NST Prints a Global Warming Skeptic Letter (That Isn’t From Me)

See? I’ve always said from since the time they started printing my letters than the NST has some global warming skeptics in their midst. See here for the most recent example.

From NST Letters 31 Dec 2009 (NST links become defunct after a while):

GLOBAL WARMING: Learn to coexist than take risks
2009/12/31
CHEAH S. T., Penang

ASK any students about global warming and they will spout this mantra: increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) traps more heat, melts the ice caps, drowns ocean nations and causes widespread flooding, and desertification.
Sadly, no one seems to know that as a matter of fact, the greatest greenhouse gas (in terms of quantity of heat trapped by it) is actually water vapour (95 per cent), while CO2 only accounts for 3.6 per cent.

Of all the CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04 per cent), only three per cent is anthropogenic, that is, caused by human activities. Does it make sense that by cutting back on CO2 emissions by 50 per cent, we will stop global warming? The math just doesn’t add up and neither does the science.

But what about the real temperature increase recorded by meteorological stations? Most of these terrestrial (ground-based) stations are usually located in rural areas and set up perhaps 30 or more years ago. Since then, many would have seen surrounding areas deforested and urbanised, creating heat islands in which these stations faithfully record temperatures.

Near-ground temperature differentials between paved surfaces and vegetation covered surfaces frequently show disparities of between five and six degrees Celsius. These are just two of the areas where majority of climatologists feel that the global warming alarmists have got it wrong.

It is bewildering, to say the least, when a news flash of world leaders obsessed with stopping global warming in Copenhagen was juxtaposed against news videos of particularly severe winter conditions that have begun to wreak havoc on all means of transport across the northern hemisphere.

[Pic of dried out sands]
Perhaps global warming is just part of a natural cycle.

This is a timely reminder that we are after all still living at the tail end of an ice age and perhaps global warming is just part of a natural cycle, whereby Earth shakes off a chilly slumber.

In any case, plant and animal fossils recovered from the Arctic (for example, redwoods) and Sahara (for example, crocodiles) show that there were times when the Earth was much warmer and yet verdant, even at currently inhospitable locations.

Perhaps the most crucial questions are: should we attempt to manipulate global climate?; and can we even manipulate it?

It is exceedingly egoistical to be so presumptuous as to assume humankind can bend global climate to our will. We should be prudent and begin adapting to coexist within a warmer climate rather than take a risky gamble against even the remotest chance that ill-conceived attempts to move away from fossil fuels to alternative energy like nuclear power should go awry.

The consequences could be catastrophic and more menacing (as in the case of Chernobyl) than merely vanishing polar ice.

The polar ice is, of course, not melting away in the least (see Worldwide Weather section).

Which is More Effective?

The Second Amendment: Because criminals and psycho killer don’t obey NO GUNS ALLOWED rules, only law-abiding citizens (aka victims) do.

Rape Deterrence:

Which Would Best Protect Your Daughter’s Health?:

By Chuck Assay:

Via Moonbattery:

From here via Ann Coulter’s links:

Via Moonbattery:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ – A collection of new stories where gun-carrying civilians stop criminals dead in their tracks (pun intended).

More guns, less crime in 2009.

Even MSNDC has to admit it:

Via Moonbattery:

Dueling Analogs: Wii Loving Family

Click the comic snippet above to view the full comic.

Unfortunately, so sad and true, more and more in today’s fallen world. See Ann Coulter’s Statistics on Single Motherhood (and the Suffering it Causes) for the link between broken homes and crime.

You could therefore say Loving Family is GTA without daddy issues.

Intriguing Questions About the Bible

Over the years reading the Bible, I have come across some questions that are quite interesting, and for which I haven’t thought up or searched out the answers for yet – as these are not the usual ‘problems’ raised by polemics when they attack the veracity of the Bible.

Being a believer in the fundamental truth and correctness of the Bible and its teachings, I am confident that any such of these issues will eventually be resolved. Thus I can patiently wait and ponder over these questions with the quiet anticipation of finding a perfectly satisfactory answer one day.

Wrap your own mind around these conundrums, and if you have any ideas, feel free to share them with me.

Christians Are Allowed to Judge: Four Bible Passages Often Cited to Deflect Judgement, and How to Respond

It’s a funny world… Liberals, nominal Christians and others who do not regard the Bible as God’s word/relevant/binding often cite the Bible in a veto attempt whenever a Christian points out something that goes against God’s word.

Of course, they don’t really read the Bible except to point out perceived flaws. Most of the time, they simply rehash an argument they read on some other website or blog, or else vaguely recall that the Bible has a passage that sounds like something along those lines.

Not being well versed in the Bible, they are therefore most of the time flat out wrong regarding what the Bible actually says about judgement.

But for self-professed serious Christians, there is no excuse for not knowing your Bible! So here I summarize four of the most used and abused passages used as a convenient (if hypocritical) defense by those not aligned with Christianity.

——————————

1) “The Bible says, judge not lest ye be judged!”

The actual passage: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. – Matthew 7:1-2

Suggested response: I am confident that I am living righteously, and therefore am ready to be judged and measured. How about you?

——————————

2) “The Bible says, don’t point out the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a plank in your own eye!”

The actual passage: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? – Excerpt of Luke 6:41-42

Look a little farther: You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. – The rest of Luke 6:42

Therefore, suggested response: I don’t have a plank in my eye, unless you care to name one for me. That being the case, can I point out the log cabin in your eye now?

——————————

3) “The Bible says, love your neighbor!”

The actual passage: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. – Jesus in Matthew 22:39

Look a little farther: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” – Matthew 22:39-40

Therefore, suggested response: I am commanded to love my neighbor, but also to love God. And God is hurt by your sinning. To love both God and you, it is my duty to persuade you to stop living in sin.

——————————

4) “The Bible says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone!”

The actual passage: The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. – Excerpts of John 8:3-9

Look a little farther: Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?””No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” – The Rest of John 8:10-11

Therefore, suggested response: If we do not cast stones and condemn you, then you ought to ‘Go now and leave your life of sin’.

Also:

——————————

PS. It is our Christian duty to warn others of the consequences of living in sin.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2nd Timothy 3:16-17

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. – 2nd Timothy 4:1-2

See also Ezekiel 33 where the watchman who sees the coming judgement from the Lord but does not warn others of the impending punishment is held responsible for his failure to sound the alarm.

NST Letters – Iraq: US-led Invasion Has Saved Lives

I can predict a whole lotta hate mail coming my way soon via NST’s Letters pages, as happened the last time.

————————————

This is Abdul Razak Abu Samah’s letter that appeared in the NST, 24 Dec 2009:

There’s no moral justification for this oil venture
2009/12/24

THE oil deal between Petronas and its partners and the Iraqi authorities (“Petronas in giant Iraq oil deals” — NST, Dec 12) has caused some to raise their eyebrows not only from the point of view of the legality of the Iraqi government under international law but the morality of the deals per se.
The Iraq war has always been a contentious issue ever since the country under Saddam Hussein was invaded and occupied by the United States and Britain.

They defended the invasion on the grounds that they needed to take a pre-emptive strike against Saddam to destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

But those weapons never existed. The Americans themselves have admitted as much and the United Nations has confirmed it. The war was unnecessary. It was a grand design to seize what the US and Britain needed most: oil.

And to give effect to their scheme, they had to get rid of Saddam. Or else, they considered him a threat to Israel and he had to be eliminated. This is the irrefutable conclusion.

They could hardly say otherwise once the reason for the invasion and occupation became indefensible.

The status quo that has been established in Iraq is, therefore, a government with an Iraqi face but with the heart and soul of the American and the British.

The latter, seeing the immorality of it all, are slowly walking out, leaving the Ame-ricans behind (and it looks as if we are walking in instead).

But the war goes on. Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam are waging an underground war against the occupying forces but thousands of Iraqis have been killed.

On what moral threshold, therefore, are we seen to be a party to enjoying the fruits of an illegal and unjust war?

If worldly gain and riches are the criteria in our endeavours, then would it not be correct and legitimate also to make Israel our trading partner?

What is the difference? Under such a cloud of clashing causes and moral values, who are we to blame then if the Malaysians working there become the target of suicide attacks?

The contractual terms in the oil bargain may stipulate the work to begin after the American troops have left Iraq, but there is no clear time frame when this will happen.

ABDUL RAZAK ABU SAMAHBohor, Pahang

————————————

And this is my response which basically says, why punish Iraqis just ‘cos you hate Bush?

Some parts the NSt editors removed from my original added back in in Italics. Some helpful links I added into the text for reference. Minor changes to style left as NST version, but overall the vast majority of my original text was left as is.

(NST links become defunct after a period.)

IRAQ: US-led invasion has saved lives
2009/12/28
SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

I AM not in any way justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain. However, I am of the opinion that Abdul Razak Abu Samah (“There’s no moral justification for this oil venture” — NST, Dec 24) is misinformed about what is going on in Iraq.

First, it is a misconception that weapons of mass destruction were the only reason given for former US president George W. Bush’s invasion. Among the many other factors cited by the US Congress were Saddam Hussein’s infamous atrocities carried out on Iraq’s civilian population, his non-compliance with countless United Nations resolutions (including firing on enforcement planes) and his now proven sponsorship of various terrorist organisations. Honestly, why didn’t the UN take “multilateral” action itself instead of allowing the US to start a “unilateral” invasion?

Second, it is a gross insult to insinuate that the Iraqis are little more than Anglo-controlled sheep. Iraq underwent nationwide democratic elections with 79.6 per cent turnout to choose their new government, and the UN rejected any allegations of fraud. By Abdul Razak’s same standard, is Malaysia’s government also illegitimate because as a former British colony that underwent British-approved elections and British-agreed independence in the 1950s, we have ‘a government with a Malaysian face but with the heart and soul of the British’?

Third, I find it hard to accept that “the war goes on” because “Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam are waging an underground war against the occupying forces”. Has Razak never heard of the Anbar Awakening, where the Iraqis themselves decided to end the reign of terrorism by rising up against al-Qaeda en masse? Imagine that: the Iraqis sided with the “occupying forces” over the “freedom fighters”. Madness, surely!

[Interlude: Michael J. Totten: Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi – …the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents.]

Also, if people would open their eyes, they would know that the situation in Iraq is actually more peaceful today than any time in the past 30 years. An official report by the defence, interior and health ministries estimates that from Nov 1 last year to Aug 31 this year, there were just 3,045 Iraqi casualties — a rate of just 304.5 deaths per month.

In comparison, the murder rate in peacetime South Africa is five times greater at 1,512.3 deaths per month.

Not only has violence in Iraq dropped to pre-invasion levels, the death rate is in fact far lower than during Saddam’s rule (3,035.1 deaths per month or 10 times greater) and when UN sanctions were in place (9,259.3 deaths per month). The UN sanctions were thus a far greater killer of Iraqis than Saddam, Bush and Blair put together. – why no condemnation from Abdul Razak?

A quick calculation will find that the invasion actually saved more Iraqi lives than it took. On Oct 14, the Associated Press reported the Human Rights Ministry’s findings where from the beginning of 2004 to Oct 31 last year, 85,694 Iraqis were killed (1,477.5 deaths per month).

By extrapolating the earlier mentioned death rates, we can estimate that if the American-led invasion had not ended both Saddam’s rule and the UN sanctions, a total of 836,019 (206,387 added to 629,632) Iraqis would have died from Jan 1, 2004 to Aug 31 this year.

Taken against the figure of just 88,739 deaths during that period, we can therefore determine that 747,280 fewer Iraqi lives have been lost due to “Bush and Blair’s war of aggression”. Three-quarters of a million lives saved — maybe that’s why a BBC poll in March found that 56 per cent of Iraqis think Bush’s invasion was wrong, but 42 per cent think it was right and 85 per cent describe the current situation as “very good or quite good”.

And finally, shouldn’t we let the past be the past? Why punish the Iraqi people just to spite Bush and Blair, who are both no longer in office? Is Razak suggesting that no one should do business with the Iraqi people until some unspecified time in the distant future? Wouldn’t that be just another round of senseless and ruthless sanctions?

After two decades of Saddam’s brutality, another decade of inhumane sanctions concurrent with his continued despotism, and then close to seven years of suffering under terrorist attacks, is further depriving the Iraqi people really the moral thing to do? Why not ask them what they want instead of imposing our own prejudices on them?

Yes indeed, Warmonger Bush saved 750,000 Iraqi lives – see it for details and calculations that were used. An attempted submission under that title had failed to be published earlier on.

This is even more than the previous rough estimate of 600,000 lives which also made it into the NST way back when.

I will close with some photos of Peace in Iraq:

iOwnTheWorld.com Christmas Tribute

This is cool.

I’m near the bottom of the graphic.

Kudos to iOwnTheWorld.com for the Obamockeries!

8-bit Theatre: Fairy Winged Baby

From this…

To this:

Totally not innocuous! The comic snippets above are a preview of 8-bit Theatre doing what it does best!

Head over to Episode 1188 and keep on till Episode 1192 for the full mini-plot of intentional violence.

Pokemon Calculus Answer and Marking

From via Halolz:

TEACHER sent out Blastoise! Blastoise used HYDRO PUMP!
STUDENT’s Charizard fainted! STUDENT blacked out!

Gotta hand it to the teacher for the spot-on general knowledge.

See also related test-time sketchings in Malaysian schools.

Oo, and see this Fail Blog one too:

Dueling Analogs: Star Fox & Monkey Island

Click the comic snippet above to view the full comic, which is just silly haha!