Oracle Delphi                                                    

                                                                                                                          Blog Information

Global Warming - The Tax

I just read this article (see below) that made a lot of my puzzlement about the imposition of restrictions due to global warming come to light. I should have known the old axiom: Follow the money.


It seems the UN, having obtained “final” proof of global warming due to man’s influence, wants to impose punishment to those causing global warming, and from global warming, tsunamis, earthquakes, and all ills that befall people over the globe. The culprit is, of course, the United States. We all knew it to be true, but now we have final proof. Even though the mathematical models used have proven to be inadequate with even short term weather, they are being judged to be accurate with respect to “the Great Satan” (what the Islamics call us) causing all our ills.


There was always a missing piece to the puzzle with respect to global warming and the fanatical following of  “the consensus” that all scientists are pressured to advocate. That piece is money. And to a larger extent, this tax proposition is but the first step to a truly global economy, and later on, global government. It’s no secret that Europe and many in the United States don’t like capitalism. They don’t like the idea of authority and want to bring down those with more wealth or power than others. The ones that want to do this (in our country, those who are ultra liberal) think that they should have this power and wealth because they know better, for safe keeping of course. In any event, they want to transition to socialism, then communism. Communism has been proven to be ineffective. Redistribution of wealth has never worked, and ultimately, goes completely against human nature, and our genetics. It’s too bad we must compete with one another for higher positions, i.e. greed and desire for power, but this too is our human nature.



Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax

28 February 2007



A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. VOA's correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.

A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries is calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change.

In a report requested by the United Nations and partially paid for by the privately funded U.N. Foundation, the panel warns that any delay could lead to a dangerous rise in sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts and disease.

The report was issued three weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity. But unlike the IPCC report, this latest document makes policy recommendations.

Panel member John Holdren of laceName w:st="on">HarvardlaceName> laceType w:st="on">UniversitylaceType> says the world must be mobilized immediately to avoid catastrophe. "Climate change is real, it's already happening, it's already causing harm, it's accelerating and we need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it seriously, starting now. Our specific conclusions are that if the world were to go past the point of an increase above pre-industrial temperatures greater than 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, we would be in a regime where the danger of intolerable and unmanageable impacts on well-being would rise very rapidly," he said.

The panel's recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising. Chief among them are a global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done.

Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. "We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.

The United States is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, but is not a party to the cap and trade system contained in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration has set a target of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent by 2012, and is spending $3 billion a year on climate change research.

Peter Raven, the head of the Sigma Xi Scientific society and co-author of the latest report, says success in limiting the effects of global warming will require private sector leadership, and a combined effort by the U.S. and the international community. "The private sector is doing a very good job, and kind of leadership we're calling for from the United Nations and international organizations and the kind of leadership the United States is moving towards will both be key ingredients in that," he said.

A U.N. spokesman says Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is considering calling a summit meeting on climate change later this year. Environmental activists are calling on Mr. Ban to play a leading role in the process of negotiating a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.

Posted by Oracle at 2/28/2007 10:49 AM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Global Warming Political Correctness
With regard to my concerns questioning the balance of natural versus human-caused global warming, I’ve observed a degree of political correctness concerning this subject that is troubling. There appears to be pressure among scientists to conform to a particular view on this subject, while quashing the opposite opinion. State climatologists for three different states have received intense pressure to conform due of their stance on global warming. There are people trying to get them out of their positions or at least silence them because their opinion doesn’t conform to “the consensus”. Because of the battle that these scientists must endure, the ones that have the opinion opposing the majority will undergo additional scrutiny by their peers and therefore must have a very robust theory to be accepted. Because there is a political aspect embedded in the global warming controversy I remain skeptical of a “consensus” that, contrary to what they would have us believe, is not unanimous. I have a degree of uncertainty regarding the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel that asserted that there is a 90% confidence that human activity is the cause of global warming. I’m not saying they are wrong, but I am saying that there is not enough evidence yet and that alternatives to that conclusion have not been explored adequately to make that final assertion. I wonder how many scientists that participated in this analysis would have put forth alternate theories had it not been for this political pressure. Political correctness has no business in science. Science should always be open to alternatives and should undergo scrutiny by peers, for our ultimate goal is to find the truth, not just something that is desired or appealing.
Posted by Oracle at 2/12/2007 12:00 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Global Warming
On the subject of global warming, there seems to be a politically correct mandate by many scientists and liberal activists that it is absolutely mandatory that every one agrees that, 1) the earth is in a long scale warming trend, and, 2) that man caused it. I must say our ability to predict future events is problematic at best. The mathematical modeling involved is advancing, but hasn't seemed to have gotten to the point where we can predict the weather a week in advance. Even the next day or two seems to be more of a 50/50 chance, and changes every few hours. Trying to extrapolate a year, or 10 years, or 100 years in advance is almost certain to be wrong. Even the data measuring instruments used over the last 100 years has changed drastically, to the point where older readings may be too inaccurate. Although carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, some are skeptical as to how much it causes warming.  And during the 1940s through 1970s, with increasing industrial pollutants, the earth actually cooled slightly. That's hard to explain if man-caused. All this being said, I tend to believe the earth is warming. However, I am very skeptical when trying to determine the balance between man-made and natural causes. I don't believe we have enough information to do it. Until more evidence is produced pointing to man-made causes, I must assume it is predominantly natural. Even if it turns out to be man-caused, I don't believe we can agree on a viable solution. The Kyoto Protocol was invariably biased against certain countries (us for one).What's my solution? Do what our species has done in the past, and very well: plan and adapt to the inevitable. Determine what changes should be made to ease the transition to higher temperatures, and implement them over a long period of time. And hope we're right about this, and it won't be an ice age coming instead.
Posted by Oracle at 1/30/2007 9:47 AM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
The Solution to AIDS
Being World AIDS Day, I would like to proclaim to the world the solution to the AIDS epidemic. There are two basic ways to get AIDS. One is by way of a blood transfusion and the other is by having sex with a contaminated partner. Here is the solution:

