Daniel Mongiardo’s wild Afghanistan conspiracy theory is, uh, wild. [Barefoot & Progressive]
The seven biggest lies about the alleged global warming hoax. [HuffPo]
A celebrity chef dinner series will feature Kentucky Proud products at the 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games. ['Ville Voice Eats]
Ed Whitfield is now an Afghan war expert. [Jim Carroll]
Kentucky Farm Bureau kicked off its annual meeting with no mention of Todd Eklof and his illegal firing. [WFPL]
Actually, kids, that prominent Republican is an employee of Rand Paul’s senate campaign. Nice try, though. Love it when people who can’t handle the facts immediately attempt to suggest I get no traffic or that I don’t matter. [Haha]
Or maybe it’s the One World Gubmint and the Illuminati? You’ll never know. [Barefoot & Progressive]
Kentuckians can now vote on the 2010 election slogan, whatever that means. [Press Release]
Larry Hayes basically admits that Gas Station Governor Steve Beshear got played by Harley Davidson. All right for economic development! (Surely the Beshear crew will try to nix yet another advertising contract of mine because I have the audacity to point out what an embarrassment the GSGub has become.) [C-J]
This should make all the conspiracy theory-types really happy about using Sprint. All right for big brother surveillance. [Ars Technica]
4 responses so far ↓
1 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:25 pm
It doesn’t take a scientist with credentials to understand that the general premise that we have not been able to isolate man’s impact on climate of as delineated from the other more influential variables (oceans and the sun).
For example, how can you determine how much replacement tires for a truck increase the trucks fuel efficiency over a 2-month period, without having a full understanding of how fast the truck was driven during that period, the cargo weights, and if it was driven in town or on the highway.
We have just scratched the surface of understanding solar and ocean cycles, and their impacts on global temperatures over long periods of time. How can we determine what impact man has, without first understanding those variables which are far greater.
As such, there is no way to quantify man’s impact, without first being able to quantify the other variables inputs into that system.
Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents are relying on faith in the consensus, which is a dangerous thing. Consensus has no place in science, only open testing and the reproduction of similar results. Consensus is the currency of politicians and advocates.
We should be focusing in more immediate concerns which will impact the lives of everyone in the very near future. Most importantly, the availability of fresh water and the quality of that water.
2 briansmith // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Funny how Exxon Ed Whitfield can only find the Army when he’s up for re-anointment. The KDP needs to sack up and find an opponent in the First District.
3 tbrauch // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:19 am
“Most importantly, the availability of fresh water and the quality of that water.”
Regardless of human’s impact on global warming, don’t you think the green intiatives undertaken to prevent global warming have had a positive effect on the environment?
Or do you think just throwing all of our trash into landfills instead of recycling has no effect on the quality of ground water surrounding those landfills?
My thoughts, whether human influenced global warming is real or not, what is being done to prevent it creates an overall improvement on the health of the people.
4 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm
tbranch,
I think you should do a cost/benefit analysis of the anti-global warming effort. Your statement is correct in that reducing global warming is likely to have a net positive effect on the environment, but we should be focusing on the benefit per dollar invested in that movement.
If we were to spend a fraction of the money being spent on global warming research and tax tax credits issued against CO2 emitters and focus those monies, for example, on new waste water treatment technologies, water use reduction technologies, salt water desalinization technologies, we would have a far greater impact on the environment for the money invested.
Spending billions of dollars on something that, even if true, will not have any significant impact in the short term when we have more pressing issues in the short term, seems to me a waste on money.
It would be like depositing your entire paycheck into your IRA for retirement instead of paying your mortgage, when you are getting ready to get foreclosed on and your family is going to be homeless by the end of the month.
Sure investing in your retirement is a prudent thing to do, but you have more short-term pressing concerns that you should be spending that money on. There isn’t an infinite amount of money to spend, so we should focus it on the most pressing issues. Especially when the long-term climate models vary by 400%.
Leave a Comment