Profile for Fredrick P. Wilson > Reviews

Browse

Fredrick P. Wilson's Profile

Customer Reviews: 45
Top Reviewer Ranking: 29,923,843
Helpful Votes: 928




Community Features
Review Discussion Boards
Top Reviewers

Guidelines: Learn more about the ins and outs of Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Fredrick P. Wilson "shinano01" RSS Feed (Flint, MI USA)
(REAL NAME)   

Show:  
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
pixel
Tamiya 1/35 Red Army" M4A2(76)W Sherman (w/6 Figures)"
Tamiya 1/35 Red Army" M4A2(76)W Sherman (w/6 Figures)"
60 used & new from $39.45

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Italeri KIt of an M4A3 (mostly) in a Tamiya box., February 11, 2015
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This is a repackaged Italeri kit. It is not a bad kit, just not what I expected.

The turret sides need some work, they are not vertical enough.

The worst part, besides the misrepresentation that this is a Tamiya kit, is that the exhaust is that for an M4A3, not an A2 with the diesel engine. THe grill openings on the top of the rear deck has to be cut out, removed, and then replaced with the kit supplied part to make that portion accurate for an M4A2.

Everything is fixable, but I expected a real Tamiya kit, with accurate details that I would not need to rework extensively.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Mar 24, 2015 11:04 AM PDT


Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream
Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream
by Dinesh D'Souza
Edition: Hardcover
Price: $3.64
263 used & new from $0.01

8 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Destruction of America by our Islamist anti-Colonialist Worst President, September 27, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Obama's America - Unmaking the American Dream, is another, vital, unbelievably knowledgeable, and incredibly important book by Dinesh D'Souza, that argues that to save America from becoming a 2nd rate, impotent nation, subject to nuclear blackmail and dissolution by other nations.

In his first book on this subject, which I highly recommend, The Roots of Obama's Rage, he introduces the thesis that is the central argument in this book, also. I also recommend that everyone read my review of his first book, "Destroying America by Our Islamist, Anti-Colonialist, Worst President". The title is similar, but this review, as this book does, elaborates on how Obama has applied and will continue to apply his basic beliefs, values, and ideals, all to the detriment of America.

The precept, that Dinesh introduces so thoroughly, with voluminous documentation and numerous examples, is that President Hussein Obama Jr. has wholly internalized Obama Sr.'s anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Imperialist ideology. That ideology was partially formed by his uber-liberal mother, who abandoned him just as Obama Sr. did. We, the USA, are the neo-colonialist, the neo-Imperialist power that must be brought to heel, that must be diminished to impotency.

It is Obama's basic beliefs, ideals, and values that shape who he is, and what he says and does as President. Without that basic knowledge and understanding, then much of what Obama says and does is so inconsistent and puzzling that even liberals are left wondering.

Now, Dinesh says that Obama wants what is good for America. It is just that Obama's idea of what is good for America is actually bad for America. I.E. Obama is a patriot, and his patriotism is going to go far towards not just diminishing America, but destroying America.

The 1st chapter, "Inner Compass" is spent covering why Obama is what he is. Dinesh elaborates on, and adds to, what he stated in The Roots of Obama's Rage. The 2nd Chapter, "Invisible Man" explains why Obama wants to remain a mystery. There is no way that even ˝ of the Democrats would support him if he actually spoke out openly and told them what he really believes.

Chapters 3, "Absentee Father", and 4, "Mommie Dearest" elaborate on how Obama's missing in action parents affected him, absolutely for the worst.

Reading the reviews of this book on Amazon that are not approving of it are not very enlightening; they are either short blusterous hate filled screeds, personal attacks on Dinesh, Democratic talking points in favor of Obama, or Libertarian volleys against everyone. Regardless, there is no thought or analysis that went into any of those reviews.

The single largest problem with the folks who support Obama is that they are not open minded, they do not think critically, and they do not consider any information they don't already agree with. Since their faith and belief in him is an emotional event, similar to a religious experience, facts, logic, and documentation are not going to sway their adoring doe-eyed rose-colored glasses view of him. I give Dinesh all the credit in the world for documenting the basic values, beliefs, and ideals of President Barack Hussein Obama, but, having read the idiotic detracting reviews of this book on Amazon, the divide in America is a yawning chasm that only a 2nd civil war may close.

Chapter 5 "Obama's Founding Fathers" lists Dinesh's beliefs of the folks who affected him most after his Dad (& Mom) and Frank Marshall Davis (Communist that Obama lovers love to love). All of the others Dinesh says Obama sought out.

At Columbia University Obama had Edward Said as a professor and kept him as a constantly communicating friend for 20 years. Said is a nominal "Christian" who is a huge anti-colonialist, who believes colonialism and imperialism, by Europe and America, have deeply hurt the Middle East. His book, Orientalism, which I do not recommend, and others he has authored, have done a great deal of harm to the Middle East Study departments of almost all of our Universities and to the Middle East, giving them an excuse for their lousy economies. It is a "blame imperialist white men for everything" mindset, and it is a pile of refuse. That Obama was positively influenced by Said is very bad for America. He also befriended Rashid Khalidi, an Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood supporter, who was Said's successor at Columbia.

There is Brazilian socialist Roberto Mangabeira, Bill Ayers, and the Reverend Wright. As Dinesh writes, "Never before has America had a president tutored by a Communist and part-time pornographer; by a `professor of terror' who advocated armed resistance against America and her allies; by a socialist so radical that he was ejected by the foreign socialist government he served in; by an incendiary theologian whose philosophy can be summed up in the phrase "God damn America; and by a former terrorist who, like Osama bin Laden, attempted to blow up the pentagon and other symbols of American Power."

The Reverend Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years, who performed the vows of marriage. Obama chose Wright because he agrees with Wrights anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, anti-American views. Obama threw him under the bus in 2008 because he couldn't have Wright or anyone else expose the actual beliefs, values, and ideals that Obama has. Obama is too selfish to stand by someone that embarrasses him by telling the truth about who he is. In Obamas race speech in which he ditched Wright, he changed the subject from America being the Hegemonic evil in the world to race relations. Obama understands that patience is a virtue. He can't diminish America in one fell swoop, it will take eight years to make enough progress that it will be near impossible to reverse.

Even if that doesn't terminally condemn Obama, there is far worse to come.

Chapter 6, "Sellouts" covers how Obama has abandoned any member of his family that doesn't agree with him and that doesn't help his political career. Chapter 7, "Certificates of Absolution" show that Obama is not a race challenger, like Jesse Jackson, but is a bargainer, who gives whites the benefit of doubt about them being racists, so the whites are immediately relieved and thrilled. Obama plays this routine like a harp from hell. He grants whites an absolution from racism, so they clamor to do anything to support him. Weak minded, tottering, irrelevant fools, all.

Chapter 8, "The Wealth They Didn't Earn" Tax the middle class, and destroy the economy. Obamacare, like Canadacare, will result in long lines, fewer doctors and higher costs. The Independent Advisory Payment Board is a death panel, limiting costs by limiting payments, until doctors cannot stay in business. Then care will be rationed. Health care delayed is a death sentence.

Chapter 9, "Drilling There But Not Here" Pay the Saudis so they can keep putting up hundreds of Mosques across the US. Pay Brazil to drill, but not here. Dinesh doesn't have a chapter on Climate Change and how windmills and solar are terrible energy sources. He will starve the USA of cheap, affordable, clean energy. Nuclear energy is the only viable option.

Chapter 10, "Disarming the Rogue Nation" Of course, we, the USA, are the Rogue Nation. Dinesh covers how carefully Obama must act as he slowly destroys America and turns us into a 2nd class nation, unable to influence international events or even defend ourselves. If he works too fast even Democrats will wake up. Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and maybe Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will still have nukes, even if the US does not. Nuclear blackmail is in our future if Obama wins a 2nd term.

For example, Obama has no problem with Iran becoming a Nuclear Power. He has cut anti-ballistic missile defense and research money and priorities. The easiest way for Iran to destroy the Little Satan, Israel, is to destroy us, the Great Satan, first. How can they do that? Easily, through an EMP attack. I highly recommend One Second After, by William Forstchen, and my review of it, titled "Permanent Civilization Killer".

Obama says nice words; he has Israel's "back", he knows we cannot contain a Nuclear Iran, we "must" not allow Iran to become a Nuclear power. Sanctions are not working, and will not work. Anybody that believes that Obama is willing to save America from this mortal danger by going to war to prevent it, which is the only option left, is a fool. Netanyahu is correct. We must smash Iran's enrichment capabilities before it is too late - for the USA. An Iran with nuclear weapons is a clear and present danger to the USA.

Chapter 11, "The Jihadi As Freedom Fighter" It is here that Dinesh makes his one big error. He speaks about how people have wasted their time, thinking and trying to prove that Obama was a Muslim when he never was. Dinesh writes about how completely secular his father and stepfather were and that Obama has the same secular values.

Dinesh, in 2007, wrote a book, titled The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I do not recommend this book. I do recommend my review of it, titled "A Book Better Left Unwritten". Dinesh D'Souza doesn't know enough about Islam to have an opinion worth having, and in today's world, that is a mortal deficiency in any political author, especially one writing about Obama.

I have spent over 10,000 hours studying Islam, making presentations, and writing about Islam and how horrid its basic values, beliefs, and ideals are since 9/11. Dinesh depended on Obama's two books, and I have read and reviewed them in regards to Islam. I recommend Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance(1 star rating) and my review of it, titled "Islamist Apostate? Or Islamist?" I also recommend The Audacity of Hope Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream(1 star rating), and my review of it titled "Our Islamist President and Defeating America."

As I state in those reviews, and in my documentation to support those two reviews, anyone who supported or voted for Obama wants the USA to lose this war and become an Islamist nation 5 to 15 years sooner than if McCain was elected, or 15 to 20 years sooner than if Obama is re-elected instead of Mitt Romney. Plus, anyone who supports Obama or votes for him might as well be on the side of these IslamoNazis that are successfully working to take over the world and destroy Western Civilization.

There is nothing inconsistent with Dinesh's thesis combined with the fact that Obama is a Muslim. He is not on the side of al-Qaeda and the Islamists that want to cut our heads off and blow us up, but he is on the side of the Stealth Jihadis of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and CAIR and most of the rest of the alphabet soup of Islamists here in America.

Chapter 12 "Our Arab Winter" Actually it is Our Muslim Brotherhood Winter. The MB is the parent organization of many of the alphabet soup of Islamist organizations in the Middle East. Obama has surrendered the peaceful Muslims, and the USA, to the Jihadists.

Chapter 13 "Debt As A Weapon of Mass Destruction" Our Great Depression was the single deepest and longest depression of any nation on the earth. Why? The Keynesian spending and regulatory nightmare of FDR. We know better now, but we are repeating history. Why? Obama doesn't think the debt is a problem. One way the debt hurts is that there is no money for an effective military. Defense Secretary Panetta has stated that the defense cuts will seriously denigrate our ability to affect Iran, which is vital to the survival of the USA.

Chapter 14 "Big Daddy" Covers Obama's egotism and narcissism.

Chapter 15-"Surviving Obama". There is no good way to survive a 2nd term. He will use Executive Orders and Departmental Administrative Law to do what Congress won't allow.

Obama is the single worst President the USA has ever had.

This is a great book.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Nov 18, 2012 5:26 PM PST


The Roots of Obama's Rage
The Roots of Obama's Rage
by Dinesh D'Souza
Edition: Paperback
Price: $11.62
88 used & new from $1.04

1 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Destroying America by Our Islamist, Anti-Colonialist, Worst President, September 27, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Dinesh D'Souza has put together a great deal of documentation regarding President Obama's basic, fundamental, values, beliefs, and ideals that guide his every action as President and are the reason for his speeches, his books, and the policies he has formulated and promoted.

In the paperback edition that I have, Dinesh admits to two small factual errors that his detractors have validly pointed out. "In one case I suggested that Obama went to Pakistan before he was 17 years old, while in fact he went a couple of years later", and a misstatement about how much of the world's energy the USA has and uses instead of how much of the world's oil supply the USA has and uses. These are truly minor items compared to the theory Dinesh promotes about Obama, and the voluminous documentation in support of that. I have one major problem with this book, and Dinesh in general, but that only makes Obama far worse than even Dinesh believes.

Chptr 1-"A Tale of Three Dreams". He states that "Somehow we have taken this lonely, driven figure and turned him into an image of diversity. He is our Kumbayah man, our post-ideological president, (and) an ultra-modern leader with a twenty-first century agenda", but the last, as Dinesh goes on to say, is not true - Obama is not diverse, and his fundamental values and thoughts are anything but modern. Dinesh says we have to understand Obama as he really is, not as we want him to be.

That is the single largest problem with the folks who support Obama. Since their faith and belief in him is an emotional event, similar to a religious experience, facts, logic, and documentation are not going to sway their adoring doe-eyed rose-colored glasses view of him. I give Dinesh all the credit in the world for documenting the basic values, beliefs, and ideals of President Barack Hussein Obama, but, having read the idiotic detracting reviews of this book on Amazon, the divide in America is a yawning chasm that only a 2nd civil war may close.

Chptr 2-"The Black Man's Burden". Dinesh argues that it is his "African father's basic anti-colonial ideology...that Obama took to heart." After colonialism comes neo-colonialism, or when, after the "horrid western colonialists" have left, their economic dominance continues. Per Kwame Nkrumah, anti-colonialism is the foundational belief that Obama subscribes to, and colors his every idea, speech, and policy.

Chapter 3-"Obama's Private War". In this chapter Dinesh tests his theory against various deeds and policies that Obama espouses or has done.

He returned the bust of Winston Churchill to the British. The bust of the single finest statesman that the Twentieth Century produced, who went farther to save Western Civilization from Nazism and Communism, and died too soon to complete saving it from becoming an Islamist hellhole, than any other statesman. Obama views Churchill as the neo-colonialist who threw his grandfather into prison, fought against and broke the Mau-Mau rebellion, and kept the English boot on Kenya' throat. So in Obama's world, oppressing his grandfather and the black population of Kenya was more important than saving the world from Nazism and Communism. Churchill also spoke out and wrote about the horrors of Islam, which Obama would also criticize endlessly if he knew about that, which I doubt that he does, just like Obama has criticized the foolish, silly, youtube trailer which "denigrated" Allah, Islam, and Muhammad, and caused the death of our Libyan Ambassador and the riots in the Islamist world in SEP2012, except that really, after a little artistic license, this film tells the truth about Muhammad as a horrid human being who makes Attila the Hun seem like the nicest guy in the world.

Obama's goal, per Dinesh is not to succeed in Afghanistan, it is to ensure that we, the new-colonialists, get out as soon as is politically feasible to do so. He realized, for his political survival, after saying that Afghanistan was the good war, that he couldn't have us just withdraw precipitately. So he put in too few troops for a real surge, called it great, and is now withdrawing them "per his timetable" The problem is that Iraq, now that we are gone, has become a satrap of Iran. For instance, Biden asked Maliki if he would stop allowing Iran to send weapons to Assad in Syria by overflying Iraq. Maliki told Biden to take a hike, and made it stick. Afghanistan will be re-taken over by the Taliban or whomever the Pakistani Intelligence Service wants to support. Which puts the USA and Afghanistan right back into a pre-9/11 world.

Obama wants to dramatically reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile, while doing nothing to stop or reduce the nuclear weapons programs and stockpiles of China, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and soon to be Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and who knows who else. His goal is to diminish the USA, to weaken us as an imperialist power, regardless of how vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, of how impotent, we will be

We are the imperialist neo-colonial power in the world that replaced the European Imperialist colonialists, and it is Obama's goal to bring us down and make us just another ordinary nation, bullied by other nations and the UN. He is succeeding.

This chapter has a great deal more documentation and proof of Dinesh's thesis. I do highly recommend this book. It is vital that every American understand how horrid Obama is to America, and how much worse he will be in a second term.

Chptr 4-"The Outsider". Dinesh covers how Obama Sr. abandoned his family in Hawaii. Then Obama goes to Indonesia, where his anti-colonialist, uber-liberal, despise most of America, mother, loses faith in Lolo Soetoro, as he changes from an anti-colonialist and anti-establishment person into someone who works for the establishment and has become one with the system. Obama's mother then needs to distance herself and her son from the establishment supporting step-father, and abandons Obama back to his uber-liberal grandparents in Hawaii, who finished raising him. Obama's abandonment by both his parents deeply impacts his psyche.

But it is here that Dinesh makes his one big error. He speaks about how people have wasted their time, thinking and trying to prove that Obama was a Muslim when he never was. Dinesh writes about how completely secular his father and stepfather were and that Obama has the same secular values.

Dinesh, in 2007, wrote a book, titled The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I do not recommend this book. I do recommend my review of it, titled "A Book Better Left Unwritten". Dinesh D'Souza doesn't know enough about Islam to have an opinion worth having, and in today's world, that is a mortal deficiency in any political author, especially one writing about Obama.

I have spent over 10,000 hours studying Islam, making presentations, and writing about Islam and how horrid its basic values, beliefs, and ideals are since 9/11. Dinesh depended on Obama's two books, and I have read and reviewed them in regards to Islam. I recommend Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance and my review of it, titled "Islamist Apostate? Or Islamist?" I gave the book a 1 star rating. I also recommend The Audacity of Hope Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (1 star rating), and my review of it titled "Our Islamist President and Defeating America."

As I state in those reviews, and in my documentation to support those two reviews, anyone who supported or voted for Obama wants the USA to lose this war and become an Islamist nation 5 to 15 years sooner than if McCain was elected, or 15 to 20 years sooner than if Obama is re-elected instead of Mitt Romney. Plus, anyone who supports Obama or votes for him might as well be on the side of these IslamoNazis that are successfully working to take over the world and destroy Western Civilization.

Chptr 5-"African in America" introduces us to some unsavory folks that influenced Obama during his college years.

At Columbia University Obama had Edward Said as a professor. Said is a nominal "Christian" who is a huge anti-colonialist, who believes colonialism and imperialism, by Europe and America, have deeply hurt the Middle East. His book, Orientalism, which I do not recommend, and others he has authored, have done a great deal of harm to the Middle East Study departments of almost all of our Universities. It is a "blame imperialist white men for everything" mindset, and it is a pile of refuse. That Obama was positively influenced by Said is very bad for America.

Chptr 6-"Becoming Barack", introduce us to some of the unsavory characters who influenced Obama , such as Saul Alinsky, and especially the Reverend Wright.

It was Wrights sermon, The Audacity of Hope, which Obama stole as the title of his 2nd book. It is part of Wright's foundational beliefs that drew Obama to him, that made Obama choose his Church to attend for 20 years. That belief is anti-colonialism. The belief that American is a neo-colonialist country that took over from the Europeans after WWII. That we have assumed the Imperialist mantle and we must be taken down until we can no longer bother, and destroy, anyone else.

Obama stayed in that Church for 20 years because he shares Wrights beliefs. Obama threw Wright under the bus in the election campaign, after Obama stated his true feelings, that he could no more distance himself from Wright than he could from the black community. Why anyone bought into Obama distancing himself from Wright as anything other than blatant, Chicago style, political opportunism, lying, is beyond me. Dinesh elaborates upon Wrights values, ideals, and beliefs, and this chapter is well worth the price of the entire book.

Chptr 7-"Putting On The Mask" & Chptr 8-"Humbling the Overclass" cover a great deal of ground, Once again, I highly recommend this book. As much as he wants to humble the neo-colonialist American Businessmen, it is humbling America internationally that is the worst problem.

Chptr 9-"Taming the Rogue Nation"- Of course, we, the USA, are the Rogue Nation. Dinesh covers how carefully Obama must act as he slowly destroys America and turns us into a 2nd class nation, unable to influence international events or even defend ourselves.

For example, Obama has no problem with Iran becoming a Nuclear Power. He has cut anti-ballistic missile defense and research money and priorities. The easiest way for Iran to destroy the Little Satan, Israel, is to destroy us, the Great Satan, first. How can they do that? Through an EMP attack. I highly recommend One Second After, by William Forstchen, and my review of it, titled "Permanent Civilization Killer".

Obama says nice words; he has Israel's "back", he knows we cannot contain a Nuclear Iran, we "must" not allow Iran to become a Nuclear power. Sanctions are not working, and will not work. Anybody that believes that Obama is willing to save America from this mortal danger by going to war to prevent it, which is the only option left, is a fool.

Chptr 10-"The Last Anti-Colonialist". This explains better than any other single thesis, why Obama says and acts the way he does. There is nothing inconsistent with Dinesh's thesis combined with the fact that Obama is a Muslim. He is not on the side of al-Qaeda and the Islamists that want to cut our heads off and blow us up, but he is on the side of the Stealth Jihadis of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and CAIR and most of the rest of the alphabet soup of Islamists here in America.

This is a great book. Read it and Dinesh's Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream, and my review of it, titled "The Destruction of America by our Islamist anti-Colonialist Worst President"

Obama is the single worst President the USA has ever had.
Comment Comments (7) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Dec 11, 2012 5:34 PM PST


It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
by Thomas E. Mann
Edition: Hardcover
Price: $19.23
201 used & new from $0.01

34 of 247 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Obama Is the Single Worst President the USA Has Ever Had, August 11, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
The intent of this book is to convince folks that the USA should have a European style of government, with a permanent left or far left government for both the Presidential and the Congressional branches of government simultaneously.

The purported reason for advocating this direction is that the Republican / Conservative party has "shifted so far to the right" after the election of Obama, in the 2010 elections, that they no longer represent the significant political center where most voters reside, and that they have far too large an ability to block this liberal government (Obama) from achieving its "mainstream" goals.

The authors believe that one of the first steps is to make sure that the US Senate can do all of its business with a simple majority. Currently, for many items of business, it takes 60 Senators to vote to support stopping debate, which will then allow a vote to take place which will only take a majority to pass, or defeat, the bill at hand. This is called cloture. Interestingly, after the 2004 elections, when the Republicans increased their majorities in both houses, the Republicans in the US Senate discussed doing away with the 60 vote cloture rule, which is an internal to the US Senate rule, because the Liberal Democrats used it to constantly obstruct any positive actions by the Republicans! Saner heads prevailed that knew that a permanent Republican majority was not possible, and this would turn around and hurt the Republicans in the future.

Would the authors be happy with a Republican 51 vote majority in the US Senate that passed everything the Republican House and a Republican President wanted? They say they would, for the majority like that would only last one election cycle before they were thrown out. Unmitigated liberal bombast by the authors.

The authors decried how Republicans won't approve Obama appointees, and how Obama was forced to make recess appointments. but they didn't mention how the Democrats treated Bush and his desired appointees even worse, and how Bush was eviscerated by the liberals for making the equal or greater number of forced recess appointments, including the best UN Representative we have had in 25 years, John Bolton.

The authors use the Democratic majorities of the last 60 years (from 1932 to 1994) and how it worked so well with the "moderate" Republican minority. There were times when there were over 70 Democratic Senators. It was a rare day when a Republican could even propose a minor change to any legislation. In effect, this heavenly period of cooperation only lasted as long as the Republicans were willing to just be the pets of the Democrats.

They stayed that way up until 2010, while Democrats held the majority, moderate Republicans could and did support such "mainstream" programs as health care, immigration reform (I presume, amnesty) and climate change (being man made and bad, I presume). Once again, pet Republicans.

Basically the authors believe that Republicans should just be Democrat light, going along and making kissy face with the Democrats at every turn, as is done in Europe. Well, Europe is demographically dying and fiscally destroying itself. It will take a decade or more to seriously start, and another century to complete, but by 2200, there will no longer be a Europe with any Europeans in it, except for a few octogenarians, and far too many Islamists. Along the way, the complete and total fiscal collapse of Europe will go a long way to pulling the USA down with them, all because of liberal fiscal policies, liberal ideals and liberal beliefs similar to that which the authors are advocating.

Fox News comes in for some scathing and specific criticism. They charge that Fox's business model is to repeat the same news over and over again. This is called a headline news, or semi-headlline news format, and it is entirely legal. CNN did this with a vengeance with its headline news network. But for Fox to do a light version of CNN is somehow horrid and debilitating. The assumption is that watching FOX news makes those who do so less well informed than other folks. This is a liberal canard that is based on some terminally flawed studies. They authors also blame FOX news in part, along with talk radio, for the "asymmetric polarization that is now such a prominent feature of U.S. politics". Of course, they don't cover the radical polarization of liberals by the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, and PBS.

This is not an even-handed, fair and balanced, rational book. It is a liberal screed, with permanent and terminal flaws. It is written with an entertaining and legible wit that is, at times, highly entertaining, as any good fiction book should be.

The authors state that "whether lawmakers like or dislike laws, they are under oath to carry them out." But Obama has not enforced immigration laws he dislikes, he has worked for voter discrimination events, he has supported Sharia law against our Constitution, and he has broken Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation Laws regarding the DELPHI bankruptcy, involving the Treasury department, destroying the pensions of the salaried workers, while rewarding the UAW workers and making their pensions whole. The Author decries how Republicans, using the filibuster rules in the Senate, have obstructed the enforcement of laws, but they give no examples.

The authors believe that it is the Democratic party, that while imperfect, is more ideologically centered. Republicans allegedly deny facts, evidence, and science, and are dismissive of the government. The authors believe that the socialistic direction the country has been headed in for the last 80 years is the right direction and that any obstructionism against achieving that goal is bad, The authors have everything upside down.

The authors believe that Obama has been too restrained in his use of his executives powers, and that the presidency should be granted far greater powers. It was Richard Nixon, I believe, to whom liberals applied the term "Imperial President". The same was true of Ronald Reagan, and especially of George W. Bush. And now they want the president, along as they are a liberal "mainstream" president, like "President Hussein" to have more powers? WOW! Obama has already taken more power because craven Republicans won't oppose him enough.

The authors use the Obamacare bill as an example of both co-operation and doing the right thing. Specifically they laud the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). They decry the naming of this board as the "death panel" by Tea Party folks, whom they particularly despise (as do most liberals). However, Health Care Delayed is frequently a death sentence. Health Care Denied is, almost always, a death sentence.

Health insurance is not health care. Only 12% of US doctors will see patients on Medicaid. Within 8 years, the payments for Medicare will be as low as those for Medicaid are today. Over 50% of US doctors will not take on any or any new Medicare patients. Why? The payments are less than their costs. So much less that they cannot afford to continue in practice at those payment levels. Four years of College, 4 years of medical school, and 4 years of internship, mean a doctor is 30 before they start earning money, and their school loans are huge. Why be a doctor if you can't make a living doing so? Fewer and fewer young folks will become doctors just to be impoverished themselves for most of their lives. The IPAB will only limit payments, not costs. Check Canada, England, and Europe. Long lines, care greatly delayed or completely denied are the norm. Obamacare will do nothing to make Health Care affordable. It will do nothing to foster the competition and innovation that are the only way to reduce health care costs. Obamacare will destroy the best health care system in the world (this is a much longer discussions to absolutely prove this, which I can do)!

The US Great Depression in the 1930's was the longest and deepest depression any country in the world had. Canada had a much shallower and shorter recession. Why? Canada had a conservative government that did not engage in Keynesian "pump priming" spending and liberal policy experimenting, which created far too much uncertainty. Most of the programs from the 1930's and WWII were supposed to be temporary. Oops! In the 1950's and 1960's almost every recognized economist that studied the depression realized that FDR's spending and liberal policies greatly hurt the USA. Here we are today, and Obama, and Bush to s lesser extent, are repeating the mistakes of history. The debt levels, which are now exceeding WWII historic highs, will gut our national defense, gut our ability to compete around the world, and, ultimately, cause either double digit inflation or the dramatic devaluation of the dollar, or both. Payments on the debt will slowly drag our nation into impotence, internationally and nationally. Ignorance of the past is no excuse.

Why do conservatives despise Obama so much? Read my reviews of his two books, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, titled "Islamist Apostate? Or Islamists?" and The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage) titled "Our Islamist President and Defeating America". As I state, I have spent over 10,000 hours studying Islam since 9/11, we are in mortal danger of becoming an Islamist country before 2100, and anybody who voted for or who supports Obama wants the USA to become an Islamist nation 5 to 15 years sooner than either if McCain was elected or if Romney is elected. Obama is not on the side of al-Qaeda and the IslamoNazis that want to blow us up or cut our heads off, but he is on the side of the Jihadists that want Sharia law to replace our constitution, as is the DOJ under Eric Holder. Read One Second After and my review titled "An EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) Attack on the USA is a Permanent Civilization Killer". Obama will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. It is not his job to farm out our own defense to Israel. Iran with nuclear weapons is a clear and present danger to the USA.

The authors plug for a publicly funded broadcast system that is fair and balanced, with shows like the PBS "News-Hour", "Charlie Rose", or the "Diane Rehm Show". The problem, as is everything with these authors and this book, is that those are, all three, uber-liberal shows, that occasionally have a liberal-conservative on to represent the other side of the argument against multiple other uber liberal guests. In effect, since liberal talk radio has been a complete failure, and MSNBC has only a minute audience share, this book is for eliminating freedom of speech.

The authors make the common argument that only knowledgeable folks should be included in any argument, which sounds OK superficially, but who decides who is knowledgeable?. Similar to Michael Mann, author of the hockey stick global warming curve, perverted science and abused the scientific method to achieve his predetermined beliefs., argues that only peer-reviewed articles and scientists can be included in the global warming discussion. The problem is that Michaels Mann's blatantly biased unscientific paper was peer reviewed by a bunch of peer alarmists that bowed down to his expertise, and it took a non-peer reviewed non Ph. D scientist to figure out how Mann had perverted science and proven the peer review system to be worthless. Liberals are just like Michael Mann, without logic or facts, and willing to lie about it.

The authors and this book have everything wrong and upside down. It is cogently written. It is 100% without merit. I do recommend this book to every conservative, to understand just how far gone the alleged moderate liberals are. It is even worse than it looks, and it is the Democratic party that has gone so far to the left that they are no longer on the side of America, neither domestically, nor regarding national defense, and not internationally.
Comment Comments (36) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Mar 10, 2013 7:39 AM PDT


Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis
Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis
by Al Gore
Edition: Paperback
Price: $10.80
44 used & new from $0.01

6 of 26 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Ugly, Economically Disastrous, Green Choices, June 24, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Al Gore starts this book off with a picture of the earth from space, about which he says we must choose which earth, one in which unchecked global warming has wreaked havoc, or not, there will be for future generations. We are at a crossroads, so says Gore.

Next he quotes the Bible:

"I'm offering you the choice of life or death. You can choose either blessings or curses."
Deuteronomy 30:19

So I will agree with him. Are we going to have an earth that has "green" energy sources so uneconomic with prices so high, that civilization will slow down, or even reverse, or will we still have clean energy that is inexpensive, allowing us to use our limited resources to continue to improve civilization? The alleged choice of life or death, relates to Al Gores beliefs, which are totally unsubstantiated, have zero documentation to support them, and are a scientific myth, or those who oppose him. Well, the choices aren't that dramatic, unless you are talking about the life of the economy, which Al Gore doesn't want to die, but which will slowly die under his "green" policies. So, do we go back to the 19 century the Al Gore way, or go forward into the 21st and beyond? Those are the choices.

It is vital to understand that Al Gore is a science denier. There is no science to support his belief that Climate Change, AKA Global Warming, is anything other than entirely natural and that CO2 is not the cause of Climate Change or Global Warming . I would suggest that everyone should read my review of An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, and then read all of my reviews. Anyone that doesn't believe what is stated in my reviews might as well join the Climategate folks as committed untruthful, anti-scientific, folks.

Gore starts off this book recounting the natural disasters, flooding her and there, Katrina and New Orleans, as part of his emotional appeal. That Global Warming caused any of the natural disasters included is patently false, and Gore should know better. He then covers how greenhouse gasses, primarily CO2, can destroy the planet. If he wasn't so serious, this would be a good alternative to the comedy channel, for there is zero truth in what is stated herein.

He presents a fairly factual story of how we currently acquire our energy, before he heads off into la-la land regarding the alternative sources of energy.

First up is solar energy. What is not presented is how uneconomical solar energy is.

First off, it only works when the sun is up, which means not at nighttime, or 50% of the time. It doesn't work so well under cloud cover, or during rain and snowstorms.

It is expensive to install. Without subsidies, from everyone, meaning you and me, as taxpayers, solar is a non-starter. The payback period is 60 or more years. Within that time, solar cells wear out, corrode, break, etc. and need to be replaced. A battery system is needed to store the energy when the sun is down. This means all the work of maintaining, and replacing batteries, on an ongoing basis. On a large scale, for power generation, there is no viable storage system. An equal MWh (MegaWatts/hour) of energy producing gas turbines need to be purchased, and they, of course, use fuel, and, to Al Gore's horror, produce CO2.

Without subsidies, Solar Power is economically unviable. We should stop wasting out tax dollars for chic friends of Al Gore. If solar is so great, why can't they stand on their own, with private money? We should support research, and perhaps some small pilot plants for proof of concept testing. We must stop supporting large scale production and usage. If other countries want to subsidize this industry, let them waste their money. We should place import tariffs on any subsidized product equal to the subsidy.

Next up is the biggest loser of all, wind power. Before proceeding, I highly recommend you read The Wind Farm Scam (Independent Minds), and my review of it, titled "Wind Farms Are Economic Boat Anchors."

Economic Costs of electrical power from various sources:

Electricity from a coal plant in England costs about $78 per MWh (Mega Watt hour). Expressed as $78/MWh.

Electricity from a gas turbine plant (running at a constant capacity) is also about $78/MWh. Electricity from a gas turbine plant that is a backup to a wind farm plant is horridly expensive, since it is not running at a constant high capacity, it is up to twice as expensive, or comparable to an offshore wind farm.

Electricity from a nuclear plant in France costs about $47/MWh.

Electricity from onshore wind farms in England costs about $113/MWh.

Electricity from offshore wind farms in England costs about $145/MWh.

So wind farms are the single most expensive way to generate electricity - after Oxen on a treadmill. Literally, only when there is no other choice, including animal power, should anyone ever consider a windmill for anything, much less electricity.

The same gas turbines need to be purchased, installed, and kept idling, ready to take over in a minute, and use real energy, kerosene or natural gas, to produce electricity when the wind stop blowing, as it always does, and produce those horrid, hated, CO2 molecules that are the best plant food God ever devised.

There isn't a wind farm on this planet that makes any money. They can't survive without massive subsidies for you and me, the long suffering taxpayer. It is time to deep six wind farms, and use the money and resources for something, anything, productive.

Next he promotes geothermal energy. If it can make money, on its own, without subsidies, using only private investment, go for it. No harm done.

The next chimera Gore jumps onto is ethanol, and especially ethanol made from cellulose, which, by the way, has never been done and cannot be done still today, in 2012! The cellulosic ethanol industry has been one billion dollars of investment, just one pilot plant, away from success, each and every year for the last 50 years. It is a joke.

Biodiesel is OK, but only without any subsidies. Ethanol from great plant feed stock, like sugar cane, is OK, except we can't hardly grow any in the USA. Ethanol from corn, the darling of the farm lobby, is another loser. At least Al Gore agrees with that. What we can do is make methanol, wood alcohol, from cellulose, and from coal. I strongly urge everyone to read Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil.

Now to the apple of Al's eye, carbon capture and sequestration. Sounds technical. It sort of is. The idea is to separate all of the "carbon", CO2 (plant food), from the smokestack emissions, and then pump it deep underground at very high pressures into vacant caverns miles beneath the earth. It is very expensive. But the biggest flaw is that it is entirely unnecessary.

150 million years ago, the dinosaurs roamed the earth. There were warm periods, that were much warmer than today, and there were cold periods, colder than the little ice age, but not as cold as a glacier age. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then was over 4,000 PPM, or over 15 times higher than today, in both warm and cool times. By Al Gore's standards, life on earth should have ended. The dinosaurs and all other life should have died. Oops. The dinosaurs thrived for another 85 million years, and eventually we came along. Al Gore is saying that we, humanity, cannot survive in an environment in which our dinosaur sort-of ancestors did live, and love it. So Al thinks people, including himself, are dumber, less capable, than your typical dinosaur. Maybe he is, but the rest of us are smart enough to go on living and consign Al Gore to the trash bin of history.

Gore does spend some semi-quality time on Nuclear Energy. Al likes it because it produces massive quantities of energy with no CO2 emissions. It should make his little puppy dog tale wag unmercifully. He does have a variety of what ifs and reservations. Most of them revolve around the cost of building the plants. Per the data previously listed, about how inexpensive electricity from nuclear energy is, the only drawback are the anti-nuclear folks who don't understand technology or engineering, and how safely we can make electrical power from nuclear today.

We really need to work hard at making all of our electricity from nuclear power.

Gore next decries the destruction of the rain forests. I partially agree with him, but just because I like trees. The CO2 part of the equation is just nonsense. Whether it is fewer trees, which is a shame, or the burning of the trees, which ads particulates, real pollution into the atmosphere, rather than the CO2 that keeps Al awake at night, we should, just as nice folks, try to keep all of the rain forests from being destroyed.

Al hates inexpensive food! He wants expensive food that less well off folks can't afford, and of which there won't be enough of to feed everybody. And this is because he believes that "modern agriculture is one of the largest sources of global warming pollution!" Of course, if it wasn't for modern agriculture, billions of people would not be alive today, for there would not be enough food for them, at any price. Gore needs to think this one through. Since his global warming crusade is actually a Jihad against civilization, and has nothing to do with climate change of any kind, he should step back and embrace modern agriculture and the miracle of affordable food for everyone that they have made come true.

The pollution, or erosion of the soil, is a very long run problem that has nothing to do with global warming, and should have never been included in this fairy tale of a book.

Al gets down big time talking about a smart grid. But, before we need a smarter grid, we need a grid that will survive an Electro Magnetic Pulse nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea, etc., and that will survive a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) from the sun. In either case, a successful EMP attack, or a CME as large as the one that hit the earth in 1859, will destroy our grid, smart or otherwise, for between 3 and 10 years, and kill 9 out of 10 Americans, and, in the case of a CME, will kill billions in the northern hemisphere, as well as kill hundreds of millions in America. I strongly suggest the book One Second After, and my review of it, regarding an EMP attack, and Severe Space Weather Events--Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report, regarding a CME..

Until our grid is hardened and protected, making it smart is dumb.

A smart grid is to make up for the lack of sufficient electricity to properly run our civilization. It is needed to manage the unbelievable variability of solar and wind energy, so that not only does the grid manage variable demand, as we know today, from peak to off-peak, but variable supply, from too much to not enough, with no predictability, other than night and day for solar.

A smart grid is also incredibly intrusive, managing each person and households life, around the unreliable energy sources. A computer will be telling when you can heat or cool you house, when you can wash or dry clothes, and when you can recharge your hybrid car.

Gore asks "Why is it that humanity is failing to confront this unprecedented mortal threat?"

The answer is there is no mortal threat. The climate is always changing, cooling now, and we must, as we have always done; adapt. There is no threat from "global warming" or "climate change" that man can affect, and there is nothing threatening to mankind's survival, or civilizations continuation in glorious defiance of these science deniers, except for the ugly, economically disastrous, green choices advocate by Al Gore.
Comment Comments (10) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Nov 8, 2013 1:42 PM PST


An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It
by Al Gore
Edition: Paperback
Price: $8.78
123 used & new from $0.01

8 of 14 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Deliberately - Malevolently Manipulated Scientific Data, June 20, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This is the book made from the movie that won the Nobel and a couple of Oscars for Al Gore in 2007.

It is amazing, when you play to the emotions of the politically correct crowd with, of all the darn things, a slide presentation, converted and presented marvelously in this book, that purports to represent science, you win awards. No one asks if the science has any validity. No one asks why the presenter is presenting one untruth after another. It is time to pull the curtain back, and find out that OZ is the emperor who is wearing no clothes. It is just unknown whether Al Gore is OZ, or if someone else is pulling his strings.

A little way in, on P. 66-67, two graphs are shown that run across the page, one on top of another. The top graph is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the lower graph is the earth's temperature. The data is from a Siberian ice core and goes back 600 years. Al states that the two graphs look like each other, and also that CO2 causes the temperature to change.

Open question, why didn't he make the graphs in much shorter time frames, like 50,000 year increments, show 12 graphs then, make the lines much finer, and show them actually on top of each other?

If he did that, the actual data from those very same ice cores would show that the temperature goes up or down, and then the CO2 level goes up or down 800 to 1000 years later. In other words, the temperature causes the CO2 level to change, not the backwards, upside down, untruthful way that Al Gore presents it. The CO2 level is a trailing indicator of what the temperature has already done. Nothing more.

The first question to ask with the real data really presented properly, is why did Al get it wrong? Did he not ask the right questions? Did someone else give him this data and he just swallowed without asking any critical, scientific questions?

The second question is: if CO2 doesn't cause climate change AKA global warming, what does? The rest of the book is just the rest of the wheels falling off the Global Warming wagon.

In the same graph he projects a rise in CO2 this century (21st) almost vertically to unprecedented levels, with the assertion that the temperature must also climb vertically, and we will all melt (like we do every summer).

The scale of the graph is incredibly misleading. What is really happening is that 1,000 years ago was the medieval warming, and here we are, 1,000 years later, watching the CO2 level rise.

Something not presented in this data is that although the CO2 level that is increasing, as Al Gore shows earlier in this book, and we know about how much CO2 mankind in contributing, the actual, scientifically measured at the top of Mauna Loa by NASA, atmospheric level of CO2 is rising only about one-half as fast as it should be. No alarmist scientist will admit this, and they don't know what is happening to the CO2. See Climate: The Counter-Consensus - A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks (Independent Minds).

Al Gore also presents the infamous Mann curve, (the Mann hockey stick) which purports to show 1,000 years of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. The curve is fairly flat, and then it rises dramatically in the last 60 years or so. This curve has subsequently (2009) been completely debunked (see The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds). Mann has been quite ungracious about how he (deliberately?) manipulated the scientific code to minimize and distort all of the data, starting with the medieval warming period, which was several degrees warmer than today, minimized and distorted the little ice age, and then did not show that global temperatures started recovering around 1700AD, and have been slowly rising since then. The little ice age ended circa 1850AD. Mann's curve does not show the cooling that took place from circa 1940 through 1979, and the cooling that has actually taken place, per NASA satellite measurements, from 1999 through 2012. Why did Mann distort the data, and manipulate the code such that your grandma's cookie recipe would result in a hockey stick shaped graph. How was this absolute untruth presented to Al Gore? Why did he buy something that was absolutely false based on existing data before he made this movie?

Of course, the alarmists still believe the Mann curve is correct, as Mann still asserts. Science deniers, one and all.

Another false graph is the temperature since 1860, which does not show how the temperature has been slowly, unevenly, declining after 1998. Gore asserts that 2005 is the hottest year recorded during this time. That is an absolute untruth. Per NASA satellite data. Which was available in 2005. Why the distortion, the manipulation, of actual scientific data? Alarmists like to say something like 11 of the warmest years have been in the last 13 years, and that the absolute 5 warmest are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2007. Once again, with the exception of 1998, this is absolutely false, invented, data. Did no one bother to go back to NASA and check there actual measurements? (See What Warming?: Satellite View of Global Temperature Change).

Climategate happened in late 2009, so Al Gore can't be blamed, but it is emblematic of the entire movement of which Gore is major player. Climategate was a bunch of E-mails from the alarmist cabal at East Anglia University, the main suppliers of information to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to each other. There were two main issues. The first, is how could they present the data to show that there actually was global warming, when there had been no global warming since 1998. I.E., how could they manipulate the data to fool the public. The second, was that they deliberately manipulated computer code to display the data, no matter what it was, the way they wanted it to turn out. They are not scientists, they are charlatans who should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail!

The preceding folks should give everyone pause about everything presented in this movie.

Al starts out with pictures of the earth from space, and how fragile our planet is. He then covers some real simple, almost childish, basics about the sun and our atmosphere. Then he hits the graphs, as outlined previously. Included within are pictures of ice melting. Mount Kilimanjaro, in Africa, has a snowy top. The snow coverage has been declining. However, not because Kilimanjaro is not cold enough, but rather because of moisture wind patterns that have little or nothing to do with climate change.

He shows pictures of glaciers and arctic ice. Yes, some glaciers are melting. Others are growing. We have been warmer before, and the glaciers did just fine. We are not going to inundate our oceans with a sudden surge of fresh water that will destroy the oceans circulation patterns. Arctic ice minimized in 2007, in time to win a Nobel. Since then the arctic ice has been slowly increasing. During the medieval warming, Chinese ships sailed across the arctic and saw no ice. No ice is no problem. He talks about, and shows, polar bears swimming forever, and not finding any ice. Polar bears are doing just fine; their numbers have increased dramatically over the last 50 years or so. They did fine 1,000 years ago, they have done fine for millions of years, and they are doing fine today. What is not good is a real ice age, with glaciers a mile high, as Gore explains, but he doesn't explain that Polar Bears, and mankind, really don't do so good during cold periods, and we do great during warm periods, such as the current time. He believes the Antarctic's ice is also melting because a couple of ice shelves fell into the ocean. As they have done before. They rebuild, and then they fall into the ocean again. Yawn. So what.

Katrina (the hurricane) was bad. Mainly it showed that a city that is below sea level that doesn't pay enough attention to its dykes is going to run into trouble. Katrina was not especially powerful, and if it had hit anywhere else, it would have been a normal bad hurricane. The assumption that global warming, the warm waters of the gulf, are the primary causative factor for hurricane formation is flat out false. Of course all the years since 2005 have shown a decline in Hurricane activity and intensity. 2005 was not especially abnormal, except for Katrina hitting New Orleans just wrong.

He shows a graph of population, showing it peaking out at around 9.1 billion people circa 2050. The indicated belief is that there are too many people on the earth for our resources. Current UN data indicates that it will peak around 2050 at about 8 billion people, and then start declining as Europe, the Middle East, Japan, and some other areas and countries start demographically disappearing. Having a whole continent with no people on it, except Islamists, as Europe will be next century, will be a whole new and entirely too interesting a challenge.

He thinks that diseases will move north and cause epidemics. Insects and other species will migrate and upset the balance everywhere.

Our ancestors, in Egypt in 2300BC, in Greece, in 1250BC, in Rome, in 1AD, in Europe in 1200AD, were all in warm eras, lived through everything Al Gore is decrying, and all thrived until the cold temperatures came back. We have been here before and we have survived just fine. During the Pliocene, the current inter-glacial period, it was warmer 10,000 years ago, and has been slowly cooling since then. No year, with or without man made CO2, has been or will be as warm as 10,000 years ago.

Over 85% of the earth's global warming is actually caused by water vapor, with that mostly happening within 30 feet of the earth's surface. Only 0.2% is caused by CO2. Al Gore is chasing a chimera. Of course, trying to do something about water vapor is just not sexy. You can't destroy modern civilization by working on water vapor.

Taking the long view, CO2 concentrations 150 million years ago, during warm and cold periods, was over 4,000PPM, 15 times higher than today, and the dinosaurs did just fine. The Earth should have dies, per Al. But we are here today. Oops!

Al quotes a study done that shows that there is a consensus of scientists that support global warming caused by man. The study was a Google search. It is meaningless. There is no scientific consensus, there has been no consensus, and there will be never be a consensus. Besides, a consensus is meaningless. What matters is the science. A consensus of scientists means that nobody is thinking anymore.

Al Gore relaters the story of the Tobacco Company executives and their testimony before congress. The executives all stated that there was doubt about the science that tobacco was bad for you, and he equates the folks like me, who actually know the science, with those executives, thus we are called deniers. I would urge everyone to read The Deniers, which is about scientists who knew, in their narrow field, that there was no global warming, but thought overall there was, until they compared notes with other scientists, and found out it was all a house of falsehoods.

This book is a total sham: a fabrication. Did Al Gore deliberately manipulate the data, or did he just uncritically accept the deliberately manipulated data? What matters is that the Alarmists are wrong now, they will be wrong tomorrow, and they are the real, malevolent, science deniers.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Aug 29, 2012 12:13 PM PDT


An Inconvenient Truth
An Inconvenient Truth
DVD ~ Al Gore
Offered by Stoop Cats
Price: $12.09
163 used & new from $0.01

8 of 20 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Deliberately - Malevolently Manipulated Scientific Data, June 20, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: An Inconvenient Truth (DVD)
This is the movie that won the Nobel and a couple of Oscars for Al Gore in 2007.

It is amazing, when you play to the emotions of the politically correct crowd with, of all the darn things, a slide presentation that purports to represent science, you win awards. No one asks if the science has any validity. No one asks why the presenter is presenting one untruth after another. There is an answer for that from these folks; it is the title of the movie, and the assertion that those who oppose this movie are deniers, like the folks who ran the tobacco companies, who denied the truth. It is time to pull the curtain back, and find out that OZ is the emperor who is wearing no clothes. It is just unknown whether Al Gore is OZ, or if someone else is pulling his strings.

A little way into the movie two graphs are shown that run across the screen, one on top of another. The top graph is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the lower graph is the earth's temperature. The data is from a Siberian ice core and goes back 600 years. Al says that the two graphs look like each other, and says that CO2 causes the temperature to change.

Open question, why didn't he make the graphs in much shorter time frames, like 50,000 year increments, show 12 graphs then, make the lines much finer, and show them actually on top of each other?

If he did that, the actual data from those very same ice cores would show that the temperature goes up or down, and then the CO2 level goes up or down 800 to 1000 years later. In other words, the temperature causes the CO2 level to change, not the backwards, upside down, untruthful way that Al Gore presents it. The CO2 level is a trailing indicator of what the temperature has already done. Nothing more.

The first question to ask with the real data really presented properly, is why did Al get it wrong? Did he not ask the right questions? Did someone else give him this data and he just swallowed without asking any critical, scientific questions?

The second question is: if CO2 doesn't cause climate change AKA global warming, what does? The rest of the movie is just the rest of the wheels falling off the Global Warming wagon, and this movie.

In the same graph he projects a rise in CO2 this century (21st) almost vertically to unprecedented levels, with the assertion that the temperature must also climb vertically, and we will all melt (like we do every summer).

The scale of the graph is incredibly misleading. What is really happening is that 1,000 years ago was the medieval warming, and here we are, 1,000 years later, watching the CO2 level rise.

Something not presented in this data is that although the CO2 level that is increasing, as Al Gore shows earlier in this film, and we know about how much CO2 mankind in contributing, the actual, scientifically measured at the top of Mauna Loa by NASA, atmospheric level of CO2 is rising only about one-half as fast as it should be. No alarmist scientist will admit this, and they don't know what is happening to the CO2. See Climate: The Counter-Consensus - A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks (Independent Minds).

Al Gore also shows the infamous Mann curve, (the Mann hockey stick) which purports to show 1,000 years of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. The curve is fairly flat, and then it rises dramatically in the last 60 years or so. This curve has subsequently (2009) been completely debunked (see The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds). Mann has been quite ungracious about how he (deliberately?) manipulated the scientific code to minimize and distort all of the data, starting with the medieval warming period, which was several degrees warmer than today, minimized and distorted the little ice age, and then did not show that global temperatures started recovering around 1700AD, and have been slowly rising since then. The little ice age ended circa 1850AD. Mann's curve does not show the cooling that took place from circa 1940 through 1979, and the cooling that has actually taken place, per NASA satellite measurements, from 1999 through 2012. Why did Mann distort the data, and manipulate the code such that your grandma's cookie recipe would result in a hockey stick shaped graph. How was this absolute untruth presented to Al Gore? Why did he buy something that was absolutely false based on existing data before he made this movie?

Of course, the alarmists still believe the Mann curve is correct, as Mann still asserts. Science deniers, one and all.

Another false graph is the temperature since 1860, which does not show how the temperature has been slowly, unevenly, declining after 1998. Gore asserts that 2005 is the hottest year recorded during this time. That is an absolute untruth. Per NASA satellite data. Which was available in 2005. Why the distortion, manipulation of actual scientific data? Alarmists like to say something like 11 of the warmest years have been in the last 13 years, and that the absolute 5 warmest are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2007. Once again, with the exception of 1998, this is absolutely false, invented, data. Did no one bother to go back to NASA and check their actual measurements? (See What Warming?: Satellite View of Global Temperature Change).

Climategate happened in late 2009, so Al Gore can't be blamed, but it is emblematic of the entire movement of which Gore is major player. Climategate was a bunch of E-mails from the alarmist cabal at East Anglia University, the main suppliers of information to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to each other. There were two main issues. The first, is how could they present the data to show that there actually was global warming, when there had been no global warming since 1998. I.E., how could they manipulate the data to fool the public. The second, was that they deliberately manipulated computer code to display the data, no matter what it was, the way they wanted it to turn out. They are not scientists, they are charlatans who should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail!

The preceding folks should give everyone pause about everything presented in this movie.

Al starts out with pictures of the earth from space, and how fragile our planet is. He then covers some real simple, almost childish, basics about the sun and our atmosphere. Then he hits the graphs, as outlined previously. Included within are pictures of ice melting. Mount Kilimanjaro, in Africa, has a snowy top. The snow coverage has been declining. However, not because Kilimanjaro is not cold enough, but rather because of moisture wind patterns that have little or nothing to do with climate change.

He shows pictures of glaciers and arctic ice. Yes, some glaciers are melting. Others are growing. We have been warmer before, and the glaciers did just fine. We are not going to inundate our oceans with a sudden surge of fresh water that will destroy the oceans circulation patterns. Arctic ice minimized in 2007, in time to win a Nobel. Since then the arctic ice has been slowly increasing. During the medieval warming, Chinese ships sailed across the arctic and saw no ice. No ice is no problem. He talks about, and shows, polar bears swimming forever, and not finding any ice. Polar bears are doing just fine, their numbers have increased dramatically over the last 50 years or so. They did fine 1,000 years ago, they have done fine for millions of years, and they are doing fine today. What is not good is a real ice age, with glaciers a mile high, as Gore explains, but he doesn't explain that Polar Bears, and mankind, really don't do so good during cold periods, and we do great during warming periods, such as the current time. He believes the Antarctic's ice is also melting because a couple of ice shelves fell into the ocean. As they have done before. They rebuild, and then they fall into the ocean again. Yawn. So what.

Katrina (the hurricane) was bad. Mainly it showed that a city that is below sea level that doesn't pay enough attention to its dykes is going to run into trouble. Katrina was not especially powerful, and if it had hit anywhere else, it would have been a normal bad hurricane. The assumption that global warming, the warm waters of the gulf, are the primary causative factor for hurricane formation is flat out false. Of course all the years since 2005 have shown a decline in Hurricane activity and intensity. 2005 was not especially abnormal, except for Katrina hitting New Orleans just wrong.

He shows a graph of population, showing it peaking out at around 9.1 billion people circa 2050. The indicated belief is that there are too many people on the earth for our resources. Current UN data indicates that it will peak around 2050 at about 8 billion people, and then start declining as Europe, the Middle East, Japan, and some other areas and countries start demographically disappearing. Having a whole continent with no people on it, except Islamists, as Europe will be next century, will be a whole new and entirely too interesting a challenge.

He thinks that diseases will move north and cause epidemics. Insects and other species will migrate and upset the balance everywhere.

Our ancestors, in Egypt in 2300BC, in Greece, in 1250BC, in Rome, in 1AD, in Europe in 1200AD, were all in warm eras, lived through everything Al Gore is decrying, and all thrived until the cold temperatures came back. We have been here before and we have survived just fine. During the Pliocene, the current inter-glacial period, it was warmer 10,000 years ago, and has been slowly cooling since then. No year, with or without man made CO2, has been or will be as warm as 10,000 years ago.

Over 85% of the earth's global warming is actually caused by water vapor, with that mostly happening within 30 feet of the earth's surface. Only 0.2% is caused by CO2. Al Gore is chasing a chimera. Of course, trying to do something about water vapor is just not sexy. You can't destroy modern civilization by working on water vapor.

Taking the long view, CO2 concentrations 150 million years ago, during warm and cold periods, was over 4,000PPM, 15 times higher than today, and the dinosaurs did just fine. The Earth should have dies, per Al. But we are here today. Oops!

Al quotes a study done that shows that there is a consensus of scientists that support global warming caused by man. The study was a Google search. It is meaningless. There is no scientific consensus, there has been no consensus, and there will be never be a consensus. Besides, a consensus is meaningless. What matters is the science. A consensus of scientists means that nobody is thinking anymore.

Al Gore relaters the story of the Tobacco Company executives and their testimony before congress. The executives all stated that there was doubt about the science that tobacco was bad for you, and he equates the folks like me, who actually know the science, with those executives, thus we are called deniers. I would urge everyone to read The Deniers, which is about scientists who knew, in their narrow field, that there was no global warming, but thought overall there was, until they compared notes with other scientists, and found out it was all a house of falsehoods.

This movie is a total sham: a fabrication. Did Al Gore deliberately manipulate the data, or did he just uncritically accept the deliberately manipulated data? What matters is that the Alarmists are wrong now, they will be wrong tomorrow, and they are the real, malevolent, science deniers.
Comment Comments (5) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 27, 2012 5:20 PM PDT


The Wind Farm Scam (Independent Minds)
The Wind Farm Scam (Independent Minds)
by John R. Etherington
Edition: Paperback
Price: $17.05
31 used & new from $5.38

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Wind Farms are Economic Boat Anchors, June 16, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
John Etherington has written a cogent, entertaining, yet factually undeniable account of the wind farm scam.

The title alone of this book gives more than a clue as to its contents, and conclusions. Given the factual information and the voluminous documentation that the author has assembled in this book, it is impossible to arrive at a different conclusion, unless you are a committed alarmist to whom facts and verifiable documentation are inconsequential, and to whom denying science has become a new faith, a new religion, based only on emotions.

We all know that sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it blows hard, sometimes it does not blow, and the only constant about the wind is that it is variable. Even in locations that show a relatively constant wind, there is still a great deal of variability from minute to minute, and throughout each day and night.

A windmill makes energy by having the wind push the propeller, which rotates a generator (or alternator), producing electricity. This is like the V-belt under your cars hood, that connects the engine to the alternator, and when the engine is running, the alternator is producing electricity, primarily to charge the battery. The electricity produced by anything has to be synchronized with the electricity flowing through the grid. This is much more technically challenging than just charging a battery. As the author explains, there are five specific technical requirements to linking a source, any source to the grid:

1) The Alternator must have equal line voltage.
2) It must have the correct frequency
3) It must have the same phase sequence.
4) It must have the same phase angle.
5) It must have the same waveform

If any of these items is not properly synchronized, then a "spark", or surge of current would, at best trip out circuit breakers, and at worst, "cause such a serious overload that damage would be done either to the electrical or mechanical parts "of the grid and/or supplying alternator/wind farm.

Per the above noted variability of the wind, then the variability of output of wind farms is staggering. When the wind is not blowing, or is too light, of course, no electricity is being generated. When the wind is blowing too hard, to the point of damaging the windmill, it shuts down, or it uses some expensive and technically complex soft and hardware to partially unhook the propeller from the alternator, or phase the blades to not catch as much wind.

Regardless, the only thing about windmills and wind farms is that the electricity they produce is incredibly variable and incredibly unreliable. No wind farm on earth makes more than about 25% of its rated capacity.

An electrical grid needs a constant, steady, supply of electricity that is indeed constant from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, with some reserve capacity to ramp up when demand starts to exceed supply. The only way to ramp up the supply quickly, on an hourly or daily schedule, is to use gas turbines; in effect, giant jet engines. As anyone who has ridden a modern large airplane knows, there are a couple, or three or four large, cylindrical engines hanging below the wings or at the tail of the plane. These engines start up, taxi the plane out to the runway, ramp up and supply take off power, then throttle back at cruising altitude, etc. The can ramp up and down, but they use a tremendous amount of fuel (kerosene or natural gas) per kilowatt/hour compared to a large nuclear, coal, or waterfall driven power plant and turbines, when they are varying their output. Of course, the nuclear, coal, or Hoover dam cannot ramp up or down, minute to minute, to match the wind. Thus, large jet engines, turbines, which can ramp up or down, minute to minute, to fill in for the fluctuating supply of the wind are needed.

Jet engines are most efficient when they are running at a constant speed. Ramping them up and down is very inefficient. Plus, every time, you have to match the five items noted above to keep from crashing the system.

There are no magic battery or other energy storage systems to take up the excess from the wind farms, or to supply when the wind dies. It is all still a laboratory level scientific experimental endeavor. There is no viable system on the horizon. Until there is a viable system (which is a lot more than a "smart" grid), wind farms actually use more fuel and do not reduce the production of CO2. (For the record, read my review of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, and the rest of my reviews, and one will begin to understand the overwhelming scientific data that supports that CO2 is not a pollutant, that there is no global warming, and that climate change is not now, and will never be caused in our active biosphere by CO2 or mankind).

Wind turbines need regular maintenance; several hundred feet up in the air. They do break down, and destroy themselves. They also wear out. This last point is critical. Every windmill wears out and needs to be replaced before it is paid for. The Turbine, the bearings, the propeller mechanisms, all wear out in 15 to 20 years. With the irregular, 25% of capacity level of electrical generation that is the rule, it takes 25 to 30 years to pay for a windmill. Would you buy a car, or a house, that wore out before you could pay for it? How stupid can we be!

Electricity from a coal plant in England costs about $78 per MWh (Mega Watt hour). Expressed as $78/MWh.

Electricity from a gas turbine plant (running at a constant capacity) is also about $78/MWh. Electricity from a gas turbine plant that is a backup to a wind farm plant is horridly expensive, since it is not running at a constant high capacity, it is up to twice as expensive, or comparable to an offshore wind farm.

Electricity from a nuclear plant in France costs about $47/MWh.

Electricity from onshore wind farms in England costs about $113/MWh.

Electricity from offshore wind farms in England costs about $145/MWh.

Electricity from wind farms is very expensive. To use electricity from wind farms, whole banks of jet engines need to be purchased, installed, kept on-line, ready to go, with some at a fast idle or more, constantly, to make up for a fall off in wind power generations when the wind speed drops, so more fuel is used than if the electricity has just been generated by gas turbines in the first place. This almost doubles the investment, which is a huge money loser for just the wind farm from the beginning. There is no reduction in CO2 produced than if there were no wind turbines (wind farms) due to the necessity of all the gas turbines.

Through a variety of taxes and subsidies, wind farms are subsidized at around a level of $94/MWh. This reduces the direct cost to the immediate consumer to a low of about $35/MWh. But where do these taxes and subsidies come from except from the taxpayer and the general economy? It is a drag on the entire economy, for the energy cost is double of the normal coal plant. Therefore, the energy cost to any company, or manufacturing facility, is over twice what it should be. That the subsidies and taxes come from everybody just to benefit a very few is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and there are a lot more Peters around than Pauls. This is the reverse of robin hood - we are robbing the great numbers of the poor and middle class to reward the rich few.

This is insane. Even after the initial subsidies are used up, there are ongoing subsidies. Even then, these wind farms will continue to be an economic boat anchor for as long as they exist, until they are just shut down and scrapped.

Denmark has more wind turbines per capita than any other European country. They are cutting back, hard, on building any more, and are wondering what to do with the ones they have. They weren't generating much electricity, it was the single most expensive electricity produced in any country in all of Europe, and there had been no reduction in CO2 emissions. The Danes are asking themselves: why did they support such a stupid idea!

Etherington covers many other drawbacks to wind turbines.

They kill birds and bats. Including killing large eagles and hawks. Large raptors and bats are not killed by speeding cars and other man-made items. It is illegal kill many raptors, and in some places, also bats, but wind turbines can murder them by the thousands with impunity.

They confuse and degrade land animals that are near them, both due to noise from the propellers, and the flickering of the light off of the propellers and as the tips come near and then recede.

There is the constant thrumming, low level, "vibration" which defeats double glazed glass and earplugs. It comes up through the ground through the floors of your house, up your legs, spine and then throbs in your head. How far away from people wind mills must be spaced is still under investigation, but it is many miles.

The flicker of light, primarily from the sun, off of the blades, can be a strobe effect, even from miles away, that is constantly flashing in the corner off your eye, constantly annoying, distracting, and in epileptics, even worse.

There is nothing as annoying as having your quality of life destroyed by a stupid wind turbine!

Having wind farms can destroy the countryside, scenic vistas, and tourism. Building a plant or office anywhere near them, building homes, on and on and on, are all complete disasters.

Wind turbines can fling pieces of ice, from freezing conditions, for miles. If a propeller breaks up or breaks off, they can take out other turbines, and anything else within ˝ a mile or so. The bearings can overheat and fail, causing grass fires. They can interfere with TV, radio, cell phone signals, and radar signals, possibly interfering with airplanes and defense systems.

Chapter 10 is titled "Misrepresentation and Manipulation". This thoroughly documents how the supporters of windmills, as enumerated above, lie about what they can do, dismiss the problems with them, and deliberately manipulate the data to indicate that wind farms are economic winners, when they are really economic disasters.

The final chapter is titled "Climate change and Kyoto - Is it all necessary?" He spends almost 20 pages covering, in brief, the entire hoax of man made CO2 caused climate change. There is no space to cover his points in this review, but his subtitles are: "Temperatures in the Past", "Consensus is Crumbling", "CO2 Concentration is Increasing a Lot; How Can it Not Cause Warming?", and an "An Inconvenient Untruth". Overall, in this chapter, he thoroughly excoriates the alarmists, documenting, in brief, that they don't have any arguments, and zero scientific facts, that are valid. They are science deniers.

This is an excellent read on a vital subject. Are we going to allow our energy future, which has a great deal in determining our economic well being, and, ultimately, our economic improvements, to be in the hands of a group of alarmists that don't understand a basic demand/supply curve, or are we going to let facts, documentation, and verifiable scientific knowledge be our guide?

It is time that all wind farm subsidies are stopped. It is time that we started acting as adults, working in the best interests of everyone, rather than a few alarmists that think with their emotions.

Etherington has done a great service to civilization with this excellent book.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 22, 2013 6:38 AM PDT


How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)
How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)
by David P. Goldman
Edition: Hardcover
Price: $15.96
46 used & new from $10.59

23 of 36 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars How Author's, Not Civilizations, Die!, May 16, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
The author postulates that there have been three (and ˝) great extinctions due to people not having enough babies to replicate themselves, and that there is a fourth great extinction of one or more civilizations facing the world.

The first great extinction is the end of Bronze Age event, when Geek Mycenaean civilization, the Hittite empire, and other cities in the Eastern Mediterranean disappeared. The Author's hypothesis is that the last man in every city walked out, closed the gate, and then pushed the button for the pyrotechnics to burn the city to the ground, and then pushed the other button to destroy the walls. It's a nice story, but wrong. Later on the author talks about how there is no archeological evidence to support the Muhammad of Islamic beliefs until almost a century after his historical death, so maybe the Islamic Muhammad never existed. There is also no archeology to support his hypothesis about the Bronze Age extinction.

While the author quotes some royals talking about killing each other and each others children, that is sparse evidence that depopulation actually occurred. Even if the royals were that bloodthirsty, that doesn't mean the rest of the population was. While there is a little archeological evidence for some population loss in the regions of Elis and Arcadia, there are still many more cities in Greece, the entire Hittite Empire, cities in Syria, along the Eastern Mediterranean, in Cyprus, and down towards Egypt, that were all burned, with walls destroyed. Some were repopulated. That all of these disparate cities and populations all decided to stop having babies simultaneously is pure conjecture, not even worthy of consideration without greater proof. What really occurred is still a matter of great conjecture, but depopulation is a least likely scenario.

In Greece, after the extinction, there are indications that the population may have fallen by as much as 90%. Once again, did the population fall that far, or did the survivors just leave such a light archeological footprint that they are invisible to us today? In any case, first the apocalypse, then the population decline. It's just like a disaster movie. First civilization is destroyed, and then the survivors scrabble in the ruins.

Strike one against Goldman.

The Spartans were always a shaky civilization. Earthquakes, losses in battle, the Peloponnesian War, and the wars against the Thebans, all contributed to Spartan losses. Goldman quotes the battle of Leuctra in 371BC, a Spartan loss to Thebes, stating that there probably weren't more than a thousand Spartans in the fight. Nine years later, in 362BC, the Spartans and Thebans faced off again, but this time the Spartans won and Epaminondas, the Theban leader, was killed. So even 999 Spartans were still pretty good. Yes, the Spartans did die out, but they were oddballs.

The Athenians had too many people circa 476BC, and they started sending them out to form colonies. There were lots of conflicts with everyone, then the Peloponnesian Wars started. Athens had the plague go through in 430BC, and again, much worse, in 427BC. The Athenians lost the wars, losing 40% of their population to plague, and 40% more of their men to the disastrous wars. After that were more wars. Suffering those defeats and devastation went a long way to decimate Athens, and the remaining citizens must not of thought the future was bright, as it had been a century earlier, so they also, became too few to be more than ordinary, but they did not die out.

Ball one against Goldman.

The Roman empire is complex, but not for Goldman. He likes Theodore Mommsen for his Roman historian. However, an advantage of Gibbons over Mommsen is that Gibbons is great literature, its actually readable, and Gibbons is talking about the last 296 years of the entire Roman Empire, while Mommsen is about the Republic (BC). Gibbons is also about the entirety of the Byzantine Empire. Gibbons partly blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome, and I agree with that as my review of It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations states.

Certainly the Romans had population problems, and yes, the upper classes always had trouble having enough children survive childbirth and live into adulthood. So did everybody back then. The Empire went along OK, with the greatest economic activity in the world up until the early/mid 1800's. Marcus Aurelius' reign was fine until Lucius Verus returned in 165AD after defeating the Parthians. He brought the plague back with him. Best information says it was probably Small Pox. Perhaps up to 35% of all Romans died. The same plague returned several times over the next 60 years or so. In 250AD, just before the worst of the 3rd century, another plague came through, probably a precursor of Measles that was then quite deadly. Another 25% or so died. After the death of Commodus, in 192, civil wars were the method for choosing the next emperor more often than not, for the next 200 years. How many died in those civil wars is hard to gage, but far too many Romans did. Edward Boak writes about the de-population in Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (Jerome Lectures), but his work is greatly questioned.

The empire came back until the Goths and the battle of Adrianople in 378AD. But, if the Romans had waited for the two armies to unite before engaging the Goths, instead of trying to one up each other, the Goths would have been toast. So, yes, there was some depopulation, but the plagues and internal wars went far to depopulate them. One analysis, by Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology), uses a marginal utility theory, i.e. when the Roman citizens saw no more value in being a Roman citizen than in being a Barbarian, then they would switch sides.

The miracle is that Rome lasted as long as it did. To say it is just population loss is shallow, vapid, and without sufficient documentation to be a worthy thought. Was it a part of the reason for the fall in the West? Probably. Due only to too few babies? Less likely.

The Byzantine Empire was doing great until Krakatoa gave them two non-summers and crop losses in 534-536AD, and then the Justinian Plague hit. This was the Black Death, or Bubonic plague, in 540AD. An estimated 40% of all Byzantines died. It reverberated around the empire for the next 40 years. The Sassanid Persians also suffered, but the Arabs did not. In 602 Maurice was overthrown by Phocas, and the empire started to collapse. Bad Leadership. The Persians and Avars from the Balkans invaded, and the empire was fast disappearing. Along comes Heraclius, and perhaps the greatest comeback of all time. The two superpowers of the Middle East fight WWII on the Russian Front against each other, and the Byzantines win big in 628.

They disbanded their army, just like the US after WWII. Along came the Muslims. The battle of Yarmuk, a Byzantine loss in 636 AD, is well documented on the Byzantine side. The Byzantine armies in Egypt and North Africa were smaller, poorly led, poorly trained units that fought, but not well, against the Muslims. It wasn't a cake walk for the Muslims, either, per Byzantine records. About three hundred years later the Byzantines came roaring back, and were doing good until the traitorous Ducas family lost the battle of Manzikert in 1071AD.

Strike 2 and 1/2, Ball two and three against Goldman.

Islam today. It is a liberal wet dream that people will stop having babies. There is no more liberal wet dreaming organization in the world than the UN.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a UN adjunct organization. To measure climate change, you need to be able to read a graph properly and a thermometer. The IPCC can do neither. It is a worthless, biased organization that cannot read data, or develop any thing other than its pre-possessed ideas.

Overall, the UN is a totally worthless organization. Goldman says he would sentence anyone to a years hard labor at the UN database that believes the US is in population decline. Goldman should run, not walk, as far away from the UN as he can. Liberals can't ask questions properly, they can't add data properly, they can't design studies properly.

As a Statistical Engineer, I know there are liars, darn liars, and statisticians. I don't believe their data any further than I can through it. Goldman says he has no population date for Europe, and then he pops up with a plethora of birth rate data. Once again, don't trust liberals, and especially population control liberals at the UN.

While there is little doubt that the population of Muslims is slowing down, is it going to slow down enough and start falling in Europe? Per Mark Steyn, the Austrian demographic center says there will be more Muslims under 18 by 2050 than non-Muslims, which means for howsever many people are left, Muslims will be the majority. I believe the Austrians before I believe the idiots in Turtle Bay.

Per Fareed Zakaria, per Putin, the Russian population is starting to increase. I don't believe Muslims in Russia are being educated, and with the population they will also continue to increase, only at a faster pace, so Russia could still become an Islamist majority nation this century.

The PEW folks are uber liberal George Soros supporting and supported by Soros folks. They say that the global Muslim population is still increasing by 15% for the next couple of decades. This would be the Pakistani's, the Maududi's, taking over England, the Afghanistani's, the Kurds, and whoever else. The open question is won't they continue to increase after the next couple of decades, also? Why would they slow down or stop having babies? Muslims live in enclaves that are self-reinforcing with their own peer pressures. That is more important than the general population. Babies will keep coming.

South America, per PEW, has over 11 million Muslims. South America has a population growth rate of over 2.4, even though some countries are less than 2.1. The Islamic population of South America should continue to increase, probably outpacing the Hispanic population.

Per PEW, the USA Muslim population will triple by 2030. This will give Michigan a 20% Muslim population. As the USA grows, why would not the Muslim Population continue to grow and outpace the USA generally? Our Muslims in Michigan are all saying they are having over 10 babies per family. CAIR dominates Michigan and its politicians in both parties. Goodbye, Michigan.

The greatest concentration of Muslims in Canada is in London, Ontario, only two hours from Dearbornistan in MI. It is in the non-Quebec part, so it will keep growing also.

I am glad that Africa and China are being converted to Christianity. Of course, South Korea is dying even faster than Japan, so how many Christians will be left there? The Bishops SWAG (Sorry Wild --- Guess) about converting 10,000 a day, and Goldman's belief that the number is even higher is pie in the sky, marketing hype. Plus, the Christians in Europe are dying, and the Christians in China are off the books.

With the Islamic population increasing (not dying) globally, circa 2030, there will be more Muslims in this world than Christians. Saudi Arabia will keep spending $4 billion/yr putting up Mosques, Maddrasses, Islamic Centers, and they will be well prepared to receive the multitudes of converts to Islam when the headline reads that they are the world's largest religion, surpassing Christianity. So the explosion in converts in Europe, America, and elsewhere will fuel an increasing number of Muslims in the world for quite some time. Dawa wins!

Strike Three - Goldman is out!

PS - Read The Real German War Plan, 1904-14 by Terence Zuber - The Schlieffen plan Goldman references as the German plan to win WW I is an urban myth; another example of the ignorance of this author.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jan 24, 2014 5:47 AM PST


The Real German War Plan, 1904-14
The Real German War Plan, 1904-14
by Terence Zuber
Edition: Paperback
Price: $14.37
35 used & new from $10.36

9 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The End of the Schlieffen Plan Myth, May 16, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
The greatest service Zuber performs with this book is to open the discussion on what the German army really did in August, 1914, and was it really the mythical plan that Schlieffen left to Moltke? Was it a plan Moltke messed up when the shooting war started, or is it really the German General Staff Plan, of which Moltke was the chief architect, that didn't work for a variety of reasons.

The urban myth goes like this:

The Chief of the Great German General Staff, Alfred Schlieffen, was the successor, after a short term by another, to the Elder Moltke, the Victor of the Austro-Prussian war, and the Franco-Prussian War. He served as the Chief from 1891 to 1906.

During his time he continued the practices that Moltke had formalized, the war game exercises, the staff rides through the war games, the staff rides w/o war games, but as staff exercises only, and the continuing upgrading of the training of the officers assigned to the Great Staff. He was everything a Chief of the General Staff should be. A part of his duties were to develop war plans based on almost every possibility. For Germany, this meant war against France and/or Russia, separately or simultaneously. Various plans and war games to test those plans, both board/staff games, and real troop games, less than a full mobilization, were performed.

As Zuber points out, the paper plan that Schlieffen came up with that is the current myth was devised after Schlieffen retired. It was an informal paper only plan that was never part of any General Staff Study or war game. In this plan, which, while more formal than the back of an envelope, was very informal, Schlieffen used a total of 24 paper only divisions as part of his plan. No real plan could use more divisions and corps than actually would exist upon mobilization. This paper plan was a dream, a perfect world plan, that was never adopted by anyone, never promoted by anyone. It was only an esteemed retired Generals wish.

The plan was never gamed. No one lobbied for the additional divisions. The Empire never even took up this paper plan for consideration at any level.

Moltke, the Younger, the nephew of the great Moltke, took over the job as Chief of the Staff after Schlieffen retired.

There is no indication, not a shred of evidence, that the paper plan was ever shown to Moltke. There is no indication that Moltke knew anything about it.

Moltke went about being the Chief, refining and altering the plans bequeathed to him and the Staff, as conditions changed. Such a change would be knowledge of a new French plan, and how to best counteract it.

Schlieffen passed away in January, 1913. He is alleged to have said "keep the right wing strong", and "let the sleeve of the last man on the right brush the English Channel". Whether these statements refer to one of the real staff plans or to his purely paper fantasy can only be surmised. The plan he had that was the closest to what the German army did in 1914, which had only been modified slightly by Moltke, did not have 24 paper only divisions in it, and the last Army on the right was just a flank protection force that could spread out to reach the channel with a weak screen.

Von Kluck's first Army, in August, 1914, was intended to be the right flank protection screen for the 2nd Army, which was the main thrust, the Schwerpunkt of the attack. Unfortunately for the German's, Von Bulow, the General in charge of the 2nd Army, wasn't as aggressive an attack dog as he needed to be, and, along with a variety of other factors, including the French, of course, ended the offensive in a stalemate.

The service that Zuber has done by pointing out the actual, real planning that Schlieffen did, in this book in brief, and that which was done by Moltke, puts the entire discussion into the open.

If the paper plan had ever become a part of serious planning by the Empire, one of the consequences would be how and where to acquire the finances for the 24 divisions, as well as where the manpower would come from. Extending the service time of each serviceman? Or some other plan. In no case were there any discussions around expanding the army by anything even approaching this amount.

What we are left with is the plan that was put into affect in August, 1914, which was Moltke's plan. As it turned out, it was almost good enough, but almost does not win anything. Moltke was also a poor War Commander, for many reasons, including information overload. He delegated the most important decision to a Colonel, Hentz. There is a great level of criticism that can be leveled at Moltke, but poor planning is not one of them. Not realizing that maybe his plan could not work, and pointing that out to everyone, enters the realm of fantasy.

The failure of the August offensive in France was far more traumatic than anyone realized in September, 1914, when Moltke was replaced. He died in 1916.

Zuber related the tale of how Germany made Moltke the scapegoat for their failure, during, but especially after, WW I. He couldn't defend himself. The records were kept tightly locked up, and many were destroyed in the bombing of Potsdam in 1945.

Whether we now have all of the information we are ever going to have is unknown, but, due to Zuber, we have a great deal more presented to the public than ever before.
This is a well written, well presented book. It is not the easiest read for someone who is not an enthusiast, but it is not archaic and obtuse, either. I highly recommend it.

Whether Zuber is the last word, as he is at the moment, or he is a great step toward complete knowledge, but more is to come, the future will tell.

Until then, the Schlieffen plan, as it has entered the popular vernacular, is now relegated to the myth category.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Aug 13, 2013 6:04 PM PDT


Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5