1) To eliminate AIDS when transmitted through blood transfusions, test the blood before giving a transfusion. If the blood is contaminated, don't give it to them.

2) To eliminate AIDS when transmitted through sex, don't screw around. If you must screw around, have your partner tested first. If they have AIDS, do not have sex with them.


I hope the world understands the above. After all, AIDS is completely and totally preventable. The only reason the medical community is searching for a cure is for the convenience of the potential AIDS recipient, so they do not have to be bothered with the above. Individual freedom requires individual responsibility. Everyone is free to have sex and run the risk of getting AIDS, but if they get AIDS it's their problem. They took the risk and must deal with the consequences. I resent taxpayer money going for sexual convenience. The only caveat in this position is that of rape, or some other way that someone gets it without fault. That situation is very unfortunate. However, if the above is implemented AIDS will be reduced more and more until, eventually, it will not exist.
Posted by Oracle at 12/1/2006 11:28 AM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Islam - An American

I previously questioned why American Muslims aren't in the streets expressing their outrage at the actions and violence coming from the extremist Islamists. I've gotten indications from them that there are a portion (how many, I don't know) of them that actually advocates terrorist actions against the Western World. Well, to the American Muslim's credit, I've found a single voice that expressed what I've been longing to hear. I hope more of them take a similar stand. Here is the article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Well done, Mr. Abdullah.

Sep. 10, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

FROM OUR READERS: Kill us, too: We are also Americans

Radical Muslims not worthy of the religion


Special to the Review-Journal

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require."

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

I am not alone, there are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

During the past two decades, you have brought nothing but shame and disaster to your religion and your world.

You said you "invite you not to drop your weapons, and don't let your souls or your enemies rest until each one of you kills at least one American within a period that does not exceed 15 days with a sniper's gunshot or incendiary devices or Molotov cocktail or a suicide car bomb -- whatever the battle may require." I invite you to surrender, to seek forgiveness from God almighty for the senseless killing you and your supporters are involved in and repent for everything you have done.

You say that the word of God is the highest. Yes, it is. But you are not worthy of it. You have abandoned God and you have started worshipping your own satanic egos that rejoice at the killing of innocent people. You don't represent Muslims or, for that matter, any decent human being who believes in the sanctity of life. Many among us American Muslims have differences with our administration on domestic and foreign issues, just like many other Americans do. But the plurality of opinions does not mean that we deprive ourselves of the civility that God demands from us. America is our home and will always be our home. Its interests are ours, and its people are ours. When you talk of killing of Americans, you first have to kill 6 million or so Muslims who will stand for every American's right to live and enjoy the life as commanded by God.

By growing a beard, shouting some religious slogans and misquoting and misusing some verses of the divine scriptures, you cannot incite Muslims to do things that are contrary to our religion. Yes, you even fail to understand the basic Islamic principles of life and living. Islam demands peace in all aspects of life, Islam demands respect for life. Islam demands justice.

