Happy St. Valentine’s Day

heart_20070214072611_74422.jpgA candy heart from Candy Slice. (Idea shamelessly stolen from Michelle Malkin.)

Here’s some info on St. Valentine’s Day; yes, I like to keep the Saint in St. Valentine’s day; sometime just to peeve my kids’ teachers.

Saint Valentine’s Day

The popular customs associated with Saint Valentine’s Day undoubtedly had their origin in a conventional belief generally received in England and France during the Middle Ages, that on 14 February, i.e. half way through the second month of the year, the birds began to pair. Thus in Chaucer’s Parliament of Foules we read:

For this was sent on Seynt Valentyne’s day
Whan every foul cometh ther to choose his mate.

For this reason the day was looked upon as specially consecrated to lovers and as a proper occasion for writing love letters and sending lovers’ tokens. Both the French and English literatures of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries contain allusions to the practice. Perhaps the earliest to be found is in the 34th and 35th Ballades of the bilingual poet, John Gower, written in French; but Lydgate and Clauvowe supply other examples. Those who chose each other under these circumstances seem to have been called by each other their Valentines. In the Paston Letters, Dame Elizabeth Brews writes thus about a match she hopes to make for her daughter (we modernize the spelling), addressing the favoured suitor:

And, cousin mine, upon Monday is Saint Valentine’s Day and every bird chooses himself a mate, and if it like you to come on Thursday night, and make provision that you may abide till then, I trust to God that ye shall speak to my husband and I shall pray that we may bring the matter to a conclusion.

Shortly after the young lady herself wrote a letter to the same man addressing it “Unto my rightwell beloved Valentine, John Paston Esquire”. The custom of choosing and sending valentines has of late years fallen into comparative desuetude.

Barbara Curtis at Mommy Life talks about the real St. Valentine’s day and the evolution of the holiday.

Leave a Comment

Ice Storm cancels Global Warming meeting!

Fresh off the Drudge Report this morning:

HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph…increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

And Al Gore reaches out to kids and explains Global Warming in terms they can understand:

Conservative UAW Guy has a few things to say too.

Sister Toldjah reminds us of Al Gore’s bad day.

And more from – Pirate’s Cove

And Jammie Wearing Fool 

And HotAir

Oh – and did you know that St. Valentine’s Day contributes to global warming?

Heretics in the Church of Environmentalism

Comments (3)

Mitt Romney announces at The Henry Ford Museum

It’s important to note that the announcement is being made at a museum that embodies everything that is really cool about the growing industry and technology in our country. If you are ever fortunate enough to visit the museum, you can stand before the vehicle in which John F. Kennedy was riding when he was shot in Dallas and the very bus Rosa Parks bravely became the “Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.”

So why would there be a problem with his announcing at The Henry Ford Museum? The NJDC has this to say:

“NJDC is deeply troubled by Governor Romney’s choice of locations to announce his Presidential campaign. Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life. Yet he chooses to kick off his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe. Mitt Romney’s embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford’s legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney’s words or his understanding of basic American history,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman.

Let’s get this straight – Democrat presidential candidate hires a Catholicophobe blogger and the left doesn’t have a problem with this. What she said in her blog should have nothing to do with the candidate (according to them).

Democrats elect a former Klansman as a senator.

Here are a few more great points from Yid with Lid:

OK so lets change the subject because Hillary is their sacred Icon and she can do NO wrong. How about other Democrats who are “Jewish Challenged” Why doesn’t the NJDC Blast them?

People like:

Congressman James “Jews control foreign policy” Moran (D-Va.)
John “I like Hezbollah” Dingell (D-Mich)

Or the Group who voted against a bill this past summer saying that Israel has a right to defend herself. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, John Conyers of Michigan, John Dingell of Michigan, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, Jim McDermott of Washington, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Pete Stark of California. In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed her name as a co-sponsor of this important resolution because she didn’t want to be associated with it.

How come I never hear of the NJDC Blasting Hillary or Wesley or any of their cabal of “Jewishly” challenged representatives? But when Mitt Romney decides to make a Pro-Business declaration speech at the Ford Museum because the auto industry is badly in need of a solution….. WHAMMO! How could he do that?

Why weren’t they praising Romney when he said the following at the Herzliya conference last month?

“The war in Lebanon demonstrated that Israel is facing a jihadist threat that runs through Tehran, to Damascus, to Gaza. Hizbullah are not fighting for the coming into being of a Palestinian state, but for the going out of being of the Israeli state”

Certainly liberal Democrats wouldn’t be hypocritical?  Mitt Romney is announcing at a museum glorifying accomplishments of all Americans, not an anti-semite shrine for a man that died in 1947.

Comments (4)

Catholicophobe, Amanda Marcotte, resigns as Edwards’ sweet blogger

Remember how she apologized. Remember how she said she didn’t mean to offend? Remember it was all in jest – satire – parody? Well, being the upstanding young gentlewoman that she is, she’s decided to step aside and allow the Edwards campaign not be tarnished by her speckled past.

She is, however, working on a new campaign!

The number of times she references Donhue, the head of the Catholic League, in her blog could lead one to wonder if she’s really attracted to the guy and has done all of this to garner his attention. Such behavior is common amongst children.

Back to her Catholicophobic blog – How will her readers take her seriously again? It was all a joke, remember? What about this latest campaign – a parody?

Oh sweet, sweet, Amanda. What a pickle you’ve gotten yourself into.

Great video here.

A fun video here!

More background info here.

Leave a Comment

Congratulations Dixie Chick! 5 Grammys

How does a group that’s not even nominated for a Country Music Award walk away with wins in all country categories for which they were nominated at the Grammys? Nothing political in that. No, Hollywood wasn’t trying to make a statement or anything.

The Chicks can’t hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. “A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do,” says Robison.

“A lot of pandering started going on, and you’d see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.”

“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”

Some excellent comments and quotes at Wiz Bang.

And an appearance by Al Gore – what a bonus!

Leave a Comment

Heretics in the Church of Environmentalism

It’s frustrating being a non-believer – an atheist in the Church of Environmentalism. “Have you switched to the new lights yet?” No, they are annoying and I just prefer to turn my lights off to save energy money. Yes, I’m a non-believer – or perhaps an agnostic because I believe the climate might be changing, but I don’t believe that man is the cause. I’m a “Denier.”

All deniers aren’t equal opportunity deniers, and an all-purpose stigma inhibits rational argument. We see this illustrated on Page One every morning. Skeptics of global warming are compared to Holocaust deniers. The ecologically correct become eco-heresy hunters determined to silence anyone who questions their evidence, flimsy and questionable or not. Any human destruction of nature is described as “ecocide” (like genocide.) When David Irving was sentenced to prison in Austria as a “Holocaust denier” an Australian journalist suggested making climate-change denial a similar offense. An Internet commentator wants global-warming deniers to be tried like Nazi war criminals.

But how can I be a denier when the “scientists” and Al Gore evangelize in the newpapers, on television, and in flashy documentaries? And now, the IPCC – the Church of Environmentalism’s own Council of Nicea, just issued its own Catechism, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. The heretics are already daring to dispute it.

Imagine that the results of some scientific research are relevant for policymaking. What is the right ordering of the events? Do we first find out the technical results by the scientific method and determine the conclusions for policymaking afterwards, or do we first determine what the conclusions for policymaking should be, and then do the research so that it will agree with the policymaking goals?

That’s a stupid question, isn’t it?

I guess that most high-energy physicists and perhaps even most scientists would answer that the first scenario is correct while the second one violates every basic principle of science. It is simply impossible to assure that scientific research will confirm some predetermined political conclusions without committing scientific fraud. The whole point of scientific work of any kind is that it can change some of the assumptions we started with. And any research usually does change these things unless it is useless.

Steve McIntyre has figured out that the climate science follows very different rules than science. On 2/2/2007, i.e. next Friday, the summary of the IPCC international climate report for policymakers will be released. However, the full report won’t be released until May 2007. What will the IPCC people do in these three months? Well, the answer can be found on page “4 of 15” of this

Search for “grammatical”. It explains their version of the scientific method unambiguously:

  • Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

The new new math of the IPCC holy documents:

Adjusting arithmetics

Because the summary for policymakers is a Holy Scripture and the researchers now have 3 months to make the full report consistent, it is clear that they will have to change some rules of mathematics. Open the SPM, go to the page 5 of 21 and you will find Table SPM-0 there. The fifth line claims to be the sum of the previous four contributions to the sea level rise. However, for example in the 1993-2003 column, it would require 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 to be equal to 0.28 instead of 0.657. Note that with the value 0.657, the predicted value would differ from the observed value by more than five observed sigmas.

Also, the sum of four terms seems to be 5-10 times more accurate than the error of the Antarctic contribution. What a miraculous way of adding things. 😉 An average climate scientist would fix these problems simply by adding some random zeros to the Greenland or Antarctic contribution, to obtain an agreement. However, you can’t mess up with the summary, a Holy Scripture. So what must happen according to their rules is that the full report will prove that 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 = 0.28. I am sure that they will find some climate scientists if not mathematicians who will defend the consensus that this sum is different than your calculator would expect. 😉 I hope that many people will be looking forward to this new breakthrough in mathematics proving that the climate change is more catastrophic and the underlying science is more solid than anyone has ever anticipated.

Shall we see Dr. Christopher Landsea laicized for having the audacity to resign from the IPCC while pointing out its politicization? (The letter is long, but well worth reading in its entirety.)

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent the Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has and used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,
Chris Landsea

Is there a fiery stake awaiting Henrik Svensmark for daring to point out a “round world?”

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

There Church of Environmentalism/Global Warming has many heretics and I’m happy to be one of them. If you’ve got the time – please read this interview, The Politics of Global Warming, with Timothy Ball, PhD (PhD in Climatology from the University of London and was a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years).

Comments (5)

When you talk nastily about a lot of people – you’re bound to pull a “Rosie”

It’s a matter of odds. If you spend a certain amount of time each day saying awful things about people, mocking them for laughs – odds are, your timing is really going to stink and well, you’ll pull a “Rosie.”

Is the following supposed to be apologetic in her twisted way? Instead she seems as if she’s trying to justify her drug remarks and her portrayal of a dazed and incoherent Anna Nicole Smith.

LOOSE CHANGE
Posted by ro on February 9th at 10:15am in in the news

CLAIM: SMITH CHOKED ON HER OWN VOMIT…
CBS: Investigators found illegal narcotics, prescription meds in room…
Mother Blames Drugs…
Lawyer vows no DNA sample…
Battle Over $1.6 Billion Fortune Brewing…
Autopsy to Be Performed…
She Died Like Marilyn…
Timeline…
Final Footage Sells for Over $500,000…
*VIDEO…
Rosie Rants On Anna Nicole — Hours Before Her Death…

LOOSE CHANGE

No, silly me – that was no apology. She was going for the justification. Later that same day, she enters her own trascript into her blog:

Where the Light Is

Posted by ro on February 9th at 6:25pm in in the news

ME: BIG THINGS GOING ON IN THE NEWS. IF I HAVE TO SEE ANNA NICOLE SMITH ONE MORE TIME ON TELEVISION. THAT WOMAN AND HER PATERNITY TEST. .. AND SHE CAN HARDLY EVEN SPEAK NOW. SHE CAN’T EVEN SPEAK. SHE’S LIKE (I DO A BLANK AND MUMBLE INTO THE CAMERA) …YOU KNOW IT’S A TRAGEDY ALL AROUND. ..HER SON DIED. SHE HAS THIS LITTLE BABY. THERE’S OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF MEDICATION OR SUBSTANCE INVOLVED. I DON’T KNOW.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: THAT’S AN ODD SITUATION.

KRISTIN CHENOWETH: OR NOT INVOLVED

ME: OR NOT INVOLVED, EVEN WORSE. BUT IT’S SORT OF LIKE DISTRACTING. THE ART OF DISTRACTION. THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REAL.

EH:WHO DOESN’T.

ME: I THINK OUR CULTURE NOW.

EH:YOU THINK THE THE REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING ANNA NICOLE ON THE TV ?

ME :NO.

JOY BEHAR: YOU CAN’T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING.

EH:WE WERE THERE BEFORE. JUST NEEDED TO CHECK.

(Note: Caps Lock is Rosie’s not mine)

More from the same blog entry:

i was in the air when Anna Nicole Smith died
the plane landed
my phone rang
“Anna Nicole Smith died three hours ago,” my publicist said
“Do you have a comment?” she asked.

unbearably tragic
2 words only
sums it up
pretty much

simply
to tell the truth
to speak of her suffering
2 notice 2 care

fame
more toxic than crack
one hit
and ur done

more tempting than sex
the suffering of someone else
her pain
entertainment

ya know
all anyone wants
r people who they know
will keep them from going over the edge

focus
breathe
keep me where the light is
we pray

E.E. Cummings without the talent?

Laughs are not so hearty when they are always at someone else’s expense. Ching Chong indeed…

Comments (2)

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »