CLIMATE CHANGE: 21st Century Witchcraft

Originally Published:  Feb 24, 2008

During the 16th to 18th centuries in central Europe accusing unpopular outcasts with witchcraft was commonplace. Charges most commonly included destroying neighbor's crops and livestock via unusual weather events. Scientists who did not believe in black magic feared stepping forward to help the condemned - which could often lead to their own interrogation and prosecution. With opposition handily silenced, the paranoid fanatics could easily convince the uneducated masses that witchcraft were responsible for all of the ills in their lives.

The 21st century brand of witch hunters have tried and convicted mankind for causing all damaging weather patterns. Again, it is the skeptics who are interrogated while the prosecution carries no burden of proof. Much more civilized today, there are no executions. Rather, undesired behaviors are unreasonably taxed in hopes to stop such activities and/or bankrupt the supplying corporation. One more gigantic 21st century difference exists - the information super-highway. Once opening their mind to all available science, even stark alarmists have quickly become a skeptic.

"The debate is over, there is scientific consensus!" alarmists scream while moving government into our homes. What happened to the fight to keep government out of our bedrooms? Carbon paranoia has now allowed government into our light sockets, thermostats, showers and toilets. In any debate I feel uncomfortable siding with those who purposely lie and exaggerate. The Climate Change political movement is much worse than that. I absolutely disagree with those who refuse to debate legitimate scientists while claiming superior knowledge, and then demand to limit your freedoms as a solution.

Despite all you may have been told by alarmists, the skeptical scientists are quite legitimate. Here is a list of 400 scientists from around the world who dispute the ‘consensus':

Summary: US Senate Report

Full Report: 700 International Scientists Dissent AGW

More skeptics: wikipedia AGW Dissent

Dr. S. Fred Singer

Dr. Roy Spencer

"But this is only 700 versus thousands upon thousands of scientists who have all agreed to the consensus.” Climate change believers will say. Wrong again. During the Bali Climate Change Conference in December 2007, only 215 scientists signed on to the IPCC recommendation (Read ‘Summary' above) and only 52 scientists participated in the IPCC summary. Several of these IPCC scientists are also on the list of 700 dissenting scientists. Yes, you read that correctly. Many of the scientists listed among the consensus had actually written disagreements with the consensus. The politicians in charge of the final draft conveniently omitted the disagreements of scientists while adding them to the consensus. (If you read the ‘Full Report' above there are personal descriptions of the experience these scientists have had with the politics of Global Warming.)

I become very suspicious when Intellectuals who pride themselves upon open mindedness claim there can be no more debate about global warming. Scientists who persist with conflicting data are insulted, belittled, and fired from positions of authority in the world of science. The typically open-minded have suddenly become vastly intolerant of dissent, and my natural curiosity causes me to wonder why.

Threats against skeptics

Why don't we start with the basics; the definition of science. Most definitions include three general steps:
• Observation of natural events
• Accumulate data, facts
• Formulate laws and principles, provable by prediction or experiments

When asked for proof, climate change proponents will always site the stacks of data accumulated through steps 1 and 2. But when was Step 3 performed? Computer models? Even scientists who have created such models admit they are flawed. The fastest super-computers available can only replicate less than 1 percent of the variables involved. Predictions? Name one accurate prediction about global warming made by scientists? 10 years ago we were told that Earth's temperatures would not only continue rising, but the increase would accelerate. Instead, temperatures have remained stagnant over the last decade, and even dropped on some continents. Global warming alarmists have been warning of increased hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding and droughts. The media has done all it can to give credence to these predictions. Every time a natural disaster hits, the press quickly seeks out the opinions of the climate change alarmists. But scare mongering is not science. Storms, which have been happening throughout Earth's history, are proof of nothing.

Some think that photos of receding glaciers and polar bears standing on melting ice chunks are proof. But the polar bear population has exploded since mid-century and a glacier, by definition, must either be receding or extending, otherwise it would not be a glacier. Video clips of Glaciers breaking into the sea are great propaganda. There is no question that glaciers have receded in many areas of the world. But there is never mention of areas where glaciers are actually growing in mass. Global warming has moved away from science, and into political propaganda. Every true scientific study shows that the frequency and/or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, cold snaps, and droughts are not historic in any matter. In fact real numbers suggest that human activity has had absolutely no effect on such natural disasters. The only thing that has increased is our awareness of tragedy around the world. Global warming advocates have used the information super-highway to push their agenda. But I am not falling for it. Show me the proof!

To combat the lack of proof human caused global warming advocates throw around the term ‘scientific consensus'. But science is about proof. Consensus is a word used in politics. After all, in 1420 there was scientific consensus that the world is flat. In 1520 there was scientific consensus that the Earth is the center of the universe. In 1720 there was scientific consensus that Witch's were the cause of droughts and famine. In 1920 there was scientific consensus that electric shock treatment could rehabilitate the mentally disabled. In every case, the consensus was not a product of real science, but instead, a result of accumulating anecdotal evidence and arriving at a political solution. What better exhibit of anecdotal evidence than the IPCC report? Show me the proof!

