You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘global warming’ tag.

Today, the predominant media is filled with positive articles about all the great reasons why you should consider an electric vehicle or EV. If you are swayed by this positive input and are considering buying an EV instead of an ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle, some of the following may be helpful.


Here are five top reasons to buy and some of the questions you might want to ask yourself:

  1. Annual cost to operate – Is an EV really less expensive to operate? – a – First is the cost of electricity vs. the cost of fuel. In general, the electricity to power an EV is cheaper than the fuel to power and ICE vehicle. If or how much you save is almost entirely a product of where you live and where the vehicle will be driven. In the Northwest, fuel prices are among the highest in the country (just under $4.00/ gallon for regular gas at the end of 2021) and electricity prices are among the lowest (some places as low as $0.75 per gallon equivalent). That means for the average driver who puts 12,000 miles on a car each year and gets 20 miles per gallon, you would spend $450 for electricity to power an EV vs. $2,400 for your fuel, a savings of $1,950 a year. In the Northeast, electricity is more costly and petroleum fuel not quite as expensive so the numbers are not as good. In Connecticut there are places where fuel is about $3.00 per gallon and electricity is almost $2.00 per gallon equivalent. You could save barely $600 per year. (see this article) – b – In an EV you will not have to pay gas tax and this is often billed as an additional operating cost savings. Unfortunately the gas tax is paid at the pump and is already included in the savings calculation so don’t count it twice. – c – Also remember that most states are scrambling to replace gas taxes lost to increases in EV usage and as such have enacted or are considering annual EV road use taxes. – d – You will likely save the cost of 2 or three oil changes each year which pending the type of oil and the type of car could be as much as $200 to $300 per year saved. Very few articles that you read will tell you that this savings will likely be offset by the increased cost of brake replacement. With the EVs extra weight to stop and regenerative brakes (energy captured in braking to add to the efficiency of the EVs power system), brake pads last less than half as long as on ICE vehicles. – e – And few articles will tell you about the increased tire wear (again largely due to the increased weight of the EV). Think of driving an EV as it would be to drive an ICE vehicle that was always loaded with a full load of cargo and/or passengers.
  2. Initial cost to own an EV – Most EVs cost between 20% and 40% more than their ICE counterparts. This means you will pay between $6,000 to $25,000 more for the privilege to drive an EV. This penalty is normally believed to be repaid by lower operating costs and the offset of rising fuel costs over the life of the vehicle. There are numerous government incentives (tax credits and tax deductions) that can often help reduce this initial cost, again much of this is dependent upon where you live.
  3. Good for the Environment – The majority of the articles written about EVs highlight the ‘fact’ that EVs are good for the environment. We are told they have zero emissions (see this article). In general, it is true that the operation of an EV produces fewer emissions than the operation of most ICE vehicles. What you will see in very few articles is the environmental cost to produce the EVs which is far greater than what is required to produce ICE vehicles. To name a few: the environmental cost to mine the lithium for the batteries, mostly controlled by China which has one of the world’s worst records of protecting the environment; the environmental cost to mine the cobalt, also used in the batteries, mostly done in the Congo but the processing is done in China; the fact that EVs are, on average, more than 20% heavier than their ICE equivalents increasing energy use and pollution from producing that much more product; excessive tire wear and road wear caused by heavier vehicles, etc. If you are truly concerned with the environment, you need to ask the questions not being asked in the media to see if you are really convinced that the EVs represent an improvement over ICE vehicles. Do you wonder about recycling of lithium ion batteries? As of today, there is no available, reliable way to reclaim value from LI batteries so what will happen to them when they are replaced? Do you wonder how the electric grid, already taxed to the limit in many part of the country, will hold up to the huge increased demand for electricity to power EV batteries? What will be the environmental cost to expand the power grid to meet the new EV demand?
  4. Lifetime Cost to Own – Much is made in the media about how in spite of the fact of higher initial cost, EVs have a lower lifetime cost to own. Most reports show a lifetime of 200,000 miles of use see this article which I found was the basis of many pro-EV articles that I found) 200,000 miles is the equivalent of 16+ years of driving for the typical American driver. Make sure to ask yourself if you are likely to keep the vehicle that long. “While the average new car buyer holds onto their car for 8.4 years, there is a wide variety of cars that owners are more likely to keep longer,” said iSeeCars. If you change the lifetime cost to own calculation from 16 years to 8, the cost to own picture is not as kind to the EVs. Or, if you add the cost of a full battery replacement, $12,000 to $15,000, almost no EV sold today pencils out to save you much or anything over its lifetime. Most EV manufacturers warranty their batteries for 8 years or 100,000 miles. That is a good indication of how many years you should be able to drive before the costly replacement. EV batteries don’t understand miles, or years. They age based on cycles and how you drive and how you charge your batteries will have a big effect on whether your battery system will need replacing in five years or twelve.
  5. Lifestyle and Social Credit – If you do most of your driving in town, the current lack of convenient charging options should not be a big concern. Charging stations are being built in most highly populated areas. And you will rarely be far from you home and its charging station. However, if you live in a rural area and much of your driving is between places not served by charging options, this should be a big concern. I like to equate the geographical reasons in favor of owning an EV to those that favor using public transit. Where there is a dense enough population to support convenient public transit, there is now or will soon be enough charging option available to make EV ownership a reasonable choice. You may want an EV because in your social sphere, ownership of an EV is a symbol of an Environmentally responsible person. If that is the case, an EV may be a good choice but wouldn’t riding public transit be a better choice for the environment?

