Easy to refute prof’s assertions
I would like to thank Professor Bakken for proving my point. I said the supporters of AGW “either ignored the entire revelations, attacked the whistleblower, or attempted to minimize the importance”.
First he brings three literary examples of ice conditions at the north pole over the last century (correlates how?). Then he makes an uncited claim about temperatures rising from this decade to the past, despite e-mails by the IPCC (the premier global warming institute) stating, and I quote, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” That was Kevin Trenberth (head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change) to Michael Mann (Climatology professor Penn State, author of the fraudulent hockey stick graph). This does not sound like a measured temperature increase to me.
You will also recall Professor Bakken attempted to defend Climate models by saying they “are better now than they were years ago when the e-mails Mr. Sherrill refers to were written”. The e-mail I just cited was written Oct. 12, 2009. Have they improved that much in the last couple months?
Climate change is a natural cycle on this planet. We go through periods of warming and cooling on a regular basis, some more extreme than others (see little ice age). Looking at 100 years or even 500 years is like looking at 10 feet of I-70 in Missouri and telling me “I know the road conditions in Ohio.” Throw in cherry picking of data and you are flat out guessing. This science is fraudulent.
The good professor then showed his stripes with the liberal drivel about wars for oil. If we wanted Oil from Iraq, Hussein would have been more than happy to sell all we would purchase. Instead, we decided that enriching someone who will likely use the money to train terrorists sounded like a bad idea.
Professor Bakken also threw in the obligatory call for renewable energy, which is nearly useless at the moment since it produces too little and costs too much except for nuclear energy which liberals such as he oppose.
One last thing. Though I am reluctant to say a good word for Exxon-Mobile or oil companies in general, these companies are the ones actually spending their profits on experiments with oil producing algae, ethanol from plant sources and many other “renewable energies” in the hope they will make a profit. The universities are seeking more taxpayer money for grants for studying “renewable energies”. Who has the greater incentive to succeed?
— Michael C. Sherrill
Marshall, Ill.
Reform only solution to homegrown jihad
Instances of home-grown jihad (such as the Fort Hood shootings) are increasing in America. It is important that Americans understand the ideology behind these events and the importance of supporting moderate Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.mzuhdijasser.com, www.aifdemocracy.org) and the group Muslims Against Sharia (www.reformislam.org) who seek to bring about reform in Islam.
Islam is a religious, cultural and political system (www.politicalislam.com). Only the political teachings of Islam are of interest to non-Muslims because they determine how non-Muslims are treated by Islam.
The political teachings of Islam consist of jihad (Islamic Holy War against non-Muslims) and Sharia (Islamic Law) which mandates the subjugation, oppression and exploitation of women and non-Muslims. Two principles, “nasikh” (abrogation), “taqiyya’ (deceit) and the Doctrine of Weakness and Strength, are important in understanding the political teachings of Islam.
The Principle of Abrogation (“nasikh”) states that the peaceful teachings of Islam revealed in Mecca have been abrogated by the jihad and Sharia teachings of Islam revealed in Medina at a later date. The Principle of Deceit (“taqiyya”) is exemplified by the words “war is deceit.” In practice, this means that non-Muslims should be told that Islam is a Religion of Peace (using the peaceful teachings of Islam revealed in Mecca), while not telling them that those teachings have been abrogated by the jihad and Sharia teachings revealed in Medina at a later date.
The Doctrine of Weakness and Strength recommends accepting almost anything when in a position of weakness, but recommends unleashing jihad and Sharia on non-Muslims when in a position of strength.
Acting on the Political Teachings of Islam is leading to acts of treason, such as the Fort Hood shootings.
Dr. Zudhi Jasser and the group Muslims Against Sharia are fighting for Islamic reform to separate religion from politics in Islam: this will allow American Muslims to have spiritual allegiance to Islam and political allegiance to the United States. This is the only solution to the problem of homegrown jihad and is supported by Dr. Mark Gabriel, an ex-Muslim and author of several books including “Culture Clash: Islam’s War Against the West”, and formerly a professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, the foremost Islamic University in the world.
— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar
Terre Haute
The absence of firearms doesn’t ensure safety
Could not believe the lack of knowledge displayed in your editorial about “legislators should firmly stand up to the gun lobby”. The “gun lobby” is the Second Amendment lobby. You know, the amendment which you seem to think does not have the same meaning as the First Amendment which guarantees the Tribune-Star the right to exist.
You state that “maybe if Indiana had a few more safeguards in place regarding legal gun ownership … But the state does not. Rifles and shotguns? No permit, registration, license or permit to carry is required to own one — or dozens.” No, the only thing required is that at the time of purchase the buyer has to fill out a FEDERAL form and go through an FBI background Instacheck before they can take possession of the weapon. The same law applies in every state.
Apparently, an FBI background check doesn’t satisfy you. Or maybe you were ignorant of the fact. The federal government does not require background checks for guns purchased from individuals. There is no such thing as a “non-licensed dealer” and the feds observe gun shows to enforce this.
You argue that property owners (employers) have the right to provide a safe workplace for their employees. The employee’s vehicle is not the employer’s property. It is the property of the employee as any employee who has had drugs found in their vehicle at work can attest.
You equate the absence of firearms with safety. Every mass shooting in the U.S. has occurred in a “gun free” zone — Fort Hood, Columbine, shopping centers, office buildings, cafeterias. They might as well put up big signs telling the nut cases to come in and do whatever they want because everyone is defenseless. They should be called “murder zones” rather than “gun free zones”.
You have never heard of a mass shooting at a gun show or a shooting range. There is a reason for that.
— Mike Williams
Clinton
