Saturday, January 20, 2007

You have got to read this!

For some time now we have been reading the turmoil of the impending global warming that is upon us.  Till now it was just politics, Greenpeace, and the Entertainment industry pushing the ideas of global warming.  ...
Well not any more.  Add to this list  meteorologists from shows of our cable / sattellite tv broadcast are in on the act.  The Weather channel included. 
However they don't believe any of the hype.
The whole industry are at war with each other.  There has been threats, and bashing of words, and teeth all over global warming.  There are also threats to fire anyone that doesn't agree with global warming.  You will loose your job and your credentials if you don't agree with global warming.
The buzz...
"Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming."
"Cullen's diatribe, titled Junk Controversy Not Junk Science 1617 Comments on This Entry so far called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to tow the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification."

"The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.

"I am a scientist too Dr. Cullen and will be glad to compare credentials. You are entitled to an opinion, but not to the claim that the scientific community supports your position. It does not, just those that agree with you. In point of fact, there is no agreement among most scientists, because the evidence is inconclusive and contradictory. You can not pick and chose which facts you want to believe, nor ignore all the other more reasonable explanations for events, which is what you and those supporting a certain political agenda are doing. You have just fallen into the trap of accepting an explanation for a given set of facts. I can give you twenty more. Your statements are arrogant, foolish, and anything but scientific. Real scientists wonder whether it is your certifications that should be reviewed, not those that remain skeptical and demand proof that isn't constantly contradicted. It is the real scientists that demand tests, not theories. For every scientist that you wish to name that supports your view, I will give you more that say there is no compelling proof. I will show you contradictory evidence and even if the planet is warming, there are dozens of natural reasons this occurs regularly throughout the history of our planet that have nothing to do with the existence of man or any other animal. Why are these possibilities excluded in your world view?"

John | January 19, 2007

Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs."

If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly?

This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.

"There's a con job going on at The Weather Channel, and it's time that viewers let the network know it's time to stop the liberal politicization of weather reporting."

"Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh?"

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab."

Con job at The Weather Channel

"The Weather Channel" Mess 355 Responses so far

last words...

It is important for you to know,  many of the meteorologists are keeping hush - hush, and decided not to open their mouths, and say a word either way on what they believe.  Jobs are at stake here folks.  This is just appalling.  Be sure you read through the blogs, and the replies.  The first link has many replies, and it is just astounding at what was posted at these websites.  You can clearly tell that other meteorologists also replied, but most did not put their names on the replies. The last link is the most apparent.

My take on all of this is I never once believed that Global Warming was here to stay.  From the time I was real young, I always knew that Planet Earth had weather cycles.  With a few glitches here and there for the most part weather is just guessing with just the goofs in-between. I have seen many meteorologists get the weather wrong. Mother nature has a mind of her own. I have seen quite a few meteorologists  red in the face saying "oops! I didn't see that coming! Sorry!"  Yes our Earth has too many people, and too much pollution.   Plus we may need to think about better things to power our world. But I don't believe the public is at fault for any of this.  Politics is at fault.  They are the ones that keep big brother oil company's in business.  They are also the ones that turned a blind eye for all of these years, and now the public is to blame?  Get real. Mother Earth is in a cycle.  The cycle may last a few years, or just one.  Or it may last 10, 20 or 50. ONLY Mother Earth knows what she is doing.

What should be done?  Meteorologists should not lose their jobs because of their beliefs. Their word is just as good, as the next guys.  After all, weather in the past has never been a exact science.  It has never been one hundred percent.  If meteorologists do lose their jobs over this, they should fight it tooth and nail. 

Saturday, January 13, 2007

The Business of Ads Online and the Reasons for Consumer Hating Them

Ok so most will agree that ads online are a pain.  It's either the way they are displayed or the fact they are using a popup to slap this ad in front of your face.  But what are the major reasons for blocking them?
1. popups are bad news, you have to control these because many use popups to exploit the public with their bad scripts.
2.  Spam has been the outcome of some of the sponsors.  People don't want to sign up for great deals from the sponsors, and receive  100 emails a week not even related to the info they wanted in the first place.
3. They are not trustworthy.  Many sponsors are nothing but traps.  Some even try to infect your computer with viruses, adware, spyware, etc.
4. Some sponsors have burned their customers.  No one likes to be offered something just to have the item never to be delivered, and no refund in sight, or damaged goods, and even goods less than what you expected when you made the purchase.  Or, they promise top quality, and you get cardboard, or a few bricks in a box etc.  
5. Some ads are luring children to click.  Offer them cool games, or something free, kids will click the ads, and a parent is at the mercy of the sponsor.  (see #4, #3, #2, #1)
6. Freebies are not really free, not if they ask for you to keep providing email addresses, page after page, or fill out a survey that reads like a book, and has your complete history on it.  So don't expect to get that big screen TV, or that high priced laptop, without first pissing off you family, friends, and online contacts. You think you did everything right, but they always have a excuse at the end to why you wont receive it.  This scam is a classic online, many fall for it.  It's a good reason to block the ad.
7. Websites that have sponsors don't care if the sponsor is legit or not as long as they get paid.  There is no one held accountable for the bad sponsors online.  They can do as they want, and get away with it.  This is not just the websites, even the search engines have bad sponsors.  So you have no trust, no respect of the consumer, and businesses have no balls to clean up their sponsors.
I will continue to block ads until people serving ads online clean their act up.  If you want our service of seeing the ads, then respect us as consumers.
Read the slashdots response to: Yahoo Mail Forcing Ads Through Adblock?

Friday, January 05, 2007

minimum wage increase

A good majority will look at this and say "this is great!" But is it? In my area part time jobs are the norm.  A good majority of workers on many jobs work part time.  There are only two places in my town that offer full time employment.  The next largest city close to me has the same thing.  Part time jobs are rising, and if the wage goes up, I expect to see a increase in part time positions.  I do not know all the reasons behind this, but the biggest reason I believe I see this happening is because of the cost to run a business.  You either cut back on employees, to lower the insurance premiums you are dishing out, or you offer part time employment, with no insurance.  Maybe someone else has other bright ideas about this.  But none of the part time jobs had insurance benefits.  So I suspect many more jobs will become part time, with less full time employees that are insured.  The wage increase is great to have, only if you can put the hours in, and be insured.  What good is it if they cut your hours, and you loose your insurance?

"If it takes adding small business tax cuts to have a minimum wage increase, then we'll do that," new Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said emerging from a private meeting of Senate Democrats in the Library of Congress.

The Senate strategy would differ from the House approach, where Democrats are pushing through a minimum wage increase next week without any extra provisions. The proposal would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over about two years. The last increase in the minimum wage was in 1997."

Read more here: Minimum wage offer interests Democrats

The year 2007 and Spam

I will keep this short...  Unless something major happens, like a real bad security breech, a  bad virus, worm, or Trojan.  Expect no changes when it come to dealing with spam.  The only thing I hope for is maybe a better software to deal with it.  I have no intentions on holding my breath waiting on that to happen either.

Monday, January 01, 2007

I didn't get a fancy Acer Ferrari laptops preloaded with Windows Vista from Microsoft

Word is out that Microsoft sent out 90 laptops to some lucky bloggers.  Well...  I wasn't one of them.  I have contributed to the computer world for some time now.  Why they don't do this for the ones that help the Windows public, I don't know. I am crushed, disappointed.  But like all the others that didn't get one either, I guess we will get over it.  We have too.  Maybe next year Microsoft will give the ones that help Windows users a fancy laptop.  Microsoft doesn't know when to stop

Sapere aude (Dare to be wise)