Warming or Cooling?

NASA has a graphic which shows the global temperature deviations from seasonal averages for every month since 1979 through 2003. The most striking thing about the graphic is that although it seems like some places are consistently warmer than the seasonal average other places are consistently cooler. In other words, to the extent that warming is occuring it appears to be occuring locally or regionally and not uniformly around the globe.

Canada and the arctic seem to be warming while the southern states, Central, and South America seem to be cooling.

The bottom graph is the average global deviation from the long-term mean. You can select any month by moving the cursor across the graph. It appears that the average global temperature fluctuates around the mean spending as much time below it as above it (except for a bit of a spike in May of 1998).

So what's it all mean? I'm not sure, but it certainly suggests that the situation is more complex than the global warming people are letting on. The ambiguity of the data causes us to wonder what motivates those like The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen who are so eager to have everyone believe that the earth is getting warmer that they want to forcibly silence all dissent from that opinion by having dissenters stripped of their scientific credentials.

HT: Uncommon Descent

RLC

Banning Hate Speech

WorldNet Daily has a very disturbing report on how hate speech legislation is being used in Australia and Europe to muzzle and intimidate anyone who would criticize minority individuals or groups:

Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized.

All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.

There's much more on this proposed legislation at the link and all of it is frightening.

Here's a question: If the legislation passes and it becomes illegal to use any language that communicates hate or even mere disapproval, will we be putting liberals in jail for expressing their feelings about George Bush and Dick Cheney? Just wondering.

RLC

Comes the Dark Horse

The more astute political pundits are beginning to discern a dark horse in the Republican race that few in the media have been discussing. In fairness to the pundits they haven't been discussing him because he is not yet a declared candidate. Nevertheless, he polls consistently high in almost every survey of Republican voters and for good reason. He is probably the most conservative of the viable candidates and certainly the deepest thinker of any candidate of either major party.

Dick Morris has taken note and writes about him at The Hill.

RLC

Myth of Sisyphus

There's an ancient Greek myth about a man named Sisyphus who, having offended the gods, was punished by being condemned to push a heavy stone up a hill. When he finally reached the summit the boulder would roll back down to the bottom. Sisyphus would then have to push it back up again only to have the same thing happen every time he got to the top. This was this poor man's fate - to push that stone up the hill over and over again for eternity.

The Greeks thought this to be a wonderful metaphor for absolutely pointless, mind-numbing absurdity. If they were alive today they'd have an even better metaphor. Sisyphus, in the modern version, would be strapped into a chair in front of a television and given a remote, but no matter which of the 100 channels he selected there would be somebody talking about Anna Nicole Smith. Forever.

I can't imagine how empty must be the lives of those celebrities who live like Ms Smith lived, but even worse, I can't imagine how shallow must be the people who devote their days to reporting on the lives of such as Ms Smith. At the end of the day what exactly have they done to make the world a better place? What have they accomplished? How is going to their job in the morning any different than Sisyphus leaning his shoulder against the rock one more time?

Equally as inane, if not moreso, are the lives of those who actually find such talk to be interesting.

It's no wonder radical Muslims believe that our culture is corrupting the whole world. A lot of it is.

RLC

Defeating Iran

Victor Davis Hanson offers a prescription for Iran that sounds very much like what the Bush administration, insofar as we can tell, is already doing, except for his last suggestion. The last suggestion, lowering the price of oil through conservation, is critical to impoverishing Iran, but there doesn't seem to be much encouragement from the White House on this front. Be that as it may, what VDH recommends is a means to bring about the collapse of Iran's nutty leadership without having to resort to war, or at least an invasion. Here's the heart of it:

We can begin to do this by pushing international accords and doggedly ratcheting up the weak United Nations sanctions. Even if they don't do much to Iran in any significant way, the resolutions seem to enrage Ahmadinejad. And when he rages at the United Nations, he only loses further support, especially in the Third World. We should start another fissure by prodding the European Union, presently Iran's chief trading partner, to be more vocal and resolute in pressuring Iran. The so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - failed completely to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. But out of that setback came a growing realization among Europeans that a nuclear-tipped missile from theocratic Iran could soon hit Europe just as easily as it could Israel. Now Europeans should adopt a complete trade embargo to prevent Iranian access to precision machinery and high technology otherwise unobtainable from mischievous Russia and China.

