How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

February, 2011:

Libya’s Self Proclaimed New Leader Has The Mark Of The Islamist

It was recently announced that Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Libya’s former Justice Minister, has formed a new transitional government in Benghazi. Of course, it is good that someone is stepping up to the plate to take over Libya, since that may prevent the country from erupting into civil war. But, depending on who takes over Libya once Muammar Gaddafi is finally removed from power after ruling Libya with an iron fist for 42 years, Libya may go from bad to worse,  from both the welfare of the people of Libya and the peace and stability of the rest of the world. I have already said that I suspect Egypt will become an Islamic republic, like Iran, in the near future. Judging by the picture of Abdel-Jalil, I suspect the same terrible fate may await Libya.

Why do I say that? Simple, look at his picture of Mustaffa Abdel-Jalil.

Do you see anything interesting? If not, look at the following picture of Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second banana, and see if you can see anything in common.

OK, if you said that they are both wearing silly headgear, you would be partially correct. But, what is more telling is the dark spot on their foreheads. That is known as a “prayer bump” or zebiba. I call it the “mark of the Islamist”. Devout Muslims get it by banging their heads on the ground and sticking their asses in the air so Allah can have his way with them 5 times per day. (After all, the word Islam means  “submission” in Arabic.)

“The Basics of the Muslim’s Prayer, 1st Edition, 1423-2002” states:

The Sujiud (Prostration): It is obligatory to go down to the floor and prostrate by pressing your bare forehead, and putting your palms, knees, and pads of the toes on the floor. Both feet are kept vertical with the heels up and the toepads down touching the floor. Stay still in this position for at least the time it takes to say subhanallah (figure-5-).

This is accompanied by the following drawing. It does not take to much imagination to imagine what Allah is doing to the Muslim during this act of submission.

While I’ve not been able to determine if Abdel-Jalil is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no doubt that he is a very pious Muslim. This probably means that his beliefs echo those of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he wants to see Sharia law instituted, rather than a secular democracy. (Remember, Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive.)

As brutal as Gaddafi was, he was, basically, a secularist. Specifically, he was a Communist radical, just like Castro and Hugo Chavez. And, like both of those demons did to their countries, he succeeded in turning Libya into a fascist Hell hole. (While essentially a secularist, it is interesting that Gaddafi named his daughter Aisha. Aisha was Mohammad’s favorite wife. Mohammad married her when she was 6 and he was in his 50’s.  He waited until she was 9 to consummate the marriage.)

Already, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is making its ominous inroads. Not only have they formed a party to run in any elections, but Egyptian Muslims are feeling more empowered to attach Christians. Now, it looks like Libya will go from a Communistic fascist regime to an Islamo-fascist regime. I suspect that many more countries in the area will fall into a similar trap.

Remember, democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive. The West must learn to recognize the fact that Islam is NOT just a religion, like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or whatever. It is a religion AND a political and legal ideology. That ideology makes 2nd class citizens of women and 3rd class citizens of anyone who is not a Muslim.

By the way, if you think I am kidding about women being 2nd class citizens in Muslim countries, notice how many women you see in the protests in the streets of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and soon Saudi Arabia. There are virtually none. This is because women are prisoner’s of their husbands and forced to not only cover themselves when in the presence of anyone other than their husbands, but they are not allowed to leave their homes alone. The stark reality of the suppression of women in Muslim countries could not be better illustrated than by the images that are coming out of the Arab world in the last few weeks.

Proof Positive That The American Educational System Is A Total Failure

I have a bumper sticker on my truck that says “OBAMA: Why Stupid People Shouldn’t Vote”. I’ve been convinced that the American educational system has failed ever since I heard that the people that administer the SAT tests had to arbitrarily add 50 points to the scores because they had become so bad in the 80’s. Also, after 1994, Mensa no longer allowed applicants to use their SAT score for admission, because SAT scores were no longer correlated with IQ. (Mensa requires a minimum IQ of 132 for admission, which used to correspond to a combined SAT score of 1300, prior to 1974). I suspect it has to do with the formation of the Department of Education in the early 1980’s and the virtual takeover of the educational system by the democratic party. The school system is no longer concerned with producing adults with a good education in math, reading, science, and writing. Rather, the main objective of the educational system is to produce generations of democrats who believe that government is the answer to all problems and that capitalism and corporations are destroying the planet.

