Are you a happy or bitter person by nature? The Christmas season is one way to tell. If someone wishes you a “Merry Christmas,” do you respond with a hearty greeting of your own, or do you glare back angrily and state that you don’t celebrate Christmas, or declare that wishing someone a merry Christmas is presumptive and inappropriate?
“Are you saying that all non-Christians are bitter?” Heck, no! One rabbi I know happily accepts holiday well-wishes from everyone and returns them in kind, but he is a happy person by nature. It doesn’t bother him that people often wish him a merry Christmas because he is secure in his religion. Regardless of the winter holiday I am greeted with, I can accept the well-wishes in the happy spirit in which they are offered.
When I have witnessed people who get a grouchy or sharp response to their holiday greeting, I have seen the joy of the season drain from their faces. One grumpy person’s bitter view succeeded in killing the happiness they felt–killjoys, in the full sense of the word.
You can see this same bitter reflex in action when a man holds open a door for a woman as a kind gesture, only to be rewarded with an angry retort of “I can open my own door!” The gesture wasn’t meant to be an insult, but a simple act of kindness. Heck, I hold the door open for anyone who comes up behind me, male or female. But for some people, the first response is to see offense where none was meant.
Or have you ever tried to compliment someone on her appearance or choice of outfit, only to be slapped down for it? (I use “her” because I rarely see this sort of response in men.) Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a “Nice dress” is just a compliment, not a male way of grunting, “You. Me. Sex. Now.”
There are so many ways we complement and wish each other well. And it is our reaction to these complements and well-wishes that shows whether we are basically happy or bitter inside. The good news is that being happy or bitter is a matter of habit and not a fixed characteristic. We can change our attitude, if we choose to, merely by resolving to respond to well-wishes in the same spirit as they were offered. Here’s hoping that your nature is the former and not the latter.
We are enjoying having our 11-year-old niece staying with TPK and me. She is a great kid. The other day TPK found one of Miss V’s homework papers dealing with fact and opinion. As an example of fact, she wrote “I am 11 years old.” And as an example of opinion, she wrote “I don’t like math.” After seeing some of the math homework she has been given, I can see why.
The math course used in our school district is Investigations in Number, Data and Space by TERC. Rather than teaching kids the best way to solve a math problem, the course asks the kids to develop their own methods. While I like the idea of emphasizing creativity in problem solving, what is the likelihood that anyone in a fifth grade class will come up with the same method commonly recognized as the easiest and/or most effective?
I’ll give you an example. One of the math questions she was given went somewhat along these lines: “Frank bought seven packs of gum at $0.78 each, five bottles of soda at $1.36 each, and two packages of cookies at $2.93 each. How much did Frank spend?”
Since this was “invent your own methods” homework, Miss V started off by adding stuff up. First she added $0.78 three times, added $0.78 four times, and then added the two answers together. At this point I noticed that she had already made two errors. I asked her why she didn’t multiply $0.78 by 7 rather than doing a bunch of addition. She replied that the teacher hadn’t explained how to do it. She told the students that they needed to figure out how to solve it on their own. With a lack of clear direction and instruction, it’s no wonder Miss V doesn’t like math.
I’m not the only one to dislike Investigations and other silly math curricula more concerned with how students feel and less about actually teaching math. A classic fill-in-the-blank problem from these “feel-good” math curricula is “If math were a color, it would be —”
Michelle Malkin has pointed to a video of a local Seattle meteorologist, M.J. McDermott, and her fight against Investigations and other silly fuzzy-thinking curricula. This video McDermott put together does a great job of showing the confusion caused by these badly-formed curricula.
Because Investigations sucks, I am spending time after school tutoring Miss V in her math. Why? As McDermott puts it, “Students who learn math via TERC Investigations rarely become efficient, confident, and fluent math users.” And with what I have seen with Miss V, I agree. At the next parent/teacher conference, TPK will ask the teacher why Investigations is being used in the school district when it’s been so widely discredited.
To end on a lighter note, here is a video mocking the New Math that died in the ’60s.
I’m hoping that the efforts of people like M.J. McDermott and others will succeed in derailing the New New Math train wreck before it runs over too many more kids.
Just in case you have missed some of the news coming out of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, we are all gonna die! Here are some of the news articles about this report:
Humanity is rapidly turning the seas acid through the same pollution that causes global warming, the world’s governments and top scientists agreed yesterday. The process – thought to be the most profound change in the chemistry of the oceans for 20 million years – is expected both to disrupt the entire web of life of the oceans and to make climate change worse.
Global warming is “unequivocal” and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world’s top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.
In its final and most powerful report, a United Nations panel of scientists meeting here describes the mounting risks of climate change in language that is both more specific and forceful than its previous assessments, according to scientists here.
The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species.
Yep, Earth is going to Hell in a handbasket, and it’s all your fault!
Or not, but it certainly makes for great headlines. And as race-baiting poverty pimp Jesse Jackson could tell you, managing a crisis (rather than solving it) is like minting your own money. Plus, when you are in crisis mode, it’s possible to make statements to stifle the opposing forces. Chest-thumping statements that “the debate is over” serve only to shut up actual debate because this is not settled science. Here’s a good example of this type of rhetoric:
The debate is over: global warming is real and the scientific consensus identifies human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as the primary cause.
They take a statement that is factual and provable: “global warming is real,” and mix it with a statement that is pure speculation: “the scientific consensus identifies human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as the primary cause.” I’ll ask again — what is the primary cause of global warming? The answer is the sun, but you will get dirty looks and angry responses when you point that out to people. It is undeniable that gases like carbon dioxide and methane certainly help in helping keep the heat from the sun here with us, but they are not the primary greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the greatest in overall amount and effect.
And it is propaganda because, despite all the rhetoric, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is not settled science yet. The first question that needs to be answered is whether the Earth really is warming up or not. “Of course it is warming! Didn’t you see photos of retreating glaciers in Alaska, the vanishing snows on Kilimanjaro, and the starving polar bears?” I’ve heard people put forward these three examples as proof positive of global warming. But they do not prove global warming. They are anecdotes, not data. Data comes in the form of temperature measurements, not stories.
“But the temperature measurements show that we have been warming up!” Really? The commonly-used graph of global temperature (on the right) put forward as proof of warming shows temperature changes over the last century. From the look of this graph, it does seem that temperatures were going up until the 1940s, dropped to a low in the late ’70s, and have been warming up since then. But I’m not all that impressed by the graph because I know the world was recovering from the Little Ice Age at the beginning of the graph, so it’s not surprising that the initial temperatures are lower there. If we expand our time frame to the past 1,000 years, we would see that the Medieval Climatic Optimum was warmer than it is now. If we look at the last 10,000 years, we will see still warmer spots, and before that was the Pleistocene ice age with Manfred, Diego, Sid, and Scrat. Expanding our time frame out to many millions of years in the past, Earth has undergone much hotter time periods than our own.
“But if we don’t do anything, species will die!” So? If we look at the history of life on Earth, the commonest state for a species is extinct. The estimate is that 90-95% of all species that have ever lived on the planet are currently extinct. That’s why T-Rex doesn’t go rampaging through Los Angeles except in bad movie sequels. I am happy to know that T-Rex is no longer a danger since I doubt my .30-06 would do much damage to it. In any case, it would be tough meat, even though it would probably taste like chicken. “But what about the polar bears?” Yeah, well, what about them? Let’s imagine that the entire Arctic ice sheet melted completely in the summer. It’s not all that hard to imagine since it has happened before in the recent geological past. And oddly enough, the polar bears made it through those times, too. If they were really smart, they would have moved to a condo in Florida with the rest of the retirement crowd.
You’ll continue to hear more and more about how messed up the world is, and how it is all our fault. But before you come to believe this is settled science, you should spend some time listening to what some scientists are saying. I suggest you watch the following videos at the very least. The first is Bob Carter talking about the nature of global warming. He basically says that the world has continually warmed and cooled, and if we look at the averages for the past few million years, it’s more common to be cooler than hotter. It’s not a question of if we will have another ice age, but when.
The second video is David Archibald talking about how the 24th solar cycle will very likely be wimpy, similar to the wimpy cycle from the 1900s.
The third video is by Warren Meyer of CoyoteBlog.com and Climate-Sceptic.com, asking the obvious but rarely-voiced question, “What is normal?” He explains much of the fear-mongering and bad science being put forth by the supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory. These are many of the topics he has addressed already, but it’s nice to see them in a single video.
Is the debate on climate control over? Not by a long shot, but certain people like to tell us that it is. After watching these videos, you should have a good idea of some questions you can ask supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory.
I don’t base my choice of political candidates based on a quiz on the Internet, but sometimes they are fun to take. I saw a link to a political quiz on Instapundit.com, and I decided to go along. Here are my results.
Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher
Your Result: Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, where he was known as a centrist. He reformed the state healthcare system, and would pursue reforms at the national level as well. Romney supports oil drilling in Alaska, but also alternative energy sources. He claims to be conservative on issues like abortion and gay civil unions, and he supports the Iraq war. Romney supports fair trade, as well as a greater focus on math and science in our schools.
It just so happens that at this point, I’m leaning more towards Mitt Romney because of his positions and comments than any of the others, but I’m still not completely won over by anyone. I did noticed that Fred Thompson is not in the list, and I have no idea how the questions are measured, so this is far from scientific. I file it along with other “gee whiz” type of activities. Feel free to take it, too. I do find it funny that I have no matching positions with the four Democrat candidates.
Since anyone can create a quiz without showing the logic behind the score, the quality of the quizzes do varies. I took several quizzes for fun. You can try these three:
The Oxford University Press blog has announced the new Word of the Year: “Locavore.” Here is how their choice was explained on the Oxford blog:
The past year saw the popularization of a trend in using locally grown ingredients, taking advantage of seasonally available foodstuffs that can be bought and prepared without the need for extra preservatives.
The “locavore” movement encourages consumers to buy from farmers’ markets or even to grow or pick their own food, arguing that fresh, local products are more nutritious and taste better. Locavores also shun supermarket offerings as an environmentally friendly measure, since shipping food over long distances often requires more fuel for transportation.
“The word ‘locavore’ shows how food-lovers can enjoy what they eat while still appreciating the impact they have on the environment,” said Ben Zimmer, editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press. “It’s significant in that it brings together eating and ecology in a new way.”
“Locavore” was coined two years ago by a group of four women in San Francisco who proposed that local residents should try to eat only food grown or produced within a 100-mile radius. Other regional movements have emerged since then, though some groups refer to themselves as “localvores” rather than “locavores.” However it’s spelled, it’s a word to watch.
My prediction: you’ll not often hear “locavore” or “localvore” spoken on the TV or written in any major newspaper in 2008. I don’t believe “locavore” was chosen as the word of the year because of its popularity. I believe it was chosen because the folks at Oxford University Press want it to become popular.
But is it a word worth knowing? I don’t think so. To quote Eric Cartman, “It’s all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.” Why is it important to eat only food grown within a 100-mile radius? The claim is that “local products are more nutritious and taste better.” The nutritive value of locally-produced food is greater if locally-grown products are fresher than what you would find in a supermarket, but it’s too subjective to claim local foods “taste better.” The article goes on to report that locavores also skip supermarket produce because they claim the food travels longer distances, requiring more fuel to move it. And all that fuel is bad, Bad, BAD for the environment, don’t you know? After all, the previous Oxford Word of the Year was “carbon neutral.” Tree-hugging hippy crap, indeed.
But what happens if you don’t live within 100 miles of fresh food? If you live in the middle of Wyoming, what are your options for fresh food in the middle of January? I, for one, am glad to be able to buy fresh vegetables and fruit from around the globe. In midwinter, the other option is frozen, bottled, and canned vegetables and fruits. I don’t know how you feel about it, but I prefer fresh food over preserved whenever I can get it. And I’m glad that winter in the U.S. means summer in Chile, Argentina and Australia.
If you want an unhealthy dose of tree-hugging hippy crap, head on over to www.locavores.com and read self-righteous statements like the following:
Why Eat Locally?
Our food now travels an average of 1,500 miles before ending up on our plates. This globalization of the food supply has serious consequences for the environment, our health, our communities and our tastebuds. Much of the food grown in the breadbasket surrounding us must be shipped across the country to distribution centers before it makes its way back to our supermarket shelves. Because uncounted costs of this long distance journey (air pollution and global warming, the ecological costs of large scale monoculture, the loss of family farms and local community dollars) are not paid for at the checkout counter, many of us do not think about them at all.
It is precisely because we don’t pay extra at the supermarket that we choose to shop there in the first place. Sure, people can shop at local farmers’ markets (when they’re available) and choose from over 20 varieties of tomatoes, but food costs will be higher. And if you only buy locally-grown food, where will you buy your corn, wheat, and rice if you don’t live in a corn-, wheat- or rice-growing area? Perhaps we should all move to San Francisco to enjoy a year-round growing season–but if we did, the population pressure alone would squeeze out any remaining local farms and convert them to housing.
No, I say the logical thing for a dedicated locavore to do is to move out of the city and set up a farming commune out in the country. That way the locavores can enjoy the fruits (and veggies) of their labors fresher than at a local farmers’ market and rejoice in getting back to nature with a “more-locavore-than-thou” attitude. Besides, until they become farmers themselves, they are not showing true commitment to their cause.
Iran has been working on nuclear power for years now, but they tell us it is just for peaceful purposes like generating power. Never mind that they are sitting on a lake of oil. And never mind that Iran has lied and admitted to their lies about their nuclear plans before.
But this news article will really make people sit up and notice. Oh, but who am I trying to kid? This will slip past unnoticed by most people.
Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency by delivering blueprints that show how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday, in an apparent concession meant to stave off the threat of new U.N. sanctions.
But the diplomats said Tehran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of the Islamic Republic. [emphasis mine - CM]
Did you catch that? Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program included blueprints for making nuclear warheads. Who wants to bet that those blueprints were Iran’s only copies of the plans? *cricket chirp* Yeah, I didn’t think I’d get any takers on that.
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for pointing out this story. I’m sure you won’t hear about it on the nightly news programs.
The Drudge Report linked to a small report on the British tabloid, The Sun.
A SCHOOL was yesterday accused of MAKING teachers dress up as Asians for a day to celebrate a Muslim festival.
Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.
The morning assembly will be open to all parents but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.
Just two members of staff a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant are Muslim.
Yesterday a relative of one of the 39 others said: “Staff have got to go along with it or let’s face it, they would be branded racist.
“Who would put their job on the line? They have been told they have to embrace the day to show their diversity. But they are not all happy.”
The day aims to belatedly mark Eid, the end of Ramadan.
Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.
“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.” [Capitalization from The Sun -- CM]
At this point, I need to point out that I am part of the “oppressor class,” as defined by multi-culturalists, since I am an adult while male American. And as part of the group of guilty oppressors, I need to be educated to both understand and appreciate other cultures.
I could accept the multi-culturalism goal of expanding my awareness of other cultures if all cultures were equal, but they are not. I’ll give the multi-culturists time to recover from their shocked faint.
I refuse to accept that all cultures are equal. To do so, I would have to accept that Teutonic industry is equivalent to Aztec human sacrifices, or that genital-mutilating African tribesmen are the same as the Pilgrims. I don’t buy the premise of cultural equality, so I don’t see the need to “raise my awareness” of these cultures since that is multi-culty code for “accepting” those cultures. Which I don’t, so that makes me intolerant and discriminating. So sue me.
I find this story from England to be very telling about the nature of multi-culturalism: acceptance flows only one way. The British in the school must dress like and learn about Islam for Ramadan, but is there an equivalent requirement at Easter for everyone to dress like and learn about Christianity? Sure, and I have some Florida property I’ll sell you by the quart.
Whenever there is a clash between American and other cultures, multi-culturists tell us that we need to be sensitive and understanding of their cultures. And do they ever stress to those cultures that they need to be sensitive and understanding of our culture? Don’t be funny! It’s a one-way street of acceptance.
News flash! Congress is pondering a resolution mourning the loss of the RMS Titanic in 1912. Sure, Congress has passed two previous resolutions to mourn the almost 1,500 dead, but we really need a third resolution almost a century later to show that we really mean it this time.
Also in the news, Congress will soon put up for a vote a resolution condemning the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip in 1914. Sure, Congress has passed three previous resolutions condemning the assassination, but Congress really needs to pass a fourth resolution to show just how much the assassination disturbs the U.S. Congress.
And finally, Congress is gearing up to vote on a resolution to start using the word “genocide” when discussing the killing of thousands of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Sure, it’s almost a century later, and Congress has passed five other resolutions between 1916 and 1996 about the death of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, but Congress really needs to pass yet another bit of legislation to show just how horrified Congress is over the Armenian genocide.
OK, so I’m being silly. I made up the news stories about Congress working on Titanic and Ferdinand assassination resolutions to show just how silly it is to obsess over something almost a century old, especially when Congress has already griped about it before. Why are members of Congress so anxious to pass a resolution branding the death of many thousands of Armenians almost 100 years ago as a genocide?
The answer is simple: the Democrats in Congress are desperate to sabotage the war in Iraq, as explained by Thomas Sowell.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this resolution is just the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to sabotage the conduct of that war.
Large numbers of American troops and vast amounts of military equipment go to Iraq through Turkey, one of the few nations in the Islamic Middle East that has long been an American ally.
Turkey has also thus far refrained from retaliating against guerrilla attacks from the Kurdish regions of Iraq onto Turkish soil. But the Turks could retaliate big time if they chose….
In this touchy situation, why stir up a hornet’s nest over something in the past that neither we nor anybody else can do anything about today?
The Left has no plan to win the war in Iraq. The only strategy they have is running away, which is known in military circles as “losing.” Democrats have admitted that they cannot support the war because it is bad for them. They have hitched their wagons to failure, and now they are trying whatever they can to cause problems. And make no mistake, this Congressional resolution will piss off our ally Turkey and make fighting the murderous thugs in Iraq that much harder. Weren’t these the same Democrats the ones whining that we weren’t working enough with allies?
