winter saw another 500 sq km added on. By April 2010, it will be back up to 14 million sq miles. To get a sense of that, the great state of Texas is half a million sq miles.
Now, cold slows food production and if you need something real to be frightened about, there it is. Not me! I survive quite nice on red meat, and with all the new ice, it will soon be polar bear season.
Data to Support Science
A letter to the editor, OMR, published Apr. '07.
I’d like to congratulate Susan Sears on her purchase of a Toyota Prius. As she correctly described on 03-31-07 in her LTE, the Prius gets great fuel economy out of the show room and even more importantly for an old motor sport competitor like myself, it flat gets off 0 in a hurry. I’d love to own one and a Hummer as well; alas each price sticker is way out of my income reach. Of coarse in my LTE 03-23-07 I did not refer to a marketing clip from Toyota and I should have used any number of other vehicles other than the Hummer (CNW used the H3 in its research) to make my point. The point still stands and Susan Sears missed it.
In today’s world we are rushing to discover alternate forms of energy, not only for transportation, but also for manufacturing. J.D. Powers, whom my industry depends for marketing share, will not attempt to consider “dust to dust” information. CNW Marketing did an extensive study on pre-showroom energy costs. Even on “green” blogs where the group is slammed hard, there is an acceptance that a good deal of the research is valid. But the “feel good about doing something” syndrome is not data based nor is it correct to assume that as long as Susan is saving cash on gas that she is saving the world energy supply.
Let me give two examples of at least a hundred studied where energy costs differ.
1. Susan did not consider the energy consumed for the nickel in the Prius battery to travel from Canada to Europe, then to China, Japan and finally back to the US.
2. The production of lightweight steel in the hybrid consumes 15%-20% energy more than conventional steel that also is easier to recycle.
Drive that around in your environmental conscience for awhile, would you please!
I’d like to congratulate Susan Sears on her purchase of a Toyota Prius. As she correctly described on 03-31-07 in her LTE, the Prius gets great fuel economy out of the show room and even more importantly for an old motor sport competitor like myself, it flat gets off 0 in a hurry. I’d love to own one and a Hummer as well; alas each price sticker is way out of my income reach. Of coarse in my LTE 03-23-07 I did not refer to a marketing clip from Toyota and I should have used any number of other vehicles other than the Hummer (CNW used the H3 in its research) to make my point. The point still stands and Susan Sears missed it.
In today’s world we are rushing to discover alternate forms of energy, not only for transportation, but also for manufacturing. J.D. Powers, whom my industry depends for marketing share, will not attempt to consider “dust to dust” information. CNW Marketing did an extensive study on pre-showroom energy costs. Even on “green” blogs where the group is slammed hard, there is an acceptance that a good deal of the research is valid. But the “feel good about doing something” syndrome is not data based nor is it correct to assume that as long as Susan is saving cash on gas that she is saving the world energy supply.
Let me give two examples of at least a hundred studied where energy costs differ.
1. Susan did not consider the energy consumed for the nickel in the Prius battery to travel from Canada to Europe, then to China, Japan and finally back to the US.
2. The production of lightweight steel in the hybrid consumes 15%-20% energy more than conventional steel that also is easier to recycle.
Drive that around in your environmental conscience for awhile, would you please!
California Political Gas
Back to '06 and a "Local Voices" submission to the OMR that they refused to print but did so latter as a letter to the editor.
The Oroville Mercury-Register has printed no fewer than four stories in the last several weeks concerning global warming, not including those that I have contributed. They each point toward more regulation and less freedom. Both mean less money in your pocket. I have attempted to initiate consideration for a more thoughtful approach. The political climate has become far to over heated (no pun intended) for our own good so I will continue to present logical and scientific research data and alternatives to this hyper inflated problem.
California just passed the California Climate Act of 2006, giving the state broad authority to regulate emissions from “stationary sources” and trucks and cars. This past week the U.S. Supreme Court accepted arguments from 12 northeastern states attempting to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions standards on motor vehicles, which, supported by the DC Circuit Court, lacks the authority, and so, declines to do so. Earlier this month, Sen. Barbara Boxer called on the president to “move quickly to adopt economy-wide constraints on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and then work with the international community to forge an effective and equitable global agreement.” When the new congress takes over, she will be the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, held by James Inhofe who, like many others, and myself show skepticism of the cause and effect of minor warming. Look for carbon taxes to be on the horizon that would be paid by large company’s who will pass that cost right on to you and me in the form of higher prices.
