Issues with the IPCC Methods, Part IV


As discussed, the PCM model of the world’s temperature is based on identifying patterns and then finding equations that could generate a curve(s) that would match the observed data.  This is neither non-linear least squares fitting nor is it Gauss-Newton curve fitting as there is just too much noise or variability to the temperature data especially with the method used by NASA to handle raw data and prior to ~1850 there is only proxy data.  The assumptions used here for predicting temperature are that there were two source curves that were independent of each other but when added together with a reasonable factor for Carbon Dioxide gave the observed results.  We also needed a model for the Carbon Dioxide level and that was modeled using the form of a Gaussian distribution after the seasonable variance was removed using a mean value.  Once that was accomplished an equation was developed that could generate a plot that fit the NOAA data very well and it would transition smoothly back to the 1650 value of ~270 ppm. This gives a base to work from that led to the following equations.

In the model the base Temperature in 1650 (we use 1650 since that is the approximate low point in the little ice age) is set at TB = 13.215 C.  The long cycle LC is 1,052.63 years with a 1.48 C swing. The short cycle SC is 66.67 years with a swing of .30 C.   The forcing for CO2 CL is calculated from 272 ppm for 1650 and taken to 800 ppm level by 2250 by a plot that matches NOAA data where available. The model starts in January 1650 and moves by an increments of 1 per month (M) from the starting point to the end of the simulation. Each increment of one adds one row to the spreadsheet.  So the following equations are what we use for the following example. If we wanted to calculate the value that NASA-GISS will give for November 2014 that would represent an M value of 4379 and that is all that is needed to solve for the temperature. This method appears to work well from 1000 AD through 2000 AD; so the prediction for November 2014 is calculated as follows:

1. The Long Cycle value is

LC = Sin (.00052359*M-1.57338795)*.74+.303784 = .791408 C

2. The Short Cycle value is

SC + Sin (.00785385 *M-19.2419325)*.15+.195341 = .274718 C

3. The CO2 value is

CL = 550/(1+EXP(1+8.94+.002*M)+272 = 401.081 ppm

4. The Adder for CO2 is

TC = -4.227 + (.75*LN(CL))) = .268623 C

5. The Temp. for 2014-11 will be:

Temp = 13.215 + LC + SC + TC = 14.550 C

The NASA-GISS temperature for June, July, and August 2013 is 14.58 C

The PCM model projection for the same period is 14.56 C

The concern over global warming as observed during the 70’s 80’s and 90’s was not unreasonable since Carbon Dioxide, a known “greenhouse” gas (we use this term even though it is wrong as explained in point six), levels were going up and global temperatures were also going up.  The politicians that wanted to act got involved and created a solution before the apparent problem was even understood.  The green energy, sustainability and save the planet slogans that were developed and even the greenhouse effect words were all designed to convince the citizens that things must be changed or there would be dire consequences. The IPCC climate models will eventually be fixed to work as they will eventually realize that something is not working the way they thought.  Unfortunately the political damage has already been done as we poor hundreds billions of dollars into changing how we produce energy to fix a non-existent problem