Sowell finishes up his column masterfully:
Unwilling to take responsibility for ending the war by cutting off the money to fight it, as many of their supporters want them to, Congressional Democrats have instead tried to sabotage the prospects of victory by seeking to micro-manage the deployment of troops, delaying the passing of appropriations — and now this genocide resolution that is the latest, and perhaps lowest, of these tactics.
There is some dismaying news coming out of England, that land often held up as a socialized medicine success story.
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Others have used superglue to stick crowns back on, rather than stumping up for private treatment, said the study. One person spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions on himself with pliers.
More typically, a lack of publicly-funded dentists means that growing numbers go private: 78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.
Scarcity is what you get with socialized medicine. When there is no obvious cost to visiting the dentist or doctor, people will seek out medical care for stuff fixed with an aspirin. Miss V has twice complained about her head hurting just before she went to bed. And in both times she said she wanted to visit the doctor. Doctors have the same magical property as bandages. For Miss V, any owie can be made better with a bandage, and just visiting the doctor will make any pain or illness go away better than aspirin. It’s magic! And speaking of flights of fantasy, she has no understanding of the costs of visiting the doctor because she doesn’t pay anything for it. Because she doesn’t pay for it, she’d be willing to visit the doctor for every headache and stomach upset she gets.
And that’s what you get whenever the cost is hidden from the people using the service. If the out-of-pocket cost of visiting the hospital’s emergency room were $100, people would go only when there is an emergency. If the out-of-pocket costs were reduced to zero, people would visit for every sniffle, headache, and skinned knee. The increased use of the emergency room would increase the hospital’s costs of supplying health care to the people. That bill will be passed to the government who turns around and taxes the people. At some point the government will push back to the hospital and refuse to increase funding. The hospital will then turn around and refuse services to the people, commonly in the form of slower processing of patients. That is why we hear of long waiting times for patients in Canada. Are you anxious to have 5+ week waiting times to see your doctor only to spend another 6+ weeks waiting for the specialist? Long lines are what you get with Socialism.
But in addition to the way socialized medicine slows down service to hold down costs, socialized medicine also places a cap on medical salaries. When you limit the pay for a job, you discourage people from entering that field. Why would someone spend the years of medical training to become a dentist or a doctor when there is a limit on the salary people could earn? The end result is “[f]alling numbers of state dentists in England.”
Socialism sucks, and socialized medicine is Socialism. It’s no wonder that socialized medicine sucks.
It’s official — former Vice President Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.
Contrary to what you might think, it wasn’t awarded because of his huge CO2-spewing house and CO2-spewing private jet junkets, but because of his vanity puff-piece movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I call it a vanity puff-piece because the movie is not about global warming as much as it is about Al Gore talking about global warming.
But is Gore’s movie and subsequent CO2-spewing trips to blab about global warming really the best candidate for this award? I have to believe that the answer is no because of the poor science behind the movie. I’ve already written about Gore’s movie, but since then, there have been some interesting news items come out about his movie.
A truck driver in England brought Gore’s movie to court because he believed it was biased, inaccurate, and shouldn’t be shown to school children as fact. The final ruling isn’t in yet, but the judge on the case has found 11 inaccuracies in the film. (hat-tip Climate Skeptic) Here is the listing of the 11 inaccuracies from the movie, as specified by the judge.
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Yeah. This is worth awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. Rush Limbaugh pointed out this week that Mother Theresa got the Nobel Peace Prize after a life-time of service. Al Gore makes an inaccurate movie that is more a vehicle for his own vanity than it is about global warming, and he gets the same prize. The bar has really been lowered.
In other environmental news, the Nobel Peace Prize was also awarded this year to a German chemist, Gerhard Ertl, for his work that can explain the destruction of the ozone layer.
“Surface chemistry can even explain the destruction of the ozone layer as vital steps in the reaction actually take place on the surfaces of small crystals of ice in the stratosphere,” the award citation said.
“Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
And here’s the final paragraph with my emphasis added.
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
It’s still man’s fault, but they can’t prove it. Yep. Sounds like rock-solid science to me. And well worth awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a chemist who can “explain the destruction of the ozone layer” when that same chemistry is being called into question. And while Gore’s movie is being called into question, why not award him, too? But they have a history of doing this. Former President Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work for peace and the Agreed Framework with North Korea. The same Agreed Framework that North Korea announced in 2002 that they had violated from the beginning.
At this point I don’t have any respect for the selection process of the Nobel Peace Prize. I only write this because liberals will be applauding Saint Gore for his prize, and they will ignore the shaky science behind it.