Saturday, April 26, 2008

Whole Foods Blog Response -- GloBull Warming

I am updating this original response to a Whole Foods post/blog I posted quite some time ago and re-posting it. The update is merely an imported article that really hints at alien influences... however, I am of the school that civilization has ebbed and flowed, or, devolved and evolved in knowledge due to wars, famines, natural disasters, and the like. So this addition is a great example of this. For those wishing to see more of this, I recommend a book:

Here is the updated (imported) info about ancient maps and travel. Following the book selection from the imported article.

In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.

Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.

His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.

The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to
the fourth century BC or earlier.

The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.

The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old.

The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC.

The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?

It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC, soon to be followed within a millennium by the Indus valley and the Chinese ones. So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?


All through the Middle Ages were circulating a number of sailing charts called "portolani", which were accurate maps of the most common sailing routes, showing coastlines, harbors, straits, bays, etc. Most of those portolani focused on the Mediterranean and the Aegean seas, and other known routes, just as the sailing book which Piri Reis himself had written.

But a few reported of still unknown lands, and were circulating among few sailors who seemingly kept their knowledge about those special maps as hidden as they could. Columbus is supposed to have been one of those who knew these special sailing charts.

To draw his map, Piri Reis used several different sources, collected here and there along his journeys. He himself has written notes on the map that give us a picture of the work he had been doing on the map. He says he had been not responsible for the original surveying and cartography. His role was merely that of a compiler who used a large number of source-maps. He says then that some of the source-maps had been drawn by contemporary sailors, while others were instead charts of great antiquity, dating back up to the 4th century BC or earlier....

...(Read More, Its Very Interesting)...
Subject Related Books from Article

Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings
Charles Hapgod

If you are in UK use this link

Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings

The Piri Reis Map of 1513
Gregory C. McIntosh
& Norman J. W. Thrower
If you are in UK use this link

End of Addition

This is a response to a blog on Whole Foods website. I wanted to make some of the views known that are not too often discussed by the GreenPeacers found in front of my work, nor, not too well-known by many who work and push this “green” answer to supposed “problems.” Some things I didn’t mention was the “global warming” happening on other planets, where Exxon and others do not have access to yet. Not to mention the many points in an excellent documentary answering the pseudo-science in Al Gore’s movie. Enjoy:

Here is the Post (it is unedited)

I think some of this issue is overblown for political reasons... and then in response to the “Soros involved” activism and his money finding its way to both Marxist organizations as well as environmental organizations who seem to have similar ideas to ANSWER and MoveOn, the more conservative side (mine -- letting my biases be known) reacts in full, which can be a turn off as well to some. I will touch on just a few ideas here that I talk about in my best friends classroom once a semester so some deprogramming can happen to these kids that are inundated with myths in the media as well as in their school. I will take a portion of my son’s sixth-grade Toast Masters speech to kick off the issues below:

William Shatner, Captain Kirk of Star Trek fame, mentioned in a National Geographic video that, “rainforests [are] being cleared at the rate of 20 football fields per minute.” If this were truly the case, the forests would have been completely wiped out years ago. In fact, the co-founder and long-time director of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, said:

  • “All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science…. They are quite simply wrong… [Phillip Stott and I] found that the Amazon rainforests is more than 90% intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area.”

Phillip Stott, who has 30 years of studying tropical forests under his belt as well as being professor of biogeography at London University mentioned that, “there are now still – despite what humans have done – more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago.”

This is just one issue I raise in the classroom of high school kids. Some other historical points I touch on are that of wine production. The Roman’s produced wine on the Salisbury Plains in Britain in the 8th century, today it is entirely too cold for such a production of wine, right now at least. Another issue I raise is that of the Vikings. They had enough crop production to sustain long “naval expeditions” over the watery horizon, tree’s to build their armada of ships, homes, and the like. Today, the ground is permafrost for the most part. It was called Greenland for a reason at one point in history. To make the point clear here:

The very warm climate during the MWP allowed this great migration to flourish. Drift ice posed the greatest hazard to sailors but reports of drift ice in old records do not appear until the thirteenth century (Bryson, 1977.) The warmer climate would also result in a greater harvest in Iceland than would be experienced today so the land must have looked more inviting in the past than it does today.

The Norse peoples traveled to Iceland for a variety of reasons including a search for more land and resources to satisfy a growing population and to escape raiders and harsh rulers. One force behind the movement to Iceland in the ninth century was the ruthlessness of Harald Fairhair, a Norwegian King (Bryson)


I want to caveat here that that quote is from the following man who is one of the many thousands of specialists who say global warning is not anthropogenic (man-caused):

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.


Just in case no one knows who Bryson (quoted above) is, here is a short bio:

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.


Another example I give the kids is in regards to the northern face of the Mammoth Mountains where there was a volcanic eruption about 1350 A.D. that, in similar fashion to the Mt. St. Helen explosion, stripped the trees off the mountain side but leaving the roots and the lowest portion of the trunk allowing specialists of various fields to study these older trees. The tree line then was much higher than the current tree line. There are even other species of trees growing then that do not grow there today. In order for the tree line to be at its height above sea-level and the types of trees that grew there, the area would have to be 3.8 degrees Celsius warmer then that it is now. This is of course taking into account the uniformitarian understanding of events in the past (in other words, the current scientific paradigm in the study of geology).

Another challenge to the scare tactics used by those who would purport to want to help the environment (like the GreenPeace “kids” that straddle the doors of Whole Foods) is that of volcanic eruptions that cause more “greenhouse gasses” than the entire history of mankind. Krakatoa for instance. Another historical blow comes from ship travels through areas now covered by ice.


The British coined the term Northwest Passage for the potential northern oceanic pass that would allow vessels to move between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The earliest explorations for the fabled passage were by Cortes in 1539. The late 1500's were marked by British explorers, Martin Frobisher, Humphrey Gilbert, and John Davis. Several expeditions followed, all with little success of finding the passage but tempered by the acquisition of new lands. Some attempts lead to deaths of entire crews. Notable of these is the Sir John Franklin expedition in which all of the crew members were lost to starvation, scurvy, cannibalism, and lead poisoning from food sealed in tins. The first to transverse the Northwest Passage was Sir Robert McClure using a combination of both sledge and ship. Ironically this was done during the search for Franklin's team in which McClure's own ship became trapped in the ice for three winters. The passage was finally conquered entirely by sea by the Norwegian Amundsen in 1906.



Many of these trips, notably the trip in 1906, went through an area now covered in an ice shelf. The same ones people are scarred about melting. History is a bitch to those with political dogma as their guide.

After noting some historical cases I get into some of the issues raised by environmentalist that purport to be reasonable responses using fossil fuels (which I do not believe to be fossil fuels but that oil is always produced [a-biotic] by the inner workings of the earth and then pushed to the crust by the pressures of said inner workings). For instance all the animal life these wind farms end:

The Audubon Society, a party to the lawsuit settled last year, noted among the birds deaths are between 456 and 1,129 raptors killed each year, including 75 to 116 golden eagles killed annually.


The reason many birds die here is because many rodents set up homes at the base of these “death machines” and birds are then attracted to the area. Another reason is the placing of these wind mills in natural “wind corridors” that are also migratory paths for birds. Another myth is that of solar power, for instance some big concerns regarding the moderately high energy costs to build solar panels, and considerable toxic waste exposure issues in making and disposing of solar panels loom on the horizon of “planet health.” Not to mention the European Union's estimate that the future replacement of these panels as they are warn by the sun’s natural breaking down of materials and the subsequent end in a landfill caused them to say that “these [environmental hazards] are greater concerns than nuclear waste or nuclear accidents” (link). OUCH!

And as already discussed here (with links) and a comment by a reader, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. It isn’t about what some stats from a few years back are about animals being fed grains. It is about what the future holds for the amount of grains needed to both feed said animals as well as being produced for fuel. This is the main culprit in the riots a few months back in regards to poor Mexicans not being able to buy corn tortillas. Here is the issue as I see it:

... The EU adopted a goal of producing 10 percent of its fuel for road transportation from biofuels by 2020. The U.S. government (cheered on by the agriculture industry and environmentalists) adopted a mandate of 36 billion gallons of biofuel production by 2022 -- a five-fold increase over 2006 levels amounting to 28 percent of the U.S. grain harvest. Congress and the president joined hands to pass this feel-good legislation just when, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, new data were demonstrating that biofuels cost more energy than they save. "When the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol 'pays back' the carbon released by land-use change."

The amount of global warming that this investment in biofuels was designed to obviate was truly trifling (if GW exists at all). Economist Bjorn Lomborg's work (see "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It") is absolutely essential to understanding this issue. He has pointed out that even if all of the world's industrial nations reduced their outputs of greenhouse gases by 20 percent as the Kyoto Protocol would have required by 2012 (and many of the signatories are not on track), the reduction of global warming would have been 0.1 F degrees lower than it would otherwise have been, thus delaying global warming by a mere five years.

The costs, on the other hand, of meeting these or other targets are substantial. There are the opportunity costs -- funds spent on reducing global warming are diverted from other worthy efforts like supplying clean drinking water to Africa, fighting malaria, and improving flood control infrastructure. And as we are now seeing on our front pages, there are direct costs like dramatically increasing the price of food and pushing millions of poor people to desperation.

"When millions of people are going hungry," Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister told the Journal, "it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels." ...

(“Let Them Eat Ethanol?” By Mona Charen)

This and the other issues I raised here and with students in my friends class to counter Al Gore’s film and the morning announcements the public schools program these kids with is the issue that few hear from the political cult that stands in front of our store.

Much Thought and Reason,

Papa Giorgio


Friday, April 25, 2008

Liberty Bell

Count How Many Passes... FUN!

Greenpeace Founder Says "Yes"... Nuclear Energy

Another blow to the nutter-enviro-left.

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power

Patrick Moore tells the Boise chamber that the world must wean itself from fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.

By Rocky Barker -- 04/24/08

Idaho Statesman

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.


Thursday, April 24, 2008

Ding Ding Ding... Feedin' Time

Pelosi Quotes Scripture? Come On!

This is an imported article from HotAir, I thought it was very funny. Enjoy:

Pelosi clings to — and misquotes — her Bible

posted at 11:15 am on April 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Maybe Democrats can’t understand the call to faith many Americans feel because they’ve been reading the wrong Bible. Via the boss, CNS News provides evidence for this conclusion with Nancy Pelosi’s Earth Day speech on Tuesday. Apparently hoping to reach out to the bitter gun-hugging xenophobes of middle America, Pelosi adopted the Sunday Schoolmarm pose and told us that God wanted us to worship Gaia:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is fond of quoting a particular passage of Scripture. The quote, however, does not appear in the Bible and is “fictional,” according to biblical scholars.

In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker’s office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded. …

Claude Mariottini, a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Cybercast News Service the passage not only doesn’t exist - it’s “fictional.”

“It is not in the Bible,” Mariottini said. “There is nothing that even approximates that.”

I wrote about Barack Obama’s impulse to do some text-searching of Scripture ex post facto to cover for his Crackerquiddick comments. As I wrote then, people with religious faith are used to people throwing Bible quotes out of context at them to challenge their faith and their values. It’s the hallmark of someone who treats Biblical faith with contempt. But at least they usually get the quotes correct, even if out of context.

Let’s see if we can get something close to what Pelosi said from Bible Gateway, a fairly encyclopedic search engine that covers several different editions of the Bible. “Minister to the needs of God’s creation” comes up with no hits. “Environment” comes up with no hits. “Dishonor” comes back with 29 hits in the NIV (only 10 in KJV), none of which have to do with stewardship over God’s creation. Even “Steward” comes back with only 10 hits, none on point.

We do, however, find this in Genesis 1:28:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

No one argues that mankind has stewardship of God’s creation, with the exception of the enlightened atheists that somehow insist on telling us what our own Bible says. However, the essentially illiteracy of our betters in San Francisco — the same crowd who laughed in approval to Barack Obama’s description of middle America as bitter xenophobes who cling to our Bibles because the GDP didn’t expand last quarter — perfectly exemplifies the contempt in which they hold our faith and the condescension they exude when trying to talk down to us.

I’d say that Pelosi may really be clinging to the Bible out of desperation, but desperation borne out of her own political ineptness. Maybe while she’s clinging to it, she could open it up and actually read it.