The fact that you now see teachers in Minnesota and other states practically rioting because they may not see their salaries, which average just over $100,000, increasing as fast in the future as they have in the past, shows just how out-of-touch teachers are with reality. Imagine, $100,000 for a part-time job that produces inferior products and from which you cannot be fired! (Especially when the real rate of unemployment in the United States is 22%.) (I’m sure there are some circumstances where a high school teacher in America could be fired, but they would have to do something really bad, like sexually assaulting a student.) Clearly, incompetence is not a firing offense in America’s educational system, as this video clearly shows.

OJ Simpson and Gaddafi: Justice Finally Catches Up With Each

If you told me a few weeks ago that I would have been putting OJ Simpson and Muammar Gaddafi in the same sentence, I would have thought you were crazy. But, I just did it! And why? Well, because both are murdering monsters, and though they (mostly) got away with their first crime, the justice system finally caught up with them.

In OJ’s case, mostly due to an incredibly stupid jury pool and some very charismatic lawyers, he got away with a brutal double murder. (He did not get away with it in the civil trial, but, again, thanks to being extremely well lawyered-up, his assets were mostly kept out of the reach of the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.) In Gaddafi’s case, Libya’s former Justice Minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalis, who resigned from his job shortly after the killing started in Libya, claims that Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people. Although put under sanctions in the early 1990’s to pressure Libya to give up two men accused in the Lockerbie bombing, that was the only price Gaddafi paid for that crime. To make that crime even worse, Gaddafi spent up to 50,000 pounds a month in lobbying and legal fees recently to get Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi,  the only person ever convicted in that crime, out of prison after he found out that Al Megrahi was going to reveal Gaddafi’s role in that bombing.

OJ Simpson was convicted of armed robbery in 2008. Unfortunately, although given a 33 year sentence, which would generally be the same as a life sentence for the 61 year old Simpson, he could get out in as little as 9 years, thus making a further mockery of the legal system. In Gaddafi’s case, in one of the only cases that I can recall where the UN actually did something right, and did it quickly, the Security Council voted unanimously on Febuary 27, 2011 to not only impose sanctions on Libya, but also to refer the crimes committed by Gaddafi and his family and close associates to the International Criminal Court.  (Full text of UN resolution 1970 against Libya.) What was especially poignant in this case is that both the Libyan Ambassador to the UN and the Libyan delegation to the UN Security Council voted for the resolution!

In an impassioned speech before the UN Security Council, Libya’s ambassador to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohamed Shaigham, pleaded:

Please United Nations, save Libya. No to bloodshed. No to the killing of innocents. We want a decisive, rapid and a courageous resolution from you.

Gaddafi got away with his first crime, but it is unlikely that he will get away with the crimes he has committed in the last week or so.

OJ’s crime that finally put him away involved a gun. Hopefully Gaddafi’s crime will also involve a gun; one shooting him and his henchmen dead.

Andrew Klavan: Multiculturalism Explained

Governments are finally realizing that multiculturalism has failed

Of course, the government of the United States has not gotten the message, yet, but our Muslim population is (fortunately) not that high, except in places like Dearbornistan, Detroitistan, and a few other places.

Revolution and the Muslim World

By George Friedman

The Muslim world, from North Africa to Iran, has experienced a wave of instability in the last few weeks. No regimes have been overthrown yet, although as of this writing, Libya was teetering on the brink.

There have been moments in history where revolution spread in a region or around the world as if it were a wildfire. These moments do not come often. Those that come to mind include 1848, where a rising in France engulfed Europe. There was also 1968, where the demonstrations of what we might call the New Left swept the world: Mexico City, Paris, New York and hundreds of other towns saw anti-war revolutions staged by Marxists and other radicals. Prague saw the Soviets smash a New Leftist government. Even China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution could, by a stretch, be included. In 1989, a wave of unrest, triggered by East Germans wanting to get to the West, generated an uprising in Eastern Europe that overthrew Soviet rule.

Each had a basic theme. The 1848 uprisings attempted to establish liberal democracies in nations that had been submerged in the reaction to Napoleon. 1968 was about radical reform in capitalist society. 1989 was about the overthrow of communism. They were all more complex than that, varying from country to country. But in the end, the reasons behind them could reasonably be condensed into a sentence or two.

Some of these revolutions had great impact. 1989 changed the global balance of power. 1848 ended in failure at the time — France reverted to a monarchy within four years — but set the stage for later political changes. 1968 produced little that was lasting. The key is that in each country where they took place, there were significant differences in the details — but they shared core principles at a time when other countries were open to those principles, at least to some extent.

The Current Rising in Context

In looking at the current rising, the geographic area is clear: The Muslim countries of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula have been the prime focus of these risings, and in particular North Africa where Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya have had profound crises. Of course, many other Muslim countries also had revolutionary events that have not, at least until now, escalated into events that threaten regimes or even ruling personalities. There have been hints of such events elsewhere. There were small demonstrations in China, and of course Wisconsin is in turmoil over budget cuts. But these don’t really connect to what is happening in the Middle East. The first was small and the second is not taking inspiration from Cairo. So what we have is a rising in the Arab world that has not spread beyond there for the time being.

The key principle that appears to be driving the risings is a feeling that the regimes, or a group of individuals within the regimes, has deprived the public of political and, more important, economic rights — in short, that they enriched themselves beyond what good taste permitted. This has expressed itself in different ways. In Bahrain, for example, the rising was of the primarily Shiite population against a predominantly Sunni royal family. In Egypt, it was against the person of Hosni Mubarak. In Libya, it is against the regime and person of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, and is driven by tribal hostility.

Why has it come together now? One reason is that there was a tremendous amount of regime change in the region from the 1950s through the early 1970s, as the Muslim countries created regimes to replace foreign imperial powers and were buffeted by the Cold War. Since the early 1970s, the region has, with the exception of Iran in 1979, been fairly stable in the sense that the regimes — and even the personalities who rose up in the unstable phase — stabilized their countries and imposed regimes that could not easily be moved. Gadhafi, for example, overthrew the Libyan monarchy in 1969 and has governed continually for 42 years since then.

Any regime dominated by a small group of people over time will see that group use their position to enrich themselves. There are few who can resist for 40 years. It is important to recognize that Gadhafi, for example, was once a genuine, pro-Soviet revolutionary. But over time, revolutionary zeal declines and avarice emerges along with the arrogance of extended power. And in the areas of the region where there had not been regime changes since after World War I, this principle stays true as well, although interestingly, over time, the regimes seem to learn to spread the wealth a bit.

Thus, what emerged throughout the region were regimes and individuals who were classic kleptocrats. More than anything, if we want to define this wave of unrest, particularly in North Africa, it is a rising against regimes — and particularly individuals — who have been in place for extraordinarily long periods of time. And we can add to this that they are people who were planning to maintain family power and money by installing sons as their political heirs. The same process, with variations, is under way in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a rising against the revolutionaries of previous generations.

The revolutions have been coming for a long time. The rising in Tunisia, particularly when it proved successful, caused it to spread. As in 1848, 1968 and 1989, similar social and cultural conditions generate similar events and are triggered by the example of one country and then spread more broadly. That has happened in 2011 and is continuing.

A Uniquely Sensitive Region

It is, however, happening in a region that is uniquely sensitive at the moment. The U.S.-jihadist war means that, as with previous revolutionary waves, there are broader potential geopolitical implications. 1989 meant the end of the Soviet empire, for example. In this case, the question of greatest importance is not why these revolutions are taking place, but who will take advantage of them. We do not see these revolutions as a vast conspiracy by radical Islamists to take control of the region. A conspiracy that vast is easily detected, and the security forces of the individual countries would have destroyed the conspiracies quickly. No one organized the previous waves, although there have been conspiracy theories about them as well. They arose from certain conditions, following the example of one incident. But particular groups certainly tried, with greater and lesser success, to take advantage of them.

In this case, whatever the cause of the risings, there is no question that radical Islamists will attempt to take advantage and control of them. Why wouldn’t they? It is a rational and logical course for them. Whether they will be able to do so is a more complex and important question, but that they would want to and are trying to do so is obvious. They are a broad, transnational and disparate group brought up in conspiratorial methods. This is their opportunity to create a broad international coalition. Thus, as with traditional communists and the New Left in the 1960s, they did not create the rising but they would be fools not to try to take advantage of it. I would add that there is little question but that the United States and other Western countries are trying to influence the direction of the uprisings. For both sides, this is a difficult game to play, but it is particularly difficult for the United States as outsiders to play this game compared to native Islamists who know their country.

But while there is no question that Islamists would like to take control of the revolution, that does not mean that they will, nor does it mean that these revolutions will be successful. Recall that 1848 and 1968 were failures and those who tried to take advantage of them had no vehicle to ride. Also recall that taking control of a revolution is no easy thing. But as we saw in Russia in 1917, it is not necessarily the more popular group that wins, but the best organized. And you frequently don’t find out who is best organized until afterwards.

Democratic revolutions have two phases. The first is the establishment of democracy. The second is the election of governments. The example of Hitler is useful as a caution on what kind of governments a young democracy can produce, since he came to power through democratic and constitutional means — and then abolished democracy to cheering crowds. So there are three crosscurrents here. The first is the reaction against corrupt regimes. The second is the election itself. And the third? The United States needs to remember, as it applauds the rise of democracy, that the elected government may not be what one expected.

In any event, the real issue is whether these revolutions will succeed in replacing existing regimes. Let’s consider the process of revolution for the moment, beginning by distinguishing a demonstration from an uprising. A demonstration is merely the massing of people making speeches. This can unsettle the regime and set the stage for more serious events, but by itself, it is not significant. Unless the demonstrations are large enough to paralyze a city, they are symbolic events. There have been many demonstrations in the Muslim world that have led nowhere; consider Iran.

It is interesting here to note that the young frequently dominate revolutions like 1848, 1969 and 1989 at first. This is normal. Adults with families and maturity rarely go out on the streets to face guns and tanks. It takes young people to have the courage or lack of judgment to risk their lives in what might be a hopeless cause. However, to succeed, it is vital that at some point other classes of society join them. In Iran, one of the key moments of the 1979 revolution was when the shopkeepers joined young people in the street. A revolution only of the young, as we saw in 1968 for example, rarely succeeds. A revolution requires a broader base than that, and it must go beyond demonstrations. The moment it goes beyond the demonstration is when it confronts troops and police. If the demonstrators disperse, there is no revolution. If they confront the troops and police, and if they carry on even after they are fired on, then you are in a revolutionary phase. Thus, pictures of peaceful demonstrators are not nearly as significant as the media will have you believe, but pictures of demonstrators continuing to hold their ground after being fired on is very significant.

A Revolution’s Key Event

This leads to the key event in the revolution. The revolutionaries cannot defeat armed men. But if those armed men, in whole or part, come over to the revolutionary side, victory is possible. And this is the key event. In Bahrain, the troops fired on demonstrators and killed some. The demonstrators dispersed and then were allowed to demonstrate — with memories of the gunfire fresh. This was a revolution contained. In Egypt, the military and police opposed each other and the military sided with the demonstrators, for complex reasons obviously. Personnel change, if not regime change, was inevitable. In Libya, the military has split wide open.

When that happens, you have reached a branch in the road. If the split in the military is roughly equal and deep, this could lead to civil war. Indeed, one way for a revolution to succeed is to proceed to civil war, turning the demonstrators into an army, so to speak. That’s what Mao did in China. Far more common is for the military to split. If the split creates an overwhelming anti-regime force, this leads to the revolution’s success. Always, the point to look for is thus the police joining with the demonstrators. This happened widely in 1989 but hardly at all in 1968. It happened occasionally in 1848, but the balance was always on the side of the state. Hence, that revolution failed.

It is this act, the military and police coming over to the side of the demonstrators, that makes or breaks a revolution. Therefore, to return to the earlier theme, the most important question on the role of radical Islamists is not their presence in the crowd, but their penetration of the military and police. If there were a conspiracy, it would focus on joining the military, waiting for demonstrations and then striking.

Those who argue that these risings have nothing to do with radical Islam may be correct in the sense that the demonstrators in the streets may well be students enamored with democracy. But they miss the point that the students, by themselves, can’t win. They can only win if the regime wants them to, as in Egypt, or if other classes and at least some of the police or military — people armed with guns who know how to use them — join them. Therefore, looking at the students on TV tells you little. Watching the soldiers tells you much more.

The problem with revolutions is that the people who start them rarely finish them. The idealist democrats around Alexander Kerensky in Russia were not the ones who finished the revolution. The thuggish Bolsheviks did. In these Muslim countries, the focus on the young demonstrators misses the point just as it did in Tiananmen Square. It wasn’t the demonstrators that mattered, but the soldiers. If they carried out orders, there would be no revolution.

I don’t know the degree of Islamist penetration of the military in Libya, to pick one example of the unrest. I suspect that tribalism is far more important than theology. In Egypt, I suspect the regime has saved itself by buying time. Bahrain was more about Iranian influence on the Shiite population than Sunni jihadists at work. But just as the Iranians are trying to latch on to the process, so will the Sunni jihadists.

The Danger of Chaos

I suspect some regimes will fall, mostly reducing the country in question to chaos. The problem, as we are seeing in Tunisia, is that frequently there is no one on the revolutionaries’ side equipped to take power. The Bolsheviks had an organized party. In these revolutions, the parties are trying to organize themselves during the revolution, which is another way to say that the revolutionaries are in no position to govern. The danger is not radical Islam, but chaos, followed either by civil war, the military taking control simply to stabilize the situation or the emergence of a radical Islamic party to take control — simply because they are the only ones in the crowd with a plan and an organization. That’s how minorities take control of revolutions.

All of this is speculation. What we do know is that this is not the first wave of revolution in the world, and most waves fail, with their effects seen decades later in new regimes and political cultures. Only in the case of Eastern Europe do we see broad revolutionary success, but that was against an empire in collapse, so few lessons can be drawn from that for the Muslim world.

In the meantime, as you watch the region, remember not to watch the demonstrators. Watch the men with the guns. If they stand their ground for the state, the demonstrators have failed. If some come over, there is some chance of victory. And if victory comes, and democracy is declared, do not assume that what follows will in any way please the West — democracy and pro-Western political culture do not mean the same thing.

The situation remains fluid, and there are no broad certainties. It is a country-by-country matter now, with most regimes managing to stay in power to this point. There are three possibilities. One is that this is like 1848, a broad rising that will fail for lack of organization and coherence, but that will resonate for decades. The second is 1968, a revolution that overthrew no regime even temporarily and left some cultural remnants of minimal historical importance. The third is 1989, a revolution that overthrew the political order in an entire region, and created a new order in its place.

If I were to guess at this point, I would guess that we are facing 1848. The Muslim world will not experience massive regime change as in 1989, but neither will the effects be as ephemeral as 1968. Like 1848, this revolution will fail to transform the Muslim world or even just the Arab world. But it will plant seeds that will germinate in the coming decades. I think those seeds will be democratic, but not necessarily liberal. In other words, the democracies that eventually arise will produce regimes that will take their bearings from their own culture, which means Islam.

The West celebrates democracy. It should be careful what it hopes for: It might get it.

Revolution and the Muslim World is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

The Moment Of Truth Has Arrived In The Middle East

It has been widely confirmed that Egypt will allow 2 Iranian war ships through the Suez Canal on February 20 and 21, 2011. This is the first time since the Iranian Revolution that Egypt has allowed Iranian war ships to pass through the canal. For one thing, this is a clear indication that Egypt is going to become an Islamist state, as I predicted in an earlier post, given the beliefs held by the typical Muslim in Egypt and the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Less than 2 weeks after Hosni Mubarak was deposed in a military coup, the government is clearly leaning closer to Islamist Iran, and distancing itself from Egypt. And, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood said recently that the long standing peace treaty between Egypt and Israel should be torn up, and Egypt should go to war with Israel. Allowing the Iranian war ships through the Suez Canal is the first shot in that war.

It is widely believed that the Kharg is carrying heavy missiles to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon for use against Israel. Personally, I would not be surprised if the ship was also carrying one or more of Iran’s nuclear weapons. (I believe, like many others, including experts such as Yossef Bodansky, that Iran has had nuclear weapons for quite a few years, although most were probably not developed indigenously. But, they have been working on it for 30 years. Personally, I can’t believe that they are that technologically backward that they have not developed their own nuclear weapons after 30 years. We certainly do not know about all of their nuclear facilities.) They may not have the necessary missiles to deliver those weapons, yet, but by taking them to Syria and/or Lebanon via ship, they could easily be transported to their final detonation location in Israel by submersible vessel or speed boat.

The real question is whether Obama has the balls to order our military to stop and inspect the cargo being carried by these ships.  UN resolution 1629 against Iran clearly states that we (and Israel and any other country) has the right (and, in fact, responsibility) to board these ships and check their cargo.

Further provisions of the resolution included:[4]

All states were furthermore recommended to undertake the following:[4]

  • Inspect all cargo to and from Iran in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and civil aviation agreements for prohibited items and report within five days explanations for the search and the findings from such inspections;
  • The seizure and disposal of prohibited items;
  • Prevent the provision of fuel, supplies and servicing of Iranian vessels if they are involved in prohibited activities;
  • Provide information to the Committee concerning attempts to evade the sanctions by Iran Air or Iran Shipping Lines to other companies;
  • Prevent the provision of financial services that may be used for sensitive nuclear activities;
  • Exercise vigilance when dealing with Iranian individuals or entities if such business could contribute to Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities;
  • Prohibit the opening of Iranian banks in their territory and prevent Iranian banks from entering into relationships with banks in their jurisdiction if there is reason to suspect the activities could contribute to sensitive proliferation activities in Iran;
  • Prevent financial institutions operating in their territories from opening offices and accounts in Iran if they would contribute to Iran’s proliferation sensitive activities.

Reference (4) above refers to:

The above is taken from

My guess is that Obama does not dare to do that, and I am afraid that we will prevent Israel from doing it. Of course, if the ships do contain major weapons, and they get to Syria and Lebanon, Israel is done.

Personally, I expect full scale war to break out in the Middle East in the next few weeks, and oil to go over $200. So, if you want to make money, buy oil!

Nonie Darwish Speaks Out On Dangers Facing Egypt

As I have said before, I am pretty certain that the situation in Egypt will end badly, with another Islamic theocracy, just like the Iranian Revolution resulted in the horrible Islamic theocracy that we now have in Iran. Nonie Darwish is a former Muslim from Egypt. Her father was a high military official who was killed fighting Israel. She speaks out powerfully against Islam and her fears that Egypt will be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in another Islamic theocracy. She has written two books on Islam and her life, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror

Dueling Petitions From Scientists To Congress On Subject Of “Climate Change”

If it were not costing us billions of dollars per year, today, and probably going to cost us trillions of (wasted) dollars in the future, the whole climate change subject would be amusing. On the one hand, you have the UN’s IPCC publishing alarmist documents based on flawed computer models that are championed by the likes of Al Gore that say that civilization will cease to exist as we know it if we don’t spend trillions of dollars to reduce our levels of CO2 emissions. On the other hand, you have a huge group of scientists who realize that the whole thing is nothing more than a scheme by the globalists to transfer wealth from the wealthy nations (primarily the United States and Western Europe) to the poor, developing nations. The problem for the alarmists is that as time goes on, their arguments become increasingly hollow and even get disproved. The only two things that both sides can agree on is that climate does, indeed, change, and that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. But, the evidence that the climate is going to heat to such a degree that it will cause untold misery, death, and destruction due to that increase in CO2 is becoming more doubtful by the day.

We are told that rising CO2 will cause catastrophic rising global temperatures. Well, lets look at the data! What a concept. Here is the global temperature over the last 31 years as determined by objective satellite data. (I am personally worried that NASA and NOAA may even “cook the books” on this data, like they did with the earth-based thermometer data, as well as proxy data such as from tree rings, ice cores, etc., but that is another story.) (This is from Dr. Roy Spencer’s site.)

It looks to me like the global fever just broke! And, of course, there was no corresponding dive in CO2 levels, as you can clearly see in the “World Climate Widget” in the sidebar of this web page. Interestingly, people like Joe Bastardi, of Accuweather, and many others, have been predicting this huge drop in temperature because we were coming out of an El Nino period and going into a La Nina. Many experts firmly believe that it is forces other than CO2 that are the primary drivers of global temperature. Things like El Ninos, La Ninas, solar activity (or lack thereof), cosmic rays (or lack thereof), decadal and multi-decadal ocean temperature cycles, volcanic activity (or lack thereof), and other forces. If nothing else, the above graph clearly shows the effect of El Nino and La Nina. The biggest problem with the alarmists’ argument is that it is based on flawed computer models; not on actual observations. Their data is cooked and manipulated to give the answers that they want, as shown here, here, here, and here. When you hold their models up to actual observations, they often fall apart. (At which time the alarmists blame the observations, and state that they must be wrong!) Furthermore, with a clearly unscientific attitude, the global warmingistas have done their very best to obfuscate or even loose the data and prevent people not in their fraternity to actually view and analyze the data.

Here is the open letter that was sent to the Congress of the United States by the global warmingistas. After it, I publish the open letter from an even larger group of scientists that states that “the science is not settled”, and that there is no solid evidence that climate change is being driven by man-made CO2.

January 28, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change
As you begin your deliberations in the new 112th Congress, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change.  Climate change is not just an environmental threat but, as we describe below, also poses challenges to the U.S. economy, national security and public health.

Some view climate change as a futuristic abstraction. Others are unsure about the science, or uncertain about the policy responses. We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation. Our coastal areas are now facing increasing dangers from rising sea levels and storm surges; the southwest and southeast are increasingly vulnerable to drought; other regions will need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency.  These and other consequences of climate change all require that we plan and prepare. Our military recognizes that the consequences of climate change have direct security implications for the country that will only become more acute with time, and it has begun the sort of planning required across the board.
The health of Americans is also at risk. The U.S. Climate Impacts Report, commissioned by the George W. Bush administration, states: “Climate change poses unique challenges to human health. Unlike health threats caused by a particular toxin or disease pathogen, there are many ways that climate change can lead to potentially harmful health effects. There are direct health impacts from heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases.”
As with the fiscal deficit, the changing climate is the kind of daunting problem that we, as a nation, would like to wish away. However, as with our growing debt, the longer we wait to address climate change, the worse it gets. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere because burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests. No scientist disagrees with that.  Our carbon debt increases each year, just as our national debt increases each year that spending exceeds revenue.  And our carbon debt is even longer-lasting; carbon dioxide molecules can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.

The Science of Climate Change
It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change. That is a policy matter and rightly must be left to our elected leaders in discussion with all Americans.  But, as scientists, we have an obligation to evaluate, report, and explain the science behind climate change.

The debate about climate change has become increasingly ideological and partisan. But climate change is not the product of a belief system or ideology. Instead, it is based on scientific fact, and no amount of argument, coercion, or debate among talking heads in the media can alter the physics of climate change.

Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science. There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.

The fruits of the scientific process are worthy of your trust.  This was perhaps best summed up in recent testimony before Congress by Dr. Peter Gleick, co-founder and director of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.  He testified that the scientific process “is inherently adversarial – scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”

National Academy of Sciences
What we know today about human-induced climate change is the result of painstaking research and analysis, some of it going back more than a century. Major international scientific organizations in disciplines ranging from geophysics to geology, atmospheric sciences to biology, and physics to human health – as well as every one of the leading national scientific academies worldwide – have concluded that human activity is changing the climate. This is not a “belief.” Instead, it is an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln and chartered by Congress in 1863 for the express purpose of obtaining objective expert advice on a range of complex scientific and technological issues. Its international reputation for integrity is unparalleled. This spring, at the request of Congress, the NAS issued a series of comprehensive reports on climate change that were unambiguous.

The NAS stated, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.”  This conclusion comes as no surprise to the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists.

Climate Change Deniers
Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation. As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.

The assertions of climate deniers therefore should not be given scientific weight equal to the comprehensive, peer-reviewed research presented by the vast majority of climate scientists.

The determination of policy sits with you, the elected representatives of the people. But we urge you, as our elected representatives, to base your policy decisions on sound science, not sound bites. Congress needs to understand that scientists have concluded, based on a systematic review of all of the evidence, that climate change caused by human activities raises serious risks to our national and economic security and our health both here and around the world. It’s time for Congress to move on to the policy debate.

How Can We Move Forward?
Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction.  It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones. We urge our elected leaders to work together to focus the nation on what the science is telling us, particularly with respect to impacts now occurring around the country.
Already, there is far more carbon in the air than at any time in human history, with more being generated every day. Climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay.
We look to you, our representatives, to address the challenge of climate change, and lead the national response. We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.
Thank you for your attention.
John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
Michael Mann, Penn State University     Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center

*Member of the National Academy of Sciences

The letter from the scientists that do not believe in man-made global warming follows.

February 8, 2011
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:
In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”
On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.
The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.
To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to
Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Levine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward,
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick,
1 – Emeritus or Retired

I have occasionally published articles that show not only how flawed the globalist alarmists are, but also point out alternative ideas. For those who want to learn more about the global warming scam, and some of the science that argues against CO2 being the primary driver of global temperature, I suggest that you read “Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)” It is a massive, and very well referenced report.

At least the warmingistas are not resorting to some of the totally disgusting commercials that they were running not so long ago, like the following drowning puppy and rabbit commercial that actually showed on British TV:

Egyptian Situation Will Probably End Badly With Another Islamic Theocracy

I’ve been following the situation in Egypt for the last week. Of course, I hope that it ends well. That would be with a true democracy. But, that will not happen. In fact, it can not happen. Egypt is an Arab country; it consists mostly of Muslims. Unfortunately, this is another way to say that it is a backward nation, filled with stupid, uneducated people who want to live in the 7th century. Thus, once Mubarak is gone, which will almost certainly happen in the next day or two, the Egyptian government will almost certainly be taken over by Islamists; specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. This means that yet another country will be dedicated to our, and Israel’s, destruction. And, to make it even worse, we’ve given Egypt billions of dollars worth of modern weapons! Our stupidity is stupendous! We sold weapons to Afghanistan. It is an Islamist nation. We sold modern weapons to Pakistan. It is an Islamist nation (maybe to be lead by Osama bin Laden at some point. Don’t laugh; the Pakistanis would love to have him as their president.) We gave billions of dollars worth of weapons to Iraq; It will soon be a satellite of Iran, ruled by a theocracy. Our Middle East stupidity is not only stupendous, but unbelievable!
So, now we are looking at an Islamist Egypt. What to do then? I can only say that I hope we put “kill switches” in the weapons, so that we can “turn them off”. Of course, we did not. So, we have now armed our enemies!

If you listen to the talking heads, they think that the situation in Egypt is fantastic! But, they fail to tell you that the present government will almost certainly be replaced by a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In other words, people who hold the same beliefs as Osama bin Laden and his best buddy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, will be in command of Egypt. And, lets not forget that another former friend, Turkey, is being taken over by the Islamists. And, of course, we not only armed them but we were even so misguided and ignorant of the realities of Islamic deception (Taqiyya) that we let Turkey into NATO!

Lets also not forget that Mohamad Atta, the ring leader of the 9/11 butchers, was from Egypt. And, if you are under the mistaken impression that Egypt is a modern, secular nation, a quick look at a recent poll will quickly convince you of just how wrong that notion is. For example, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 30% of Egyptians have a favorable view of Hezbollah, 49% have a favorable view of Hamas, and a whopping 20% have a favorable view of al Qaeda! But, it gets worse. Fully 95% of Egyptians feel that it is a good thing that Islam plays a large roll in government. Even in Pakistan, the ratio is only 88%. Other telling statistics for Egypt are that 54% prefer gender segregation in the workplace. Of the countries studied in the poll (Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Turkey, and Lebanon) that atrocious attitude is only exceeded by Pakistan, where 85% favor gender segregation in the workplace. Also, like in Pakistan, 82% of Muslims in Egypt favor stoning people who commit adultery. Furthermore, 84% of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave Islam, and 77% favor whippings and cutting off  hands for theft and robbery. What a group of complete barbarians.

It is unfortunate that Mubarak was such a brutal tyrant. But, when you are trying to control a bunch of 7th century barbarians, a strong hand is needed. Muslims are incapable of democracy, because democracy is incompatible with Islam and sharia law. Until we in the West can get that into our thick heads, we should stop trying to democratize nations that cannot be democratized. We should concentrate on stamping out political Islam. That can only be done through education. And, unfortunately, education is something that is very rare in Islamic nations.