My point is to make you aware of political rather than scientific facts. Despite accepting constraints on its economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union emissions have increased an average of 9% per year between 2000 and 2005. By comparison, the U.S., which didn’t ratify, only increased 1.7% for the same period. Kyoto exempts developing nations such as India and China that increased emitted CO2 gases by 11.2% and 55% respectively.
Stupid liberal alarmism demands that we handcuff our economy to promote solutions that won’t solve a problem which extensive evidence suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin. Infinitely worse, they use faulty models, extreme what-if scenarios and exaggerated fears of climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity, water purification and other modern technologies that would improve and save countless lives. Countries like Malawi, Kenya, Mozambigue and Namibia, to name a few, struggle to provide adequate power, and in total, only 10% of sub-Saharan Africa has electricity, which is produced primarily by burning fossil fuels. Kyoto supporters would deny them this basic need.
How many more must go hungry and die before Western leaders understand that this is not a political game. That is unconscionable and immoral. It is the real climate change catastrophe. Truly ethical and socially responsible policies would foster robust debate about costs and benefits, leaving with the great American people, their charitable ability to alleviate the conditions of these poor countries.
The Oroville Mercury-Register has printed no fewer than four stories in the last several weeks concerning global warming, not including those that I have contributed. They each point toward more regulation and less freedom. Both mean less money in your pocket. I have attempted to initiate consideration for a more thoughtful approach. The political climate has become far to over heated (no pun intended) for our own good so I will continue to present logical and scientific research data and alternatives to this hyper inflated problem.
California just passed the California Climate Act of 2006, giving the state broad authority to regulate emissions from “stationary sources” and trucks and cars. This past week the U.S. Supreme Court accepted arguments from 12 northeastern states attempting to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions standards on motor vehicles, which, supported by the DC Circuit Court, lacks the authority, and so, declines to do so. Earlier this month, Sen. Barbara Boxer called on the president to “move quickly to adopt economy-wide constraints on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and then work with the international community to forge an effective and equitable global agreement.” When the new congress takes over, she will be the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, held by James Inhofe who, like many others, and myself show skepticism of the cause and effect of minor warming. Look for carbon taxes to be on the horizon that would be paid by large company’s who will pass that cost right on to you and me in the form of higher prices.
My point is to make you aware of political rather than scientific facts. Despite accepting constraints on its economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union emissions have increased an average of 9% per year between 2000 and 2005. By comparison, the U.S., which didn’t ratify, only increased 1.7% for the same period. Kyoto exempts developing nations such as India and China that increased emitted CO2 gases by 11.2% and 55% respectively.
Stupid liberal alarmism demands that we handcuff our economy to promote solutions that won’t solve a problem which extensive evidence suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin. Infinitely worse, they use faulty models, extreme what-if scenarios and exaggerated fears of climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity, water purification and other modern technologies that would improve and save countless lives. Countries like Malawi, Kenya, Mozambigue and Namibia, to name a few, struggle to provide adequate power, and in total, only 10% of sub-Saharan Africa has electricity, which is produced primarily by burning fossil fuels. Kyoto supporters would deny them this basic need.
How many more must go hungry and die before Western leaders understand that this is not a political game. That is unconscionable and immoral. It is the real climate change catastrophe. Truly ethical and socially responsible policies would foster robust debate about costs and benefits, leaving with the great American people, their charitable ability to alleviate the conditions of these poor countries.
Polar Bear Science
Letter to the editor, published in the OMR, Feb '07.
In a recent column published in the Pittsburgh Tribune, author Sterling Burnett called attention to satirist Stephen Colbert’s coined term, ‘truthiness’, which Wikipedia explains is “to claim to ‘know’ something….‘from the gut’ without regard to evidence, logic…. Or actual facts.” “Truthiness is an emotional appeal meant to short-circuit intellectual examination of the claims being made” says Mr. Burnett.
A great example is the claim of radical, capitalism bashing environmentalists who have presented one, one mind you, study of ‘a’ population of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay whose numbers have fallen by 21%, and with that claim attempted to persuaded all of us the bears should be listed as endangered due to “human caused global warming that will melt most of the North Pole in 50 years”.
For those of you who claim science backs this up, I present Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, who pointed out in testimony to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available.
Fortunately for polar bears, Dr. Taylor is correct, supported by facts. Not diminishing the plight of one group of bears, population trends on the whole are on the rise. Since 1970, “all while the world was warming”, numbers of bears have increased from 5,000 to 25,000. Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than today, calling your attention to the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
The true problem for polar bears is competing for food and overpopulation, not extinction, and if blueberries are growing, “Watch out Mr. Bear, I have blueberry pancakes every Sunday morning.”
In a recent column published in the Pittsburgh Tribune, author Sterling Burnett called attention to satirist Stephen Colbert’s coined term, ‘truthiness’, which Wikipedia explains is “to claim to ‘know’ something….‘from the gut’ without regard to evidence, logic…. Or actual facts.” “Truthiness is an emotional appeal meant to short-circuit intellectual examination of the claims being made” says Mr. Burnett.
A great example is the claim of radical, capitalism bashing environmentalists who have presented one, one mind you, study of ‘a’ population of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay whose numbers have fallen by 21%, and with that claim attempted to persuaded all of us the bears should be listed as endangered due to “human caused global warming that will melt most of the North Pole in 50 years”.
For those of you who claim science backs this up, I present Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, who pointed out in testimony to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available.
Fortunately for polar bears, Dr. Taylor is correct, supported by facts. Not diminishing the plight of one group of bears, population trends on the whole are on the rise. Since 1970, “all while the world was warming”, numbers of bears have increased from 5,000 to 25,000. Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than today, calling your attention to the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
The true problem for polar bears is competing for food and overpopulation, not extinction, and if blueberries are growing, “Watch out Mr. Bear, I have blueberry pancakes every Sunday morning.”
Paper Or Plastic
Letter to the editor to the OMR, printed in May '07.
I am constantly in search of examples of the contrasts between liberal and conservative policies. I expect that we all will agree that the SF Board of Supervisors is liberal. Several weeks ago they outlawed the plastic bag, which historically was their icon for saving trees by influencing consumers to choose the latter of the question; Paper or Plastic? I guess they have just realized the plastic is petroleum based and “we all know that’s evil”. But wait! It’s not back to paper. Oh no, they want the citizens to “choose” compostable bags. But the new compostable industry can’t even get close to replacement production. It also creates another segregated recyclable, which makes those efforts more difficult. All this to say, the law, in reality, will force the use of paper in the foreseeable future.
Consider these facts about; Paper or Plastic? Plastic: $0.01 ea., Paper: $0.04 ea., Compostable: $0.10 ea. Paper: 70% more air pollution and 50% more water pollutants than plastic according to the EPA. Plastic: 4 times less energy to produce and 85 times less energy to recycle. Paper: 9 times as much space in landfills and doesn’t break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic.
And riddle me this oh wise liberal. At a time when we are threatening to push the third world towards starvation by laying claim to their food supply to fuel our vehicles, we then will compound their frustration by claiming more to fill our land fills. Oh, that will go over just great!
I am constantly in search of examples of the contrasts between liberal and conservative policies. I expect that we all will agree that the SF Board of Supervisors is liberal. Several weeks ago they outlawed the plastic bag, which historically was their icon for saving trees by influencing consumers to choose the latter of the question; Paper or Plastic? I guess they have just realized the plastic is petroleum based and “we all know that’s evil”. But wait! It’s not back to paper. Oh no, they want the citizens to “choose” compostable bags. But the new compostable industry can’t even get close to replacement production. It also creates another segregated recyclable, which makes those efforts more difficult. All this to say, the law, in reality, will force the use of paper in the foreseeable future.
Consider these facts about; Paper or Plastic? Plastic: $0.01 ea., Paper: $0.04 ea., Compostable: $0.10 ea. Paper: 70% more air pollution and 50% more water pollutants than plastic according to the EPA. Plastic: 4 times less energy to produce and 85 times less energy to recycle. Paper: 9 times as much space in landfills and doesn’t break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic.
And riddle me this oh wise liberal. At a time when we are threatening to push the third world towards starvation by laying claim to their food supply to fuel our vehicles, we then will compound their frustration by claiming more to fill our land fills. Oh, that will go over just great!
The Chicken Little's Are Squaking
Another response to you know who, are you getting a pattern here. Ya think!
Reading the letters of Don Fultz is an interesting study of abject condescending hypocrisy, no better displayed than in his most recent (12-26-06) in which he accuses me of debating myself. Mr. Fultz’s silly verbal attacks only demonstrate his lack of knowledge on any subject, including, global warming. His arrogant proclamations and name calling only serve as an attempt to suppress the critical thoughts of those who would challenge his deficiency of sound information. However, Don Fultz remains true to one consistent approach to conflict most liberals exhibit. It is their age-old “stand back and finger point”, “cut and run” modus operandi.
I’m glad to be able to accentuate your amateurish viewpoints Don, because there is excellent, well-documented, scientific information that raises serious questions about the Al Gore assumptions and methods to combating global warming. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems that in the early 70’s you alarmists were raising the red flag on an impending freeze. Just in the nick of time, amazingly, the world corrected itself and the “gloom and doomers” sent up another red flag. You “chicken little’s” ought to get your catastrophic pontifications in order.
When politicians approach the subject of global warming, most have little concern what their policy offerings might cost, and even less, what percentage of effectiveness their course of action might have on naturally occurring phenomenon. The acknowledgement the globe is warming by the President in no way lends credence to any policy change.
President Bush may have made a mistake by not consuming Iraq with overwhelming force, but doubling down and leaving would be catastrophic. The world would certainly feel the effects of a “heat” of untold magnitude and you alarmist can switch to a new flag pole, alerting us all to the nuclear melting of humanity, as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel go at it in the middle of Iraq’s sand box. Of course “libs” will declare none of that would have happened if not for our action. That just demonstrates a total disregard of history in the hate filled Middle East.
One thing will be certain; there will be a shortage of oil. Most likely the US will have to stay in the fight. The former USSR, reconstituted, will join in to keep some flow moving, and who’s side will they be on? Because of liberal obstruction, their rant that the war on terror was all about oil will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The oil fields and technologies available to us in our own country obstructed by liberals will have to lay dormant while infrastructure is put in place, allowing the greatest economy in the world, that in reality feeds the world, grinds to a halt, and we all line up at our local horse sales showroom to read the disclaimer on the tail-end of our new transportation vehicle that this product causes global warming to a degree much greater than the old method of travel.
Sir, that horse don’t fly, in my humble opinion.
Reading the letters of Don Fultz is an interesting study of abject condescending hypocrisy, no better displayed than in his most recent (12-26-06) in which he accuses me of debating myself. Mr. Fultz’s silly verbal attacks only demonstrate his lack of knowledge on any subject, including, global warming. His arrogant proclamations and name calling only serve as an attempt to suppress the critical thoughts of those who would challenge his deficiency of sound information. However, Don Fultz remains true to one consistent approach to conflict most liberals exhibit. It is their age-old “stand back and finger point”, “cut and run” modus operandi.
I’m glad to be able to accentuate your amateurish viewpoints Don, because there is excellent, well-documented, scientific information that raises serious questions about the Al Gore assumptions and methods to combating global warming. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems that in the early 70’s you alarmists were raising the red flag on an impending freeze. Just in the nick of time, amazingly, the world corrected itself and the “gloom and doomers” sent up another red flag. You “chicken little’s” ought to get your catastrophic pontifications in order.
When politicians approach the subject of global warming, most have little concern what their policy offerings might cost, and even less, what percentage of effectiveness their course of action might have on naturally occurring phenomenon. The acknowledgement the globe is warming by the President in no way lends credence to any policy change.
President Bush may have made a mistake by not consuming Iraq with overwhelming force, but doubling down and leaving would be catastrophic. The world would certainly feel the effects of a “heat” of untold magnitude and you alarmist can switch to a new flag pole, alerting us all to the nuclear melting of humanity, as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel go at it in the middle of Iraq’s sand box. Of course “libs” will declare none of that would have happened if not for our action. That just demonstrates a total disregard of history in the hate filled Middle East.
One thing will be certain; there will be a shortage of oil. Most likely the US will have to stay in the fight. The former USSR, reconstituted, will join in to keep some flow moving, and who’s side will they be on? Because of liberal obstruction, their rant that the war on terror was all about oil will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The oil fields and technologies available to us in our own country obstructed by liberals will have to lay dormant while infrastructure is put in place, allowing the greatest economy in the world, that in reality feeds the world, grinds to a halt, and we all line up at our local horse sales showroom to read the disclaimer on the tail-end of our new transportation vehicle that this product causes global warming to a degree much greater than the old method of travel.
Sir, that horse don’t fly, in my humble opinion.
A Bit More Science
Published as an Openline call to the OMR in early 2007.
I noticed an Openline callers comments on the February 16th Opinion page which caught my attention and I hope that I am not presumptive in offering some advice to the caller and also some facts. The Rush Limbaugh show is satire and informative and a good starting point to understanding truth. The caller is right that Rush is not a scientist but please don’t step of the cliff and land on Al Gore, who isn’t a scientist either.
The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapor, which accounts for 60% of the heat-trapping gases, CO2 accounts for 26%. Currently, we have about 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. A recently completed UC Davis study concluded that 300 million years ago the level was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Methane, another greenhouse gas, has other than human sources as well. 76% comes from wetlands, which produce 145 million metric tons of the gas each year during the decomposition of organic material. The worlds production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) peaked at 1.1 million tons per year and if 100% of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That number is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone.
Don’t be fooled by those who claim that the science is conclusive on the cause or the level of warming or that the science community is in agreement. Well over 5,000 scientists have signed the petition and whose names can be found at The Petition Project. Don’t blame yourself for your pursuit of happiness and a healthy and whole life. But please feel free to buy a $50,000 electric car if that makes you happy.
I noticed an Openline callers comments on the February 16th Opinion page which caught my attention and I hope that I am not presumptive in offering some advice to the caller and also some facts. The Rush Limbaugh show is satire and informative and a good starting point to understanding truth. The caller is right that Rush is not a scientist but please don’t step of the cliff and land on Al Gore, who isn’t a scientist either.
The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapor, which accounts for 60% of the heat-trapping gases, CO2 accounts for 26%. Currently, we have about 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. A recently completed UC Davis study concluded that 300 million years ago the level was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Methane, another greenhouse gas, has other than human sources as well. 76% comes from wetlands, which produce 145 million metric tons of the gas each year during the decomposition of organic material. The worlds production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) peaked at 1.1 million tons per year and if 100% of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That number is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone.
Don’t be fooled by those who claim that the science is conclusive on the cause or the level of warming or that the science community is in agreement. Well over 5,000 scientists have signed the petition and whose names can be found at The Petition Project. Don’t blame yourself for your pursuit of happiness and a healthy and whole life. But please feel free to buy a $50,000 electric car if that makes you happy.
More Science
Another response pointed at Don, printed as a letter to the editor, in OMR. Jan '07.
As usual, Don Fultz fans don’t require him to produce any factually based, scientific research that supports his allegiance to Al Gore, only that he check in. (see Ltr 12-14-06) Not to worry, I will provide the facts of this debate, supporting commentary, and the sources. My science research comes from the Quatemary Science Reviews, a research journal from the Reed Elsevier Group, plc., a global publisher of science and health information. I call your attention to QSR 25: 2357-2379, an investigation of the “Holocene history of the Northeastern Antarctic Peninsula Larsen Ice Shelf [sections A and B] to determine whether the recent retreat pattern is unique or has previously occurred on a millennial time scale.” More particularly, they analyzed “the composition of ice-rafted debris to distinguish seasonally open-marine sediments from sub-ice shelf facies,” and they examined “benthic foraminifera for clues to the former presence or absence of the ice shelf. Al Gore claims that the ice shelf had remained in tact for at least the last 10,000 years and the break-up is evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that modern global warming is equally unique. I want to reference two study groups, Pudsey and Evans (2001 and 2006), Geology 29 & 25 respectively, and Vaughan (2001), Science 293. Fultz fans, are you with me so far?
Pudsey data indicates “widespread ice shelf breakup in the mid-Holocene,” of both the APLIS-A & B and the adjacent Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf, but that subsequent colder conditions “allowed the ice shelf to reform. That is in harmony with the finding of Vaughan, that from 6000 to 1900 years ago the PGCIS, as they describe it, “was absent and climate was as warm as it has been recently.” Consequently, and most recently, Pudsey concluded that “the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age,” which they report is “widely recognized” to have held sway in that part of the world between 700 and 150 years ago.
A large body of data makes it clear that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of it that recently disintegrated (Larsen A & B) were probably created about that same time. Temperatures were likely as warm or warmer 2000 years ago. Furthermore, there was approximately 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air today. That fact suggests that something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions was the cause of the earlier “balmy” conditions of the northeast Antarctica, which implies that “that same something else” or something different yet, could be responsible for the current warmth of the region, possibly solar intrusion.
So, Don Fultz fans, should you not hear from your guru for awhile, I’m sure he’s just trying to digest all of this data and probably getting Al Gore on the phone to find out where his supporting evidence might have fallen off the “loony” train. Meanwhile, be assured, more data forthcoming.
As usual, Don Fultz fans don’t require him to produce any factually based, scientific research that supports his allegiance to Al Gore, only that he check in. (see Ltr 12-14-06) Not to worry, I will provide the facts of this debate, supporting commentary, and the sources. My science research comes from the Quatemary Science Reviews, a research journal from the Reed Elsevier Group, plc., a global publisher of science and health information. I call your attention to QSR 25: 2357-2379, an investigation of the “Holocene history of the Northeastern Antarctic Peninsula Larsen Ice Shelf [sections A and B] to determine whether the recent retreat pattern is unique or has previously occurred on a millennial time scale.” More particularly, they analyzed “the composition of ice-rafted debris to distinguish seasonally open-marine sediments from sub-ice shelf facies,” and they examined “benthic foraminifera for clues to the former presence or absence of the ice shelf. Al Gore claims that the ice shelf had remained in tact for at least the last 10,000 years and the break-up is evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that modern global warming is equally unique. I want to reference two study groups, Pudsey and Evans (2001 and 2006), Geology 29 & 25 respectively, and Vaughan (2001), Science 293. Fultz fans, are you with me so far?
Pudsey data indicates “widespread ice shelf breakup in the mid-Holocene,” of both the APLIS-A & B and the adjacent Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf, but that subsequent colder conditions “allowed the ice shelf to reform. That is in harmony with the finding of Vaughan, that from 6000 to 1900 years ago the PGCIS, as they describe it, “was absent and climate was as warm as it has been recently.” Consequently, and most recently, Pudsey concluded that “the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age,” which they report is “widely recognized” to have held sway in that part of the world between 700 and 150 years ago.
A large body of data makes it clear that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of it that recently disintegrated (Larsen A & B) were probably created about that same time. Temperatures were likely as warm or warmer 2000 years ago. Furthermore, there was approximately 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air today. That fact suggests that something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions was the cause of the earlier “balmy” conditions of the northeast Antarctica, which implies that “that same something else” or something different yet, could be responsible for the current warmth of the region, possibly solar intrusion.
So, Don Fultz fans, should you not hear from your guru for awhile, I’m sure he’s just trying to digest all of this data and probably getting Al Gore on the phone to find out where his supporting evidence might have fallen off the “loony” train. Meanwhile, be assured, more data forthcoming.
Just Science Please!
This is a letter to the editor, published in the OMR, in response to another letter my a man named Don Fultz and printed about X-mas time '06.
Denis Diderot, a French philosopher from the 1700’s, once said, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.” That, Don Fultz, is the first explanation for my thinking from my presentation in the Local Voices column (10-27-06). The other and more important is science. Is your letter (11-04-06), Don, some lame attempt at a rebuttal? For awhile, Mr. Fultz, leave your silly, snide remarks aside and provide data from your informed sources, likely, scientists who have vested interests in alarmism and propped up by the radical left wing media. The success of these alarmists is no more evident than the increase in federal expenditures on climate research from pre-1990 (about $300 million) to today ($1.7 billion). Following the money trail is educational, but research data and source is far more instructive. If this is of any interest to Mr. Fultz, I’d be happy to provide him a place to start. Most liberals proclaim the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988) to be their bible on this subject. Of coarse, you need not be a scientist to be a member of this group, nor, by their own mandate do they carry out any research, monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters, but lets leave that aside for now. In the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the consensus (for Don the liberal, that means compromised agreement) was reached that the global average surface temperatures had risen 0.6 plus or minus 0.2 degree C since the late 19th century. The report goes on to use very scientific words like, “most” and “if, to describe the causes and effects of this mild warming. Liberals are attracted to those areas of the report to extrapolate their alarmism.
Galileo said “the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite”. Below is a list of scientists with records of scholarship not associated, by Don Fultz’s claim, with petroleum web sites, and who come to quite different conclusions than the IPCC as to the causes and effects of warming.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University.
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Lab at James Cook University, Australia.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.
David Deming, geophysicist, Associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma and adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
There is increasingly strong evidence that the previous research conclusions, including those of the UN, concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.
Denis Diderot, a French philosopher from the 1700’s, once said, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.” That, Don Fultz, is the first explanation for my thinking from my presentation in the Local Voices column (10-27-06). The other and more important is science. Is your letter (11-04-06), Don, some lame attempt at a rebuttal? For awhile, Mr. Fultz, leave your silly, snide remarks aside and provide data from your informed sources, likely, scientists who have vested interests in alarmism and propped up by the radical left wing media. The success of these alarmists is no more evident than the increase in federal expenditures on climate research from pre-1990 (about $300 million) to today ($1.7 billion). Following the money trail is educational, but research data and source is far more instructive. If this is of any interest to Mr. Fultz, I’d be happy to provide him a place to start. Most liberals proclaim the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988) to be their bible on this subject. Of coarse, you need not be a scientist to be a member of this group, nor, by their own mandate do they carry out any research, monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters, but lets leave that aside for now. In the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the consensus (for Don the liberal, that means compromised agreement) was reached that the global average surface temperatures had risen 0.6 plus or minus 0.2 degree C since the late 19th century. The report goes on to use very scientific words like, “most” and “if, to describe the causes and effects of this mild warming. Liberals are attracted to those areas of the report to extrapolate their alarmism.
Galileo said “the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite”. Below is a list of scientists with records of scholarship not associated, by Don Fultz’s claim, with petroleum web sites, and who come to quite different conclusions than the IPCC as to the causes and effects of warming.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University.
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Lab at James Cook University, Australia.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.
David Deming, geophysicist, Associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma and adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
There is increasingly strong evidence that the previous research conclusions, including those of the UN, concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.
Environmentally Friendly?
A letter to the editor printed in OMR about Apr. 07
I know there are several of you die hard environmentalists who have teamed up with the other anti- big oil enthusiasts to exhort and propel (no pun intended) the hybrid car dream. Please keep dreaming but consider your worst nightmare as well. The Toyota Prius seems to be the favorite hybrid. The nickel in the cars battery is mined and smelted in Canada where the extent of environmental damage around the plant has provided NASA with a ‘dead zone’ on which to test its moon rovers. The factory has spewed sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario. Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin. After leaving the plant, the nickel makes an around the world trip before it even makes it into a single battery.
According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer. They considered electrical, fuel, transportation, materials, and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetimes. The conclusion was that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile during its 100,000-mile life span compared to the $1.95 per mile of a Hummers expected 300,000 miles.
That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50% less combined energy doing it. So, buy a Prius and charge the economy (another pun not intended), or buy a Hummer and save your cash for an acid rainy day.
I know there are several of you die hard environmentalists who have teamed up with the other anti- big oil enthusiasts to exhort and propel (no pun intended) the hybrid car dream. Please keep dreaming but consider your worst nightmare as well. The Toyota Prius seems to be the favorite hybrid. The nickel in the cars battery is mined and smelted in Canada where the extent of environmental damage around the plant has provided NASA with a ‘dead zone’ on which to test its moon rovers. The factory has spewed sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario. Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin. After leaving the plant, the nickel makes an around the world trip before it even makes it into a single battery.
According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer. They considered electrical, fuel, transportation, materials, and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetimes. The conclusion was that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile during its 100,000-mile life span compared to the $1.95 per mile of a Hummers expected 300,000 miles.
That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50% less combined energy doing it. So, buy a Prius and charge the economy (another pun not intended), or buy a Hummer and save your cash for an acid rainy day.
Good To Be Warm
This is a reprint from an opinion column I wrote under the heading of "Local Voices" in the Oroville Mercury, dated Oct. 27, 2006. This is the first of a series I will produce on the subject here in my blog. I have purposely stayed away from politics for the most part but must now start to push into that arena. God be with us!
The recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, highlights the efforts of Al Gore to inform the public about the causes of global warming and its looming effects. Even liberal scholars have trouble with some of the conclusions, primarily with Antarctic core sample changes and the relationship of CO2 emissions to invasive plant species. These things are minor compared to the historical record misread and the evidence of the undeniable good that flows from this warming. The primary conclusion that Mr. Gore would have you take away from his propaganda is that America should give up fossil fuels, cars, and air conditioning.
Another recent film, The Day After Tomorrow, depicts a scientist trying to save the world from catastrophic temperature change, brought on by burning fossil fuels, another wrongly asserted conclusion, and is no more realistic than, The Planet of the Apes.
Here are some incontrovertible facts you should consider when liberal politicians and Hollywood elites spew out their polluted “hot air” from a lack of historical perspective.
There is no question that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years. This is not a dangerous trend caused by human-emitted CO2. Virtually all of the Earth’s current warming occurred before 1940, and CO2 emissions have soared since then and temperatures aren’t significantly higher. The Antarctic ice cores say CO2 and temperatures have tracked closely together over the past 400,000 years. But CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by 200-800 years. More CO2 hasn’t produced higher temperatures; higher temperatures have produced more CO2. Greenhouse theory suggests that the trapped CO2 will warm the atmosphere and radiate down to warm Earth. That is not happening according to satellite data that confirms the atmosphere is warming more slowly than the earth, at 1 degree C per 300 years. Under the same theory the polar regions should warm first, but 21 Antarctic surface stations have recorded declines since 1979. Is an Ice Age coming?
There is new but already-convincing evidence of an unstoppable, moderate, solar-driven 1500-year climate cycle. This cycle is occurring due to very small variations in solar activity that we can now measure with satellite instruments, and measure chronologically through carbon and beryllium isotopes in the ice cores. Historical documents indicate there was a Roman era warming (200BC-600 AD) and a Medieval warming (950 -1300 AD) and that it was colder with more storms in the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850).
Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature. The Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century near the end of a warm period. There was another growing period where the British tax records of 1068 AD, for instance, show 50 vineyards. Britain essentially has not been able to produce any since the Little Ice Age.
12,800 years ago, Stone Age hunters walked to America across the “Bering Sea” with, cold, dry feet. There was no wine to welcome them, but thank God, wine grapes grow in Oroville today. Here, Here.
The recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, highlights the efforts of Al Gore to inform the public about the causes of global warming and its looming effects. Even liberal scholars have trouble with some of the conclusions, primarily with Antarctic core sample changes and the relationship of CO2 emissions to invasive plant species. These things are minor compared to the historical record misread and the evidence of the undeniable good that flows from this warming. The primary conclusion that Mr. Gore would have you take away from his propaganda is that America should give up fossil fuels, cars, and air conditioning.
Another recent film, The Day After Tomorrow, depicts a scientist trying to save the world from catastrophic temperature change, brought on by burning fossil fuels, another wrongly asserted conclusion, and is no more realistic than, The Planet of the Apes.
Here are some incontrovertible facts you should consider when liberal politicians and Hollywood elites spew out their polluted “hot air” from a lack of historical perspective.
There is no question that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years. This is not a dangerous trend caused by human-emitted CO2. Virtually all of the Earth’s current warming occurred before 1940, and CO2 emissions have soared since then and temperatures aren’t significantly higher. The Antarctic ice cores say CO2 and temperatures have tracked closely together over the past 400,000 years. But CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by 200-800 years. More CO2 hasn’t produced higher temperatures; higher temperatures have produced more CO2. Greenhouse theory suggests that the trapped CO2 will warm the atmosphere and radiate down to warm Earth. That is not happening according to satellite data that confirms the atmosphere is warming more slowly than the earth, at 1 degree C per 300 years. Under the same theory the polar regions should warm first, but 21 Antarctic surface stations have recorded declines since 1979. Is an Ice Age coming?
There is new but already-convincing evidence of an unstoppable, moderate, solar-driven 1500-year climate cycle. This cycle is occurring due to very small variations in solar activity that we can now measure with satellite instruments, and measure chronologically through carbon and beryllium isotopes in the ice cores. Historical documents indicate there was a Roman era warming (200BC-600 AD) and a Medieval warming (950 -1300 AD) and that it was colder with more storms in the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850).
Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature. The Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century near the end of a warm period. There was another growing period where the British tax records of 1068 AD, for instance, show 50 vineyards. Britain essentially has not been able to produce any since the Little Ice Age.
12,800 years ago, Stone Age hunters walked to America across the “Bering Sea” with, cold, dry feet. There was no wine to welcome them, but thank God, wine grapes grow in Oroville today. Here, Here.
Friday, February 19, 2010
1 in 7 or 24/7
I do not sit in front of this screen and assume to speak at you, holier than thou. If I pose a question, my answer should be foremost and without hesitation. I am ashamed to report to you that I cannot even meet the minimum standard of spirituality and adherence to my beliefs. I am not a 1 in 7 Christian, let alone 24/7; I am a 3 and 1/2 hour Christian. A church attendee, if you will. Please don’t get me wrong. This self-chastisement is only a public recognition of my humanity. The fact of the matter is, I try everyday and look forward to that day on which I can proclaim myself a 24/7 believer and follower of the Creator and Lawgiver of the universe.
You see, there is something quite unique about the human species. We were created with the ability to understand right from wrong, good and evil. We also are a sinful creature and cannot help ourselves away from the circumstance of doing that which we know to be against our best interest. Therefore, each one of us must be diligent in a daily reflection of what we want the world to see. To accomplish that goal, we must set our sights on becoming a 24/7 Christian.
First, we must start with this anatomical contraption called a body. Radio host and Ph.D in Physiology, Dr Laura, recently wrote a book called “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. The book has been the salvaging of countless marriages. Isn’t it interesting that we have had a handbook for centuries that lays out a step-by-step approach to the spiritual and physical maintenance of this human vehicle? Later, I would like to explore into the deeper micro aspects of that discussion. As you ascend the ladder in your Christian or spiritual experience, your body changes. Its outer shell, in health and expression, changes. Your assurance of belief becomes evident and is witnessed by those in your family. The community in which you live reaps the reward of your new life. You have become active in making this a better place to live. The 24/7 Christian closes in on the macro, in so much as he influences outcomes of living in a state, his country, and finally, the world.
And what would my offering in this forum be, if there where not a problem? Well, of coarse there is! However personal you view your walk with God, you can not allow your country to fall into the abyss of a secularized mantra that states that you as a Christian have no right to bring forward your moral values into the procedural and legal entanglements of government. The 24/7 Christian must and will effect how a secular government does business. A 24/7 Christian will, by his action and deed, affect the world. It is in this age, we find our western values challenged by a different faith. A group dedicated to the worship of our God but with a different enthusiasm and often compared to a 24/7 Christian. Our country fights their radical wing while beseeching the vast majority of Muslims to fight with us. They are hesitant at best for one major reason. Our lifestyle and our doctrine do not connect. Are we 24/7 believers, or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