What you are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, India or other parts of the world is anti-human and anti-divine. You are an enemy of Islam as much as you are an enemy of America. You must understand that God who entrusted you with life is the same God who spelled his spirit in every human being regardless of his or her religion or ethnicity or nationality or status. You are violating him.

We feel totally disgusted with your action and we condemn you without any reservation. Don't come to our mosques to preach this hatred. Don't visit our Islamic centers to spill the blood of innocents. Don't think that just because we share the same religion, we would show some sympathy to you. You are not of us. You don't belong to the religion whose followers are trying to live a peaceful life for themselves and others serving the divine according to their understanding. In our understanding of faith, you appear as anti-divine and anti-human. We reject you now as we rejected you yesterday.

There is nothing common between you and us.

We stand for life, you want to destroy it.

We accept the divine scheme of diversity in the world and you want to impose conformity.

We respect every human being simply because he or she is a creation of the divine, and you hate people based on their religion and ethnicity.

We support freedom and liberty and justice, and you promote bigotry, murder and strangulation.

You will never be able to find a sympathetic voice amidst us. Our differences with others will never lead us to do things that are fundamentally wrong in our faith, i. e. taking the lives of innocent people and killing others because they are different.

So on Sept. 11, when you will be hiding in your caves, we will be out in the streets paying tribute to those who you killed because you failed to see the beauty of life. We will condemn you once again the same way we have been doing ever since 9/11 because we are Muslim Americans.

Aslam Abdullah is director of the Islamic Soceity of Nevada.

Posted by Oracle at 11/2/2006 9:11 AM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Nuclear Weapons and Our Future
With the proliferation of technology, coupled with our staggering expansion of world population, it is inevitable that nuclear weapons will be common, not just with countries, but with individuals as well. The world as a whole is capitalistic. So if there is a market for something, it will be available for sale, and it is definitely desired. The world has been safe so far due to the fact that normal people don't want to die. Nuclear weapons, up to now, has been a deterrent to war. But with Iran, they truly believe in their religion, and that religion makes an apocalypse desirable. Their assertion that death is desirable makes their acquisition of nuclear weapons unprecedented in all history, and nuclear explosions on civilian populations inevitable. It's just a matter of time. North Korea is using it as a tool to try to blackmail the world. At least North Koreans don't want to die, as Iranians do. Looking to the future, nuclear weapons will be available without any problem. There will be others that acquire them that also won't care if they die, bringing the possibility of the end of our current world society a truly real threat, not just something in science fiction movies. It may be possible to hold it off for a while (preferably after I'm gone), but our species will eventually have to deal with it.
Posted by Oracle at 10/17/2006 1:04 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Islam - Two Licenses to violence

In researching the Koran further, it has come to my attention that there are a couple more pertinent items of interest. The idea of Jihad is to respond to a perceived threat to Islam or Muslims as a defensive posture. However, “defense” has come to mean that any country that is perceived by Muslims as putting hindrances in the way of the spread of Islam qualifies. “Hindrance” is a very subjective word, and has been used to describe very mundane events. This essentially gives them a license to attack just about anyone, because they can always find a “hindrance” somehow. Once Muslims go in “defense” of Islam (i.e. Jihad), the Koran says to kill all non-believers and establish Islam in those countries until the whole world is Muslim. Is this an interpretation of the Koran, and do all Muslims see it this way? Yes, it’s an interpretation, and not all Muslims will see it the same. However, it seems to be part of Islamic law that has been used in this way for centuries and is still being followed. Bad news.


Another thing that allows the Koran to be used in a more violent way is the idea that Allah (God) has the option to take back things He’s said in the past and issue new passages to the Koran. This requires a call to be made when newer passages of the Koran contradict older passages. Consequently, it has been determined that the newer ones take precedence, and negate the older contradictory ones. Of course the most violent passages are in the newer  sections, written in Medina, while many of the peaceful passages, written in Mecca, are older. If figures. This gives further license to commit violence against any non-believers in the name of Islam.

Posted by Oracle at 10/3/2006 7:44 AM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Islam, the Pope - 9-15-06
The Pope said some controversial, some say offensive, words today about Islam. It is similar to the cartoons that so aggravated the Muslims previously, only these words are from a highly authoritative religious figure, nay, the most authoritative figure. I disagree with this kind of denigration. I think it's in bad taste for someone in his position to publicly assert this kind of thing. I tend to bring up details about another's religion that I sternly disagree with. The Pope, in my opinion, simply called their religion names, without evidence to show why he feels that way. I believe in the right of everyone to believe anything as long as it doesn't conflict with anyone else's rights. His actions may lead to violence, and even deaths - senseless deaths. Some of the bad attributes of Islam have, in the past, been attributed to Catholicism. Hypocritical? The actual thing he said, according to the news, was "evil and inhuman". This I have implied in my writings, but I state the reasons why I believe this. I can see protests being held based on this event, but no violence should occur if Muslims are civilized. Is my assertion that there will be a global war correct? This is but one domino, another of many, that has fallen.

Well, it's the 17th now and Muslims are creating violence. It seems they are trying to find any excuse they can to have a tantrum. According to news reports they burned and trashed some churchs. The churches they trashed were not Catholic. Hmmm, maybe the Pope was right after all. Evil and inhuman?

I find the concept of anti-democracy, specifically, lack of freedom of speech, a totally foreign concept. Why wouldn't any thinking person want freedom to do and say what they wish (within reason)? When the president of Iran says things like the following:

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury”

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

Sure, he isn't insulting someone else's religion. He is advocating not only slaughtering every citizen of another country, but threatening to do harm to anyone who even recognizes that country. The Pope's religious assertions melt in the shadow of the assertions made by the Iranian government. But what would you expect from a totalitarian religion? After all, the word Islam means submission.
Posted by Oracle at 9/15/2006 4:21 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Islam Poll Analysis - 9-14-06

I’ve been researching the west’s relationship with Islam by reading the results of polls taken of Muslims in both Muslim countries and in western countries, as well as the general public in western countries. Some things were surprising. One thing that jumps out at me is that Muslims in Muslim countries (but not in western countries) believe that westerners are not respectful to women. Huh? Of all the groups I can think of in modern day societies, the Muslims are the most backward in their attitudes toward women. How can they possibly think westerners are worse than themselves?

Another surprising thing I found was that Muslims think westerners are more violent, immoral, and selfish. Ok, selfishness I’d have to agree with, but the other two are so obviously propagated more with Muslims, that I can’t imagine where they get that. The only time the west has been violent to the Muslims has been in response to Muslim country’s aggressive actions or threats. What about suicide bombers, and chopping off heads of innocent non-believers? Extreme violence against non-believers is repeatedly referenced in the Koran and Hadith. And although the west has plenty of immorality, it usually doesn't involve murdering innocent people, which is a higher level of immorality to say the least. Murder is much worse than, say,  swindling people out of their money. The only way I can see them having these positions would be through propaganda.

Rumors and innuendo seem to fly freely through the Islamic world. Even their official news services are biased to the extreme. They leave out pertinent information that would be perceived as positive to various non-Muslims. They advocate violence on non-believers and spread rumors they know are not true. It’s no wonder they have these surprising positions on issues. It’s inevitable, with a totalitarian regime, that the media will be controlled thereby controlling the people. In the U.S., although we have a definite liberal bias in the media, we still have access to conservative points of view as well as moderate.

Muslims also think that Arabs didn’t actually commit 911, as though they think 911 was a bad thing. If they advocate terrorism, suicide bombers, killing innocents, why would they have a problem with 911? In any event, it seems propaganda is predominant in their lives. I wonder, if they had access to the truth, would they have a more reasonable attitude, even if it goes against Islam? Or would they constantly believe pro-Islamic, anti-western propaganda because that’s what they want to believe?

here is one of the polls I looked at. Muslims, according to a poll, believe that democracy can work for them, overwhelmingly. Westerners, on the other hand don’t believe democracy can work for Muslims. The Koran, after all, goes inherently against democracy. Another contradiction. Other findings: China has the least concern over Islamic extremism, I guess because it doesn’t affect them directly. In fact, it may benefit them in the short term. Also, Muslims hate us more than we hate them, although Muslim’s support for terrorism has decreased somewhat.

For all entries in the ISLAM category: ISLAM
Posted by Oracle at 9/14/2006 1:37 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Islam - 9-12-06

And if you want to truly sum up those of the Islamic religion, click here to see a demonstration of British citizens of the Islamic religion to see their views on jihad, holy war against the infidels. I realize that the percentage of Muslims that advocate the kind of extremes I've described in the original Islam entry are (I hope) small. I haven't been able to get a good enough feel from polls to make a determination as to how predominant these extreme beliefs are. Those who are Muslim and don't agree with many of the tenants I've described are more moderate. However, these tenants are in the Islamic holy books, and some are entrenched into the foundation of the religion. Those who are moderate are not taking the writings literally or are selectively adhering to parts of it.

For all entries in the ISLAM category: ISLAM

Posted by Oracle at 9/12/2006 8:34 AM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)