DADvocate

In a column in the blog, Ariana Huffington Post, RFK Jr. blames Hurricane Katrina and the ensuing damage on George Bush and Haley Barbour. Kennedy bases this on global warming theory and Bush/Barbour's failure to support the Kyoto Protocol.

Kennedy's scientific evidence is this:

Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Nature

This climatologist is Kerry Emanuel.

From a position paper by Kerry Emanuel at his MIT website:

Neither basic theory nor numerical climate simulation is well enough advanced to predict how tropical cyclone frequency might change with changing climate, and both give conflicting results on the change of tropical cyclone frequency on doubling atmospheric . There is no physical basis, however, for claims that the total area prone to tropical cyclogenesis would increase. The new field of paleotempestology entails the use of a variety of techniques for deducing the long-term history of hurricane activity from the geological record. Pushing the record of landfalling tropical cyclones well back into prehistory, perhaps even to the last ice age, may be the key to understanding from an empirical standpoint the relationship between tropical cyclone activity and climate.

More from the same:

Further progress in confronting the important relationship between tropical cyclone activity and climate will be limited unless there are fundamental advances in understanding the basic physics of hurricanes.

Emanuel is quoted as saying this in the Aug. 30, 2005 LA Times:

People are beginning to seriously wonder whether there is a [global warming] signal there. I think you are going to see a lot more of a focus on this in coming years.

Sounds like Mr. Kennedy is overstating Mr. Emanuel's position even if Mr. Emanuel has some concerns. Plus, let's remember, Mr. Emanuel is a professor at an institution located in Mr. Kennedy's home state where the Kennedy family is royalty.

And this from the same LA Times article:

There is absolutely no empirical evidence. The people who have a bias in favor of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests that humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so," said William Gray, a Colorado State University meteorologist who is considered one of the fathers of modern tropical cyclone science and who sharply questions Emanuel's conclusions.

A lot of my colleagues who have been around a long time are very skeptical of this idea that global warming is leading to more frequent or intense storms," Gray said. "In the Atlantic, there has been a change recently, sure. But if you go back to the 1930s, you see a lot of storms again. These are natural cycles, not related to changes in global temperature. I can't say there is no human signal there, but it's minute.

And a few figures of my own; average wind speeds based on National Hurricane Center figures. I calculated average wind speed (minimum and maximum by category strenght; for category I used 175 mph which was the maximum sustained wind speed of Hurricane Gilbert, 1988, the "strongest Atlantic tropical cyclone on record with a minimum pressure of 888 mb" of all hurricanes by decade since 1850. As you can see the 1960's lead the pack. Several decades out pace the 1990's and the current decade to date.

Year            Avg. WS Min    Avg WS Max
1851-1860      92.53          111.32
1861-1870      85.27          103.33
1871-1880      93.55          111.75
1881-1890      92.32          110.23
1891-1900      96.19          115.48
1901-1910      87.11          106.11
1911-1920      93.38          113.10
1921-1930      96.38          115.77
1931-1940      101.11          118.95
1941-1950      95.75          114.38
1951-1960      96.24          116.76
1961-1970      102.36          120.36
1971-1980      90.00          109.17
1981-1990      89.13          109.33
1991-2000      99.86          117.14
2001-2004      93.44          112.78

Political types, i.e. RFK, Jr., most Democrats and most Republicans, like the slick salesperson, depend on you not doing your homework so they can sell you a bill of goods which is exactly what RFK, Jr. is doing.

One commentor on RFK, Jr.'s column quotes Time magazine:

hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years.

Professor Emanuel refers to the past 30 years, not 50. Did Time get it wrong or the commentor or is Professor Emanuel giving different stories to different people? I've done all the research I can tolerate right now. BUT, it is clear that the global warming alarmists do not have the solid foundation to stand on that they claim but they don't hesitate to politicize others pain and anguish to their advantage.

Recently, I came upon knowledge that George W. Bush is wasting away much of his time as president of this fine country. Liberals commonly complain that Georgie wastes much time vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, as if this is really vacation.

I reviewing various news reports, some dating as far back as the 2000 presidential campaign, I have discovered that George W. Bush prefers to go to bed at 9:30 PM and sleep at least until 6:00 AM, a total of 8.5 hours per night!! Mr. Bush will also take a short nap most afternoons. (I'll let you search for the articles. You've been too lazily lately.)

Assuming that the naps take a half hour, George W. Bush spends 9 hours a day dead to the world, unconscious of anything happening in the universe. This is 37.5% of the day. During his 8 year presidency, George W. Bush will have slept 26298 hours. Twenty six thousand two hundred ninety eight hours equals slightly over one thousand ninety five days, nearly three years.

Such behavior and lack of vigilance stands unacceptable in the leader of the free world. How can George W. Bush expect to perform at the high level needed as president of this great land? Slacker.

On the other hand, getting this much sleep may not be such a bad idea.

One question I can't seem to find a satisfactory to is: Why do liberals hate so much?

Came across a post, "Bush's Love of Youth in Uniform" at another blog today. The blog's name is "Sick of Bush". Fair enough. Anyone is welcome to be sick of Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney, or whomever. But this person's sickness apparently spreads to anything Bush touchs.

First the obligatory comparison to Nazis is made:

I mean, isn’t there something nightmarish about our misleader swooping down on a steaming pit of sweat and testosterone and whipping a throng of brown-shirted youths into a nationalistic frenzy?

Later the comparison to Fidel Castro and communist Cuba:

Swap out the little American flags for little Cuban flags, and Bush’s visit with the Scouts would have seemed a lot like one of those government-orchestrated rallies in Havana over which Fidel Castro presides

I wonder if this blogger realizes that Bill Clinton addressed the Boy Scout Jamboree in 1997. Were the Scouts little Nazis then?

The other question that I can't find a satisfactory answer to: What to liberals expect to accomplish by calling everyone who disagrees with them Nazis, facsists, etc.? Of course, this is the same type of pre-adolescent name calling we all became familiar with in kindergarten. And, it has the same effect that name calling had in kindergarten. Those being called names do not like you more, they like you less. They do not want to be on your side, they want to oppose you and fight against you even harder. As with most liberal actions, the result is destructive, in this case, self-destructive.

Michael Savage recently wrote a book named "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." One of the hallmarks of mental disorders is maladaptive, self-destructive behavior. Looks like Mr. Savage has this one right.

Gender Reltated Items

Michael Buerk in England laments about the decline of males in the workplace.

He gets the typical, condescending response from a woman.

The TimesOnline has a special section for women but not men.

A woman in the female dominated environment of acacemia moans about sexism which she can't concretely identify but must in a secret conspriracy somewhere. She gets little sympathy and derserves none.

Check out the websites for organizations such as the ones below, your state government, the federal government (including your Senators and Representives) and whatever other social, political organizations you can find. Count how many have a program/advocacy group/section/whatever on women/gays/bisexuals/minorities/etc. vs how many have a program/advocacy group/etc. for men. The answer will be a whole bunch to zero or nearly zero.
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
National Association of Social Workers
American Bar Association which urges "law schools and law firms to refrain from discriminating against women." Given that women currently out number men in law school maybe this should be re-worded.

I fear for my sons. My daughers have it made.

Liberal attacks continue against John Roberts because he is Catholic. I thought religious discrimination was illegal in the U.S. It's OK to be a transexual lesbian but not a Catholic.

Gas prices continue to go up. I worry about the economy. Most of all the current problems point out what a lousy job we are doing as a country in planning for and preparing for our energy needs. No new refineries in over 25 years. Sheesh. Friends of mine that work at higher level positions at electrical power plants tell me we are coming close to using up our available electrical supply. Brown outs and black outs will ensue.