Of course there are many more important comparisons that you might want to make. aSafety, for instance may be a big plus for occupants of the much heavier EVs. In general, in accidents, the heavier vehicle comes out better than the lighter one. However, heavier vehicles, in general take longer to stop or change direction so are less likely to avoid crashes. b – Cargo, is another issue to consider. Most EVs carry less weight than their ICE equivalent vehicles and some also have far less cargo volume due to space taken up by batteries. – c – Ground Clearance and turning radius are also impacted by placement of batteries and are worth considering pending the type of driving you do. – d – Resale value is a real unknown. There is the possibility that increased demand may make for high resale value. Just as likely is the possibility of low resale value due to battery age or lower demand than projected.

Last, I think we all need to understand that electric power for a vehicle represents a very flexible fuel profile. The electricity may be generated using solar, wind, coal, hydroelectric, biomass, oil, natural gas, or nuclear. In all cases, the electricity must be moved from the point of generation to the point of use. In the transmission of electricity, most estimates are that about 6% of the energy is lost (2% in transmission and 4% in local distribution). So, the price of this flexibility is a loss of efficiency. In fact, EVs are only less polluting if the source of their energy is less polluting. China, the biggest market for EVs and the fastest growing one generates between 70 and 80% of their electricity from coal. Will China’s big change to EVs really reduce the amount of pollution that they produce? Depending where your electricity is made, you may be driving a coal fired car or a natural gas fired car or a solar powered car. No matter where you are, we still don’t know what effect 250,000 more EVs each year will have on our power grid. Nor do we know what the environmental cost (each year) will be from the recycling (or not) of 250,000 or more huge lithium ion batteries. Lots to think about and not many people asking the important questions.

Before you buy your new EV consider all of the costs, not just those that are advertised and which favor EV ownership.

“Settled Science” is the great oxymoron of the politically correct movement.  I don’t say it belongs to the Environmentalists, or the Liberals, or the One-World Order folks, though most of them use the term.  It is a politically correct term because it it makes sense in no other realm.  The number of people and groups that accept Man-Caused Global Warming as “Settled Science” is very large and very disheartening.


Thanks to

Thanks to

Science by its very nature is observation, experimental investigation, and above all, keeping an open mind to whatever might be the result of such observation and investigation.  Most scientists make their living by challenging what others before them have discovered or believed, not by running around saying, “Me, too.”  Saying that science is settled is just a political method to quell dissent.

400 years ago, Galaleo said, “Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?”  It was a great question then, and, is still a great one today.  Are we so conceited that we think we know everything?  Are we so conceited that we think that after millennia  of the earth warming and cooling in cycles effected by solar activity and natural cycles, that now, in the past century, man has changed the balance of all our ecosystems?

I would love to see the proof of  global warming as a long term phenomena caused by humans.  I would also love for humans to be humble enough to open their minds to believe that what they “Know” may not be so.

I’m not holding my breath for the Al Gores of the world to change their minds or their tune.  They have too much power and influence wrapped up in the myth that they have helped create by stifling all other voices on “climate change.”

My resolutions this year are a bit different than in the past.  I guess I should restate that.  In the past, I have resisted New Year’s Resolutions.  If I am really serious about doing something, I can resolve to do it at any time.  Typical New Year’s Resolutions only last until about mid-February anyway.  The five items below make up a list of things I want to pay more attention to in the coming year.  It is anything but a complete list, but it strikes me as a list of five very significant issues.   I hope to refer to it often and continue to blog about these things more than many of the more superficial issues with which I have dealt in the past.  Here it is:

1.  The Value Added Tax, VAT. I actually think that VAT is a reasonably good idea.  I think it is simpler than our combination of Income, Property, Sales, and Death taxes.  It has a fatal flaw, though.  There is not a chance in the world that it would be enacted to REPLACE those taxes.  Its passage would only mean another layer of tax and more revenue for Congress to abuse.  Tax reform will be a hot topic for the next 22 months and I plan to watch and pay attention more than I would normally.  I predict we will see proposals of a very moderate VAT, like 1% (just like the start of Social Security), and that it will be only a foot in the door.  I will work to oppose any new tax that does not replace a tax that is removed from the current long list.  I predict a VAT will not pass in 2011 but will become a HUGE issue in the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign.

2. The Fed continuing to create money out of thin air. I continue to be very concerned that the mother of all bubbles (greater by a factor of 10 than the housing bubble) is being created right now by a Central Bank that the American People neither understand nor control.  I predict that the Fed will continue to print money to allow our government to operate with few fiscal restraints.  A Trillion dollars of new deficit each of the past two years has been possible only because of your friendly local Fed.   The Fed will also engage in Central Planning of the Banking Industry that will further remove our economy from any stable base (like existed under the gold standard) and will greatly increase the severity of the crash that will be the inevitable outcome of the bubble they are creating.  I predict that these short term measures will continue to prop up politicians and will eventually bring an end to the position of the U.S. Dollar as the standard world trade currency.  I predict that the Fed has the political backing to carry out the sherade for 2011 and possibly even 2012 (until the election), but am convinced that hyper inflation (Jimmy Carter style, at least) will occur within the next 3 years unless we throttle the Fed or return to a gold standard.

3. Virtual Civil War. I don’t see a war like in the 1860s, but I do predict a battle that is every bit as influential in setting the path for the future of our country.  I see wage earners vs. dole takers.  I see Investors vs. politicians/regulators who would tax and spend rather than invest.  I see Private Sector Employees vs. Public Sector Employees.  I see entrenched Keynesians vs. Libertarians and Free Bankers.  What will happen when private sector unions finally discover that public sector unions are driving taxation and deficit spending to the point where they (private sector unions) lose wage parity and the power to control our political direction?  What will happen when Investors come to the realization that the government has in the recent past and will continue in the near future to nationalize businesses and industries?  Unless a concerted effort is made to stop pitting one part of our society against the other for political gain, I fear we will have a virtual Civil War.  It will be between unelected regulators and the people regulated.  It will result in massive non-compliance with taxes, regulations, and law in general.  We can’t build enough prisons to handle a lawless society.  We can’t hire enough enforcement personnel to track down all scofflaws.   I hope for unifying, straight talking leadership but fear we will get more of what we have now, a prescription for the fracture of America.

