Earth Hour locally ignored

Were you one of the ones who sat in a dark, cold house to commemorate “Earth Hour“?  I can’t speak for all of Longmont, but I took an unscientific poll of my neighborhood (my son drove me around in the car I just bought him) and found that 76% of the 97 homes in my area ignored this completely.  And I know that many of the dark homes are in foreclosure, abandoned, or for sale.  I’m also sure many of the people who had their lights on were not even aware of this idea “to raise awareness of climate change issues”  (straight from their website, right next a picture of a smiling Al Gore, hypocrite galore). Continue reading…

Carbon Dioxide Has Lost Its “Footprint”

The following is a guest editorial by Longmont resident Alf Modahl.  This appeared in the February 26, 2010 Times-Call and is used with permission by Mr. Modahl, who is a retired atmospheric scientist and mechanical engineer.  Also, a thanks goes out to our own Percy Conarroe for getting in touch with Mr. Modahl about this excellent article.  Enjoy.  (emphasis added by me)


We now know that global warming carbon-dioxide theory failed nature’s supreme test, which unfortunately involved reality. The computer-derived theory held that as atmospheric carbon-dioxide content increased, it would cause increasing global temperature due to radiative effects. But actual measurements over a 15 year period showed that a significant increase in carbon-dioxide resulted in no warming; in fact a slight cooling may have occurred. Because historical data shows that global temperature rises first, and then after an average of 800 years, carbon-dioxide content peaks, raising the question,why didn’t carbon-dioxide rise first if it causes temperature to rise, as claimed? Continue reading…

Global warming snake oil

As the FlatEarth NoGrowth GlobalWarming Hustlers slowly start to fade into obscurity, in other words exactly where they belong, the Times-Call ran a Guest Editorial from I guess what would be a local version of Al Gore, Hunter Lovins.  This is sort of like watching a slow death march of those that believe the world is flat or that driving over 60mph will cause you to suffocate.  Sad, yet entertaining.

Yeah, I know we’re not supposed to say “global warming” anymore since they’ve changed the acceptable lingo to “climate change” since the whole “global warming” didn’t work out so well for them.  But we need to remember the past, and past mistakes, as to not repeat them.  And this fiasco was a whopper, these hucksters are nothing more than warmed over snake oil salesmen and women.  Pity the fools (nod to Mr. T) that still cling to this, the rest of us are laughing at you. Continue reading…

Freedom of Speech, Unless You Teach

Attached is an image of the Bill Of Rights. I know, some of you have to turn your heads or cover your ears and yell “la la la la”, but here, in part, is the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
How might this apply to the recent story of a Longmont teacher under fire? (Daily Times-Call 3/23/07 ” Global warming on trial“) The newspaper was exercising their “freedom of the press”, also part of the First Amendment, in reporting the story. The students were expressing their freedom of speech, in a lively debate and mock trial on this issue. The teacher and CSU student aide were expressing their freedom of speech and agreed that they presented both sides equally. The teacher even explained his neutrality in the classroom on the subject to a parent. So far so good.

The teachers freedom of speech, apparently, has its limits. Even though he threw in the disclaimer ” What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case“, it was the following statement that got all of the attention: ” I don’t believe in Darwinism…” First thoughts that came to my mind were the lines from a song:” I don’t believe in Bible / Jesus / Kings / Elvis / Kennedy.” To many, these words are inspired, enlightened phrases, and artists should be protected enough to utter such things freely. Others may find these words, dare I say, religious or spiritual, equally worthy of encouragement and protection. The above citizen was exercising the full range of his First Amendment rights. But this was British subject, non US Citizen (at that time), John Lennon. A true genius, but not a PhD, and definitely not a grade school teacher. Double standard? But I digress.

With that one comment, this teachers detractors pounced and threw out the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, and the bathroom. The vitriol is beyond belief as it’s escalated way past civil disagreement. Are these detractors First Amendment rights covered when it drifts into libel and slander? I won’t repeat some of the vile namecalling and attacks on this teacher and his family, you’ll just have to trust me or look it up yourself. Oddly, these are the same people that usually scream the loudest for their right of freedom of speech, but you better not disagree with them. I’ll also point out that much of this started before the second article ran (Daily Times-Call 3/27/07 ” Debunking Darwin“), where the teacher probably sent these people right over the edge.

The attack then switched to a book (and its cover art) the teacher wrote totally outside and separate from his school work. “District standards” (an oxymoron worthy of another discussion) being what they are, make it pretty clear what can and cannot be taught in our government schools. Has there been any evidence that this teacher has brought his outside opinions into the classroom? Appears that he’s gone pretty far not to bring his beliefs into the teaching environment. Which brings us back to the First Amendment. Above and beyond these so-called district standards, after covering the material required, are teachers barred from exercising any First Amendment rights? Namely speech and religion? Don’t give me the “wall of separation” nonsense, unless you can find that in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights (you can’t, it’s not there).

The question is which example do we want taught to our children: Keep your mouth shut and follow the rules no matter if they’re fair or just? That only certain free speech is acceptable (not including yelling “fire” in a theater of course)? Or that you should get multiple sides to the story, question and debate, and draw your own conclusions? The last example is pretty close to what was reported in the 6th grade debate. It is ironic that this whole episode sprouted from the topic of global warming, only in that many call it the “new religion”. Or is that debate also closed for discussion?

Personally, I see a possible First Amendment battle in the making. If not here by this teacher, perhaps somewhere else with another one. First, harm has to be shown to get that ball rolling. Since this teacher is soon retiring, his firing is unlikely. Keep your eye on this subject, it’s far from over.

Need more offsets!

In a free society, we’re free to choose to be efficient or wasteful. There are those out there that want to regulate and tax that freedom of choice, basically taking the choice away. Hypocrisy arises when these people demand we be more efficient, yet are wasteful themselves and justify it with so-called credits or offsets. Here’s the lighter side of this nonsense, Longmont style.

We often look at the crime map in the paper and the various police beats. While we are glad our beat is fairly crime-free, we are willing to sell our ” crime credits” to those beats that are less fortunate.

Snow in front of mailboxes was a much discussed problem, we used our snowblower to keep ours clear (a few houses down and across the street) to keep our mail coming. We could sell part of our ” snowblower/mailbox credits” to the unlucky, or lazy.

I bought a four-wheel drive truck with high ground clearance to lessen the chance of being at the mercy of the city’s road clearing, or lack thereof. I could sell my ” four-wheel drive credits” to those low-ground-clearance, rear-wheel-drive COLORADO drivers.

Traffic is a problem in some parts of the city, but that’s okay because those pot-holed or less traveled roads can be looked at as ” traffic congestion offsets” to make up for Hover or Main.

Some schools are fairly overcrowded, doesn’t help when the benchmarks are arbitrarily increased. But those schools that parents wouldn’t send their worst enemies kids to can sell their ” undercrowded school credits” to the other schools.

All those complaints about the loud, long, and somewhat unnecessary train horns need to accept ” noise offsets” from quieter neighborhoods, or those with thick walls or earplugs.

Got it? If not, I have some ” sarcasm and exaggeration for humor credits” to sell you.