Americans should continue to support Iranian dissidents. We need not encourage dissidents to go into the street, where they could be shot. Instead we can offer them media help and access to the West. Americans can highlight the plight of women, minorities and liberals in Iran - just the groups that so appeal to the elite Western left.

And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.

The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.

At the same time, we need to remind the Gulf monarchies that a nuclear Shiite theocracy is far more dangerous to them than either the United States or Israel - and that America's efforts to contain Iran depend on their own to rein in Wahhabis in Iraq.

We should say nothing much about the presence of two or three U.S. carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. Iran will soon grasp on its own that the build-up of such forces might presage air strikes that the United States excels in - and not more ground fighting that the American public apparently won't any longer stomach.

We must continue to make clear that Israel is a sovereign nation with a perfect right to protect itself. Sixty years after the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister will sit still idly while seventh-century theocrats grandstand about wiping out Israel.

Let's also keep our distance and moderate our rhetoric. There's no reason to frighten average Iranians - who may share our antipathy to their country's regime - or to make therapeutic pleas to talk with those leaders in bunkers whom we know are our enemies.

Finally, and most importantly, Americans must conserve energy, gasify coal, diversify fuels, drill more petroleum and invent new energy sources. Only that can collapse the world price of petroleum.

As we have said in the past, anything would be preferable to war with Iran. Anything except allowing Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons.

RLC

More on <i>Friend of God</i>

Michael Linton offers a review of Alexandra Pelosi's documentary on evangelical christians called Friends of God about which we've written here. Linton points out that Pelosi seems very sympathetic to evangelical Christianity and that her documentary is mostly a fair presentation.

Maybe it is fair, but I have to wonder what sort of message it sends to the secular world about Christians. After reading her discussion with pastor Ted Haggard, for instance, one is left flabbergasted that someone who had risen to such a high position of responsibility and visibility in the church turns out to be such a ... well, a jerk. And this was taped before the news of his sordid homosexual sex life became public.

Read Linton's piece to see what I mean.

RLC

Rumors of Bin Laden's Death

Rumors are circulating that Osama bin Laden has died earlier this month of typhoid. This site has the details in an article by Robert Fox. The conclusion of his piece is a little strange, though. He claims that bin Laden's death would be a blow to neo-conservatives and would require a re-thinking of the global war on terror. Why this should be the case Fox does not explain, and so we're left to ponder the odd logic of asserting that bin Laden's demise will be a setback for those people who have for a decade wanted to see him dead.

At any rate, the reports are unconfirmed at this point.

RLC

The Shadow War

Well. Bill Roggio reports that a bus carrying Iranian Revolutionary Guards soldiers was blown up by a car bomb which killed 18 Iranian troops. Roggio is suspicious that this might be payback for Iranian complicity in the deaths of American soldiers although there's no evidence of American involvement.

In the same post he notes a few more developments in the war against Mookie al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Baghdad. It's interesting reading.

RLC

Slow-Bleeding the Troops

John Murtha, whose willingness to accept a bribe was documented on tape in the Abscam scandal of the early eighties, is, as chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee, working with anti-war groups to make it almost impossible for the White House to win in Iraq. Realizing that an American victory would be a devastating blow to Democrats for years to come, and believing that the American people would punish the Democrats if they overtly used congressional power to cut off funds for the war, Murtha, Pelosi and others seem to have chosen subterfuge over principle. Rather than hold a straight up or down vote on cutting off funding for the war, they have opted for a more furtive, more obscure way of accomplishing the same thing. Their ploy will enable them to conceal their handiwork from the voters behind a faux concern for the troops:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

There's more on the Dems strategy at the link. It certainly looks like a strategy born of political cowardice. It also looks like their plan is almost certain to result in increased American casualties since it will be difficult for the military to send reinforcements to aid those troops already in the field. Perhaps I and others misunderstand what the Democrats are doing with this proposal, but if not, the details of it are as cynical as they are despicable.

One wonders how fat Murtha's wallet has grown on this one.

RLC

Has al-Masri Been Captured?

The successor to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is a man named Abu al-Masri. Breitbart has a report that al-Masri was wounded in fighting with Iraqi forces:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was wounded and an aide was killed in a clash Thursday with Iraqi forces north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.

The clash occurred near Balad, a major U.S. base about 50 miles north of the capital, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Khalaf said al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was wounded and his aide, identified as Abu Abdullah al-Majemaai, was killed.

Khalaf declined to say how Iraqi forces knew al-Masri had been injured, and there was no report on the incident from U.S. authorities.

Deputy Interior Minister Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal said he had no information about such a clash or that al-Masri had been involved.

Al-Masri took over the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after its charismatic leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. airstrike last June in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

If this report is confirmed it should have a chilling effect on those waiting in line to fill the role of leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Who wants to take a position that offers such lousy retirement benefits and such poor job security.

RLC

The Chicksters

Paul Nowak puts the Dixie Chicks in perspective and, with a single drawing, manages to make them appear whiny, self-absorbed, and historically oblivious, which, of course, they are:

I wonder if any of them have ever even heard of Solzhenitsyn.

RLC

No Story Here

It seems now that there has been yet another rape allegation in Durham, North Carolina. A woman alleges that she was assaulted at a house party, a circumstance similar to the case in which the Duke lacrosse players were accused, falsely, of having raped an "exotic" dancer.

The second case even has another similarity to the first in that it is an interracial incident. Nevertheless, despite the media obsession with the Duke case, and its similarities with this second case, you probably haven't heard about the recent incident. Why do you suppose that is? Does not our media salivate like Pavlov's dogs at the thought of writing about white on black crime? Then why hasn't it jumped on the second case? One guess.

Some crimes evidently don't matter as much to the folks who report our news as do others.

RLC

Atheism, Theism, and Design

One often hears, despite numerous attempts to disabuse people of the notion, that Intelligent Design is religious because it leads inevitably to the conclusion that the designer must be the God of the Bible. This is nonsense, of course, but the objection persists because were it ever to be given up it would open the door for ID to be taught in public schools and once that happened Darwinism would go the way of Marxism and Freudianism.

Telic Thoughts has a post on a 1982 speech given by Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the most famous scientists of the twentieth century. Hoyle was an atheist but, as impossible as it might seem to some of ID's opponents, he believed in the intelligent design of life on earth.

Read the article to see what Hoyle advocated. The point is that ID, to the disappointment of theists and atheists alike, does not necessarily entail the God of the Bible and is, ironically, compatible with both. What it's not compatible with is the materialist interpretation of Darwin which says that physical processes like the laws of chemistry and physics, plus time and chance, are all that's required to explain life and the cosmos.

Hoyle believes that the designer is part of this universe. It is possible, though, that the designer transcends this universe, but is still not the God that Christians worship. Physicists talk of the possibility of other universes existing beyond our own. If there are such worlds out there it's possible that an inhabitant of one of them designed our world. If speculations about the existence of other worlds is a legitimate topic of scientific discourse then so must be the possibility of an intelligence in such a world being capable of designing other worlds. Again, the point is that whether ID is a scientific theory or not, it is clearly not religious. It does, however, have religious implications, just as does materialistic Darwinism.

RLC

If I Die

Here's a great song written and sung, I believe, by a soldier in Iraq. It's titled If I Die Before You Wake. Give it a listen.

RLC

Gettin' Outa' Dodge

While Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha prophesy that Bush's new policy in Iraq will be a dismal failure and seek to cut off funding for the troop surge, ABC pulls the rug out from under them with this report:

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

In other words the chief trouble-maker in Baghdad has hightailed it to Iran, which, of course is being falsely accused by the Bush administration for supporting the insurgency.

Why did the Mookster get out of town? Obviously he wasn't buying the Democrats' rhetoric that the surge would do no good. Apparently his patron in the government, prime minister al-Maliki, had finally grown impatient with Mookie's antics and withdrew his protection. Consequently, the dentally challenged sheik, like his ancestors in Babylon four thousand years ago, read the hand-writing on the wall and decided to take his lieutenants and run.

The question now arises as to how effective he will be as an absentee jihadi. How much street cred has he lost among the rank and file for absconding and leaving them to face the American troops and their firepower alone. If, in fact, al Sadr, far removed from the action, has lost his influence among the faithful then Bush's plan scored at least one major success before it was even implemented.

Don't expect Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews to place much emphasis on the point, though. They're too busy trying to make a big deal out of pentagon sources backing off from earlier claims that the Iranian government must know about the supplies of Iranian weapons being smuggled into Iraq.

RLC

GOP Straw Poll

Captain's Quarters offers an opportunity to participate in a GOP straw poll if you wish. Go here and cast your vote for whom you'd like to see representing the Republicans in '08. You can also follow the links to view the overall results of the poll thus far.

RLC

Myths About Atheism (Pt. X)

This is the final post in our series on the Ten Myths About Atheism that atheist Sam Harris seeks to refute in an article he wrote for Edge.

The 10th "myth" is one that Viewpoint readers might be forgiven for thinking that we have addressed almost every other day since we started this blog over three years ago, but it is such an important matter, and it seems to pop up so often, that it bears constant attention. Mr. Harris claims it to be a myth that:

Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran - as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery - and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture - like the golden rule - can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

Harris simply misses the point in the first paragraph above and manages to elicit a host of questions in the reader's mind that he himself leaves unasked and unanswered. Why, for example, does he believe that cruelty is wrong? What makes it wrong? Is it wrong because evolution has hard-wired us to have certain intuitions that cause us to consider it wrong? What if someone (there have been many, many examples) doesn't have such intuitions, would cruelty not be wrong for them? And if our moral intuitions are the products of evolution what could possibly obligate us to abide by them?

He suggests that these moral intuitions have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about how best to promote human happiness, but he does not answer the question why it should be a duty to promote the happiness of others rather than just his own happiness. In other words, an atheistic worldview such as Harris espouses offers no grounds for saying that egoism or selfishness is wrong and more altruistic ethical behaviors are right. Why should I not promote my own happiness even if it comes at the expense of the welfare of others?

Indeed, the only way we can determine that it is better to care about others than to care only for oneself is to hold both views up to a higher ethical standard, a moral dictionary, so to speak, and ask which conforms best to this higher standard. The problem is that for the atheist there is no higher standard. The choice between egoism and altruism reduces to nothing more than personal preference. It's a purely arbitrary selection not binding upon anyone, not even the person who holds the preference.

Harris' secondary claim that our moral progress hasn't come from reading the Bible is historically dubious, as is the assertion that the Bible condones slavery. But be that as it may, his claim that every civilized person now recognizes that slavery is an abomination is an obfuscation. It is only those people whose morality is based on the will of God as revealed through the scripture who have any basis for making such a judgment. Slavery is an abomination for only one reason: All human beings are made in the image of God and are loved by Him. We belong to Him and He has endowed us all with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus no man has the right to treat another as his own property. It is interesting in this regard that the abolitionist movement in both England and the United States was lead by Christians and nourished by the church. Had it been left to secularists and secular institutions slavery would probnably still be with us today.

If there is no God then any man has the "right" to do whatever he has the power to do. In a world without God slavery is not an abomination, it is simply one man exercising power over another. Such an exercise is neither good nor bad, it just is. This is why, when a nation becomes officially atheistic, as did communist nations during the twentieth century, one of the first casualties is invariably the concept of human rights.

Previous posts in this series may be accessed by clicking on the following links: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V and VI, Part VII, Part VIII, and Part IX.

RLC

Marcotte Resigns

The sweet, demure Amanda Marcotte has regrettably resigned her post as blogmaster for the John Edwards campaign. I'm sure the entire campaign staff breathed a sigh of relief when Amanda chose to decamp depriving the ambulance-chaser of her legendary charm and wit. Here's a sample of what the Edwards folks got when they hired Ms Marcotte. One has to wonder what kind of people John Edwards has put in charge of his campaign that they would have thought this sort of thing appropriate to represent a man who aspires to be president of the United States.

Caution: this is most definitely not for children.

In a way it's too bad Marcotte resigned. She would have provided all of us with many mirthful moments during the primaries.

RLC

Panning <i>Jesus Camp</i>

Joe Carter skewers Jesus Camp, a documentary supposedly about Evangelicals but, according to Carter, really about Pentacostals. Jesus Camp has been nominated for an Academy Award (although as PC as Jesus Camp may be, it probably has no chance of winning against Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth), but I haven't seen it so I can't comment on Carter's review. If you've seen the film, you might want to check Carter's post out for yourself.

RLC

Is Assassination Moral?

A week or so ago I invited comment on reports that the Israelis had assassinated a key Iranian physicist working on their nuclear weapons program. I asked if killing this man averted a wider war and possibly a nuclear explosion in an American city would it be the morally right thing to do. Here are several of the responses we received. The following opinions should not be assumed to be consonant with our own views:

I am all for the assassination of Iran's top nuclear scientists. It doesn't seem like anything else will stop them from continuing down the dark road to nuclear power. One thing to keep in mind though is that the U.S.A. has to keep its hands "clean" of the matter. Otherwise the world will once again call us a "bully" and constantly attack our world cop nature. Also Iran would most likely be very upset by the time it actually develops nuclear weapons, and be very volatile. Of course from what I understand they're already quite volatile and very likely to use their nuclear prowess when it becomes available. Maybe I'm not really for the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists, I just like the sound of it. NM

--------------

If we are to make the assumption that a war was certainly averted by assassinating Iran's physicist, then I say it was the most moral thing that could have been done. Who can argue that losing one life is not preferred to losing thousands of lives? I suppose that one could argue that had the physicist been allowed to live and war broke out there would still be hope for a positive outcome. What that positive outcome could be I have not the slightest idea. I think that the world would look back after a war and ask why there was not more done to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.

On the other hand, perhaps the guilty party should have spared the man's life and destroyed the nuclear technology the man was working with instead. That would certainly halt the production of nukes, at least until new machinery and equipment could be acquired. That would be the morally superior thing to do, that is, if destroying a nuclear facility could be done with the assurance that people at, or nearby, the facility would not be killed in the process.

The ultimate question here is whether or not more lives were ultimately saved by killing one. But who can really answer that? There are too many variables to consider. We will never know for sure if the actions taken truly result in the saving of lives. Situations like this one are tough because there is no clear right way to go. If it were up to me, I would not have killed the man because I am confident that I should not murder under any personal circumstances. But, under the authority of a government like this was (if it was indeed done by the Israelis), I have no problem choosing to act in favor of the lesser of two evils. SL

-------------

I think that every attempt to maintain peace in the Middle East should be made because if it isn't there will be a disasterous affect throughout the world. There might have been better ways to go about this, but this was effective. Taking the lives of people is always a questionable deal, but in this situation I think it might have been the right step. DJ

------------

Is this ethical? Wow, that is a loaded question...even if it can be worked out that assassinations to avert nuclear war are a morally okay thing...who decides who the targets are? Why the scientist overseeing production? Why not the people who are actually ordering the production to exist in the first place? Why not those who run a government which would support such a plan?

It is a difficult thing to say that murder is ever morally fine; however I feel there is precedent in history for such singular acts in order to save lives. If you see a man walking into a school with a gun, do you say please stop, or do you go into action to stop him? Be it you or the police, one would naturally say force. This is because there are situations where our "instinct" to protect, or our desire to avoid a coming calamity shows us the course of action to take. This might, on another day, be considered amoral. However, there are situations where force is warranted. JY

-------------

I do not believe that assassinating nuclear scientists is a moral or workable solution to the Iran problem. First of all, killing a man for his abilities is a dangerous thing to do. Arguments could then be made for killing young Arab men who could potentially become suicide bombers that would become a slippery slope. Assassination is viewed worldwide as cowardly and wrong. It is not right to kill a person for their deeds without a proper trial. Not only is this morally wrong, it would not serve its purpose. If nuclear scientists are killed, new ones will receive training, and take over research. Problems are always best settled head on, though that sometimes is not the easiest way. A band aid over the gaping wound that is Iran would do no one any good. MS

All of these comments came from college students.

RLC