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize winning physicist)

The debate is over? Not even Al Gore is willing to debate a scientist who does not agree with the political consensus of global climate change:

Gore Refuses to Debate

Belief in human caused climate change patterns religion in many ways. Just like most theology, the faithful are intolerant of dissent. And the polar bear picture that was used to make children cry – here is the original photo in proper context, before being used as propaganda.

Famous Polar Bear Photo

Do scientists ever consider other explanations for the apparent warming of Earth's climate over the late 20 th century? Yes. There are many other potential explanations. The global warming alarmists have routinely squelched opposing theories. Could it be the sun?

Warming and the Sun

How Much Influence Does the Sun Have?

What motivation would the U.N. have to lie in its IPCC report? Why would the U.N. exaggerate scientific consensus? Well, lets look at the U.N.'s history of exaggerating data for the purpose of increasing funding:

U.N. Exaggerates AIDS

The combination of ambitious politicians looking for a cause, Hollywood multi-millionaires with a guilty conscience, media outlets who love a doomsday scenario, and institutions of higher education hitching on to the money train, has caused a level of irresponsible propaganda rivaling that of Nazi Germany. An endless trail of government/non-profit moneys has poured into universities for studying everything from coral reefs to animal flatulence. The only requirement for the river of money to continue is that studies consistently conclude humans are destroying the planet, all in the name of global warming. This list of 600+ articles attributing problems to global warming demonstrates the utter insanity of blaming everything on Global Warming:

Global Warming Causes Everything

Now, I am not saying that achieving a better understanding of our Earth's climate is bad. But do you think the funding would continue if the studies released concluded no immediate threat to mankind? In reality, scientists on campus have just as much financial motivation to achieve particular results as those working for Exxon laboratories. Take away the emotion, and look only at the existing facts. Open-minded people will conclude as I have. ‘Global Warming' may be the greatest worldwide hoax in the history of mankind - surpassing even the hysteria of witchcraft trials.

Darrin Barker

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID

originally published: 8/27/09

Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign won over public opinion with one simple line; "It's the economy, stupid." The Berlin wall had come down in 1989, and the Soviet Union was no more. The Cold War was over - there were no more apparent threats to the US homeland. Meanwhile, the US was experiencing a short & mild recession. Clinton labeled it the worst economy since the Great Depression and blamed 12-years of supply-side economics combined with excessive military and foreign intelligence spending. Who could argue this theory, as the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations did greatly increase military spending . . . while facilitating the end of the cold war through victory. For this achievement Bush 41 was booted from office. I would compare that with coaching the Super Bowl champions, and then getting fired for ruining your teams draft position.

Needless to say, "It's the economy, stupid." resonated with voters, and vaulted President Clinton into office. Today we face a serious recession, not the short blip of 1991. Arguments revolve around income tax rates. Did the George W. Bush tax cuts cause the recession? Did tax cuts increase federal revenues? Will allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire increase or decrease federal revenues? Are the rich paying enough? Are the rich paying too much? As the arguments persist, both political parties are ignoring the elephant in the room. It's the spending, stupid!

As a conservative, I have always been convinced that lowering income taxes will raise federal revenues. I have seen the numbers - revenue nearly doubling during Reagan's administration. Still, Democrats insist to claim tax cuts 'cost' the federal government money. (A statement that can only come from the perspective that all money belongs to Washington) Both cannot be true. So which is it? Do tax cuts raise or lower government revenue? You certainly cannot count on the modern "He said, She said" irresponsible journalism today to actually include factual research related to the argument at hand. Most are capable of little more than amplifying the argument. So I took it upon myself to do the research. During my truth-seeking mission I learned things that even surprised myself.

Analyzing the numbers from 1956 to 2008, there is no clear relationship between federal revenue and income tax rates. (table above) Over this 52-year period, the federal revenue increased at an average of 7% per year - but fluctuates greatly. Yes, tax cuts do increase federal revenue - but raising taxes does as well. The numbers point to a seldom-mentioned truth, government revenues continue to grow over time despite changing federal income tax policy, not because of it. Economic recession seems to be the only element that causes a reduction of revenue.

Lowering income tax rates did not cause our $11 Trillion debt. So how did we wind up 14-digits in the brackets during the same timeline government revenue is growing by an average of 7% every year - double the rate of inflation? One statistic makes it all easy to understand. The $71 billion 1956 US federal budget exploded to $2.5 Trillion ($2,500 Billion) by 2008. This equals an average spending increase of 7.5% per fiscal year. Looking at the years 1967 to 2007, no matter what rate the average income grows in the US - the government expands even faster. Lets see here . . . 7% average yearly growth in revenue . . . and 7.5% average yearly growth in spending - what could possibly be the problem? It's the spending, stupid!

Even after a half century of government growing at twice the rate of inflation, when bridges fall and public education fails politicians point their finger at us - the taxpayer. The United States government has become the black hole of fiscal irresponsibility. Every politician and dollar we send to Washington gets sucked in, and the more it eats the larger and more powerful it becomes.

And what is it all for? Is government making our lives better? 40 years ago the poverty rate was 10.4%. In 2007 the poverty rate was 10.4%. Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. Public education has fallen from top in the world to barely hanging in the top 20. Where has the government performed so well that it is deserving of more responsibility? Since there is no evidence changing income tax rates have any real effect on government revenue, what point is there to raising taxes? 

Dear President Obama, independent Mathematicians and Economists have studied the historical data and concluded there is no direct correlation between income tax rates and federal revenue. Given this information, what is the reason for raising taxes on incomes above $250K? Why do you plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Punishment? Revenge? Or is it just a way to keep the voting public eye off of the spending monster? Is it not the draconian increases in government spending through the last several administrations that have created our massive debt?

Until we elect politicians with enough guts to face the truth, that black hole will continue to grow. For anyone with eyes on Congress in 2010, I suggest stealing a page from the Clinton campaign with a little twist. Adamantly and repeatedly say, "It's the spending, stupid!"

by: Darrin Barker

THE POPULARITY OF REALITY

Disclaimer: I must admit that my entire reality television viewing experience consists of two episodes of the original Survivor series plus an added 20 minutes of Big Brother.

Originally published: 8/25/2007

The reality television revolution is closing in on a decade long while I continue to ignore it fervently. Unfortunately, news and entertainment programs dedicate sufficient time to ensure even non-viewers are involuntarily subject to reality drama. It all started with Survivor where a couple dozen random people were dropped on an island near Borneo and expected to fend for themselves. Well, not exactly. 50 network cameras along with a full operating crew were housed right next to them. The idea was intriguing enough for me to watch a complete episode during the inaugural season. After a couple weeks of media hype I sat down with my girlfriend to share the experience. Before the show began her excitement rattling off the evident plot I found disturbing. “Jenny does not like Bill because Bill never cooks for the group, but Bill cannot stand Jeff because Jeff lost the challenge for their team. But Jeff and Jenny really like each other, so they think that Bill does not like Jeff because he is jealous . . .” -WAIT!

“That is what this show is about?”, I responded in a disappointed voice. I had assumed a program named Survivor - on a deserted island - would have something to do with outdoor survival skills. Instead, I found myself watching a drama-filled popularity contest. Big network television had no desire to create a weekly competition dominated by backwoods rednecks, as one of them already exists, the NASCAR cup series. Instead, they fashioned a game filled with office drama, west coast backstabbing and east coast snobbery. It is a game less familiar to flyover country, but right on par with the Hollywood culture.

Topping it all off was the twist on popularity. The weekly climax is not about the winning team or even the losing team. Rather, the template for all reality television programs would be singling out an individual loser each and every week. This person did not necessarily lose a race or score lowest on some sort of test. No, this person is singled out for simply being unpopular – different – unyielding to pure pressure.

Imagine if at the next Olympics, ABC waits for the last runner to cross the line and then shoved cameras in her face. "You finished half a lap behind the leaders, what were you thinking as the field pulled away from you in the backstretch? How do you feel about training for four years only to place dead last in this event?" The sportscaster would be immediately fired, the family of the athlete would demand an apology or sue for deprivation of character, and the ACLU would demand such questions be defined as torture. Yet humiliation is the primary goal of reality television. Manufactured drama. Is there a better way to create drama than belittling an individual in front of a national audience? For the good of the younger generation I assume . . . you know, the ones we teach not to be judgmental of others for superficial reasons.

Simply getting kicked off the island evidently would not reach the level of humiliation the target market enjoys. Therefore, the host must speak slowly with dramatic background music while the camera focuses on the potential losers. The episode climax arrives when the camera zooms in tight as the one loser is singled out. A close-up is necessary for all to witness the tears when this individual is informed that every person on the island, and likely everyone on this planet, would better enjoy life if she had never existed. Emotional cruelty is obviously very popular with the Neilson Family.

Survivor forever changed primetime television. Why waste money on extravagant sets and professional actors? The networks realized you could win primetime ratings by simply tossing average people into a maze with a chunk of cheese at the end then turn on the cameras. It can be a talent contest, evicting the unpopular from a gossip infected mansion, or speed-eating gestating insects; the phlegmatic American public is couch-bound awaiting the next episode. The only universal requirement is humiliation of contestants for viewer entertainment.

If it were not for the glaring exhibit of pop culture driven judgementalism I would not display such irritation. Modern society pretends to be appaled by 'bullies' in our childrens schools. The same hypocrites allow their children to spend evening hours watching one individual after the next enduring public humiliation after being kicked off the island for simply being unpopular. You know - to satisfy the inner bully in all of us.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting sympathy for reality television contestants. These are fame seeking adults only allowed such opportunity due to the most proffitable fad in network television history. If this country has any chance of surviving the next decade I trust the American people will someday again demand producers hire talented writers to make scripts performed by professional actors. Otherwise I am afraid the next generation will grow up idolizing adult bullies with an 8th grade education who vote others out of the house for displaying unpopular behavior - like the ability to complete a proper sentence.

by: Darrin Barker