4. Global Warming. This is a multi-facited problem that is as much about Globalism as about Climate.  Currently, we fight over whether the climate is changing and if so if the change is man-caused.  This is a microcosm of the debate on Globalism.  Is everything so entwined that every action taken by political leaders in Sri Lanka has an effect on politics in Andorra?  Is there a need to have world governing bodies?  Must all societies agree to conform to the same standards?  These are questions about which we will hear exponentially  more in the coming year.  I hope to stay aware of the drive to “One World Order” and to understand the consequences of such a system.  Just the total ineptitude of the U.N. leads me to be very skeptical of any world governance proposals.  I am also concerned that the “global climate change” fear-mongering is just an attempt at a foot in the door advancing Global Government.

5. Innovation. It is my opinion that here is where the real hope lies.  As mentioned before, I loved The Watchman’s Rattle by Rebecca Costa.  I think she is really onto something and it is an important concept for us to watch.  The evolution of our brains has not kept pace with the evolution of our societies and the growth of our populations.  We are losing control of our destiny because we are overwhelmed by complexity beyond our capabilities.  Truly, what in life has not become more complex than it needs to be or than we want it to be?  I plan to learn more about the human brain and hopefully train mine to be more open and innovative.  I think we will develop many of the cures/solutions/fixes that will keep us from collapse as a society.  But, I don’t think it will come easy.  I think that key innovation will occur in societal/political organization (see Theory of Power by my son, Jeff Vail, for one take on this).  I think solutions will come in understanding and using human emotion and belief systems.  I hope solutions come from more reliance on facts than from retreating to the comfort of beliefs.

The good news is that change for the better is occurring, if not at the national political level.  I already notice when talking with Liberal friends that they are disgusted with many of the Orwellian measures that are being forced upon us.  They are upset at the level of taxation and regulation.  They are concerned about how many people are out of work and can see that at least part of it is due to government policy that encourages sloth/discourages work.  I notice when talking with Conservative friends that they are worried about backlash and the growth of right wing anarchist groups.  They are concerned that too many people are talking about guns and taking things into their own hands.  They worry about loss of respect for the law.  I actually think there are a growing number of folks on both sides who are leaning more toward a Libertarian/Get-Government-Off-My Back attitude.  I think there is a great opportunity for us to build on these feelings and start to work together to right the wrongs of the past 80+ years of movement to the deficit-financed welfare state.

I wish everyone a Happy, Healthy, and Thoughtful New Year.  And while you are having that Thoughtful New Year, take the time to comment here and help the conversation.  Last year, this blog was viewed over 345,000 times, but there were fewer than 500 comments.  That is too much of a one way street for my liking.  My hope for the New Year?   More comments.

Planestupid is a group dedicated to showing that human caused global warming is, in large part, caused by aircraft travel.

Where to start?

The revelations this week confirming many of the conspiratorial aspects of Al Gore’s Religion, Global Warming, raise a number of questions.

Should we trust scientists or the U.N.? —  It appears that many scientists were willing to shape experiments and data to fit their needs.  They also seems to be quite apt at using peer pressure to silence those who disagreed with their global warming mantra.  As such, many have proven to be untrustworthy.  It also appears that the U.N. did much the same thing by silencing descenters.  Trusting the U.N. has always been unwise but it now appears that to increase funding and gain more control over more people, the U.N. has again misled us.

Does Global Warming Exist? I don’t know.  I’m guessing that you don’t either.  It does appear that we all need to go back and actually study data and how it was obtained rather than choosing a political agenda and finding statistical data to support how we feel.

Is the use of carbon fuels by humans the cause of climate change? My guess is that it has an effect. I also guess that the effect is much smaller than we have been led to believe.  I continue to wonder about events like the Krakatoa Eruption o f ’83.  If scientific estimates of the 1883 eruption are correct, it was over 10,000 times the destructive force of the Nuclear bomb detonated at Hiroshima.  Did it have an effect on global warming?  How big an effect compared to today’s use of carbon fuels?

How similar are the results of the campaigns to promote the Y2K disasters and the Global Warming disaster? A lot of people made a lot of money on the Y2K scare.  They sold computer upgrades, new programs, insurance, and you-name-it.  Many of these people did what they could to stir the pot and create the panic preceding Y2K.  My guess is that Al Gore has made a lot of money on global warming.  I know he has done a lot to promote it.  I think the similarity is great.  The difference is that we learned the falsehoods of the fear mongers on Y2K at shortly after midnight on January 1, 2000.  If Human Caused Global Warming is real and is as bad as Mr. Gore would have you believe, it will be too late to change our ways by the time we find out the truth.

We could get much closer to the truth if the U.N., many “scientists”, and all those who benefit from the fear of global warming would be honest.   This week’s revelations may help move us to more of the truth.

What should we do?

Two religions are sweeping the globe and gaining power and influence every day.  One is very old.  The other is very new.  They worship very different deities and gain their power through very different means.


Radical Islam is pushing the extreme beliefs of that religion on ever larger populations of the downtrodden.  Where large numbers of people are dissatisfied with their lot in life, there is a breeding ground for radical islam.  Those who would increase the spread and the power of Islam use intimidation, terror, torture and other less than humane methods to coerce people to go along with their plans.  The end result, the radicals hope, will be a world without infidels, operating under Sharia Law and in which concepts like freedom, liberty, and individual initiative don’t exist.

According to Wikipedia, “A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narrativessymbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.”

Radical Environmentalism is the other and it is both a very new and fast growing religion.  I like the current Wikipedia definition of Religion.   To me, Radical Environmentalism and in particular, Global Warmism, are religions.  The Ultimate Truth of Global Warmism is this:  The earth is warming at a rate which will have catistrophic consequences to all life forms and the reason is an increase in ‘greenhouse gasses’ caused by human activity.  The end result of Global Warmism, its proponents hope, will be a world with significantly lower fossil fuel consumption, and all economic activity that has a significant “carbon footprint.”  The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will go a long way to determining how far this new religion goes.

I would argue that these two religions, not necessarily working together, but working at the same time, will bring an end to thousands of years of human progress and will result in a world dominated by Radical Islam with people enduring a standard of living equivalent to what existed in the dark ages.  As economies stagger under the pressure of regulation and restraint, more people will fall into poverty creating a new large base for exploitation by radical Islam.

For more posts on this subject, please go to Cap and Trade, Obama Un-American, Global Warning?

The following video raises some interesting questions.

Do the leaders of these two religions want to control the world so they can dictate the way we live?  Yes.

Do the leaders of these religions use peer pressure to sell their product?  Yes.

Do you agree that both are religions by the Wiki definition?  Do you agree that they are gaining power and influence?

Which is the more dangerous religion?

Sorry to not have posted for well over a week.  I was on a combined business and family trip and have gotten way behind.  While I was gettting behind, Congress was busy railroading through Mr. Obama’s latest emergency legislation:


Email your Senator now.  Tell him or her to stop the lunacy and vote against the hurry-up “Cap and Trade Bill”.  Like almost every other bill on Mr. Obama’s agenda, the Cap and Trade Bill is being rushed through Congress so that critics don’t have time to show taxpayers the flaws.  Mr. Obama’s strategy is clever.  If every bill is done on an emergency basis, there will not be time for opposition to form.  The Cap and Trade Bill is a classic example of a bill that would not have a chance if it saw the light of day.  Hidden in the hurry-up it actually stands a chance to pass and to penalize our country with unilateral sacrifice that will not occur in many other countries.

Cap and Trade is the classic Class Warfare law.  It doesn’t penalize government.  It doesn’t penalize academia. It doesn’t actually accomplish anything significant except to send jobs to countries who laugh at the folly of the thing.  It gives elected and unelected government people the power to further regulate what you do and how you do it.  It is based on several shaky assumptions that its backers don’t want called into question.  It wants you to leave unquestioned the “scientific facts” of “Global Warming.”

What would happen if an elite group of capitalists (leaders of large companies and industry groups) proposed a “cap and trade” law limiting social security and healthcare benefits for all those who worked for government agencies or universities?  It could go something like this:  Since salaried government employees and college professors don’t actually produce a direct benefit or add value (like a farmer or a welder or a miner or a builder) they would only get between 10% and 20% of the Social Security Benefit of the “productive class.”  How well would that sit with the ruling elites?  That’s about the effect this bill will have on those who are not in the protected classes, like government and academia.

No questioning of the key premise is allowed – “Man and his industrial activities are at the root cause of ‘Global Warming’”.  No one is allowed to question if the King is really naked or if he truly has magic clothes.  Anyone who brings up evidence contrary to the religion of Global Warming is silenced or at least discredited.  It takes true bravery for anyone in government or the scientific community to question Global Warming.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal told a story of a person with just such unbelievable guts.  A longtime advocate of the Al Gore position that humans are the cause of Global Warming, he actually admitted that the ‘Global Warming Deniers’ may have some science on their side and it might make sense to look at it.

According to the article, “The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.  Credit for Australia’s own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published “Heaven and Earth,” a damning critique of the “evidence” underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist — and ardent global warming believer — in April humbly pronounced it “an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.”

We didn’t stop the folly of a 1200 page “Stimulus Bill” passing without having been read by those who voted on it.  Maybe we can slow this bill down and take the time to open our minds and see if their really is solid scientific evidence backing the extreme measures this bill proposes.  our economy and our energy future depend on it.

Once again, by crying “Emergency,” Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are trying to have their way without allowing desent.  It appears that closed minds are ruling the day and we will all be worse of for it.  If the Administration and Congress had an ounce of integrity, they would debate this bill like any other and give it a few months to be polished by the people, the press, and yes, even the opposition party.



First, I need to tell you where I stand on the issue of Global Warming or Global Climate Change or whatever is today’s politically correct term.

I find most Global Warming faithful to be very closed minded about the subject.  If you mention anything that does not fit their belief set, most ‘warmists’ will attack you as stupid or ‘right wing nutcase’ or similar.  I think name-calling usually masks their fear that something in which they are so invested may not be exactly as they have been led to believe.  Most seem afraid to let in any data that may not fit their world view.

I think that anyone who intentionally spoils his surroundings is stupid.  I think that anyone, given a choice between two options should choose the one that has the fewer negative impacts. We should look at our environment with a prejudice toward helping, not hindering natural balance.  In medical school, young doctors are taught “first,do no harm.”  Wikipedia states that “another way to state it is that ‘given an existing problem, it may be better to do nothing than to do something that risks causing more harm than good.'”  We need to consider the possible harm of our actions.

We also need to weigh the costs of the actions we take.  To accept Global Warming Theory and take all the actions recommended by Mr. Gore, is, in my view, acting without consideration of the costs or the facts (as often opposed to the current pop-science).  I think we need to strike a balance.  If we continue to pollute the earth, we will destroy much of what has sustained us for centuries/millennia.  If we destroy our economies to protect nature we will have no extra funds with which to protect nature.  It’s Catch 22.

Now, the question:  Is it Global Warming or should we see this as a Global Warning?  I will write more on this at a later date but thought the following links had some interesting data that you don’t see often in the press:

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill? –  ““This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.”

The Artic  – concludes that “Global Warming” is not Global but Regional

Ice at the North Pole – Not So Thick  –  shows photos of thin ice at the north pole over the past 50 years (like the one at the top taken at the North Pole in 1959) .

I also thought this was interesting.  –  

The monthly Weather Review reported []: “The arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions , and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface. … Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. … In Arctic Norway… where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.” But the year was 1922:

 My guess is that most of us think what we want to think and filter what we hear so that our beliefs are rarely challenged.  The severity of the reaction of most “Warmists” to anything that challenges their world view continues to make me believe their minds are closed more than those they accuse of “ignoring the facts.”  I would be much more comfortable if more people were open to the possibility that what we are now told is “Global Warming” might be a cycle over which we have little or no control.  Maybe we could all use this as a warning that regardless of “Warming” or not that we should “first, do no harm.”

This was written on April 27 for posting on May 13.  It was not posted until May 21.

Hit Counter since Sept. 2008

  • 1,545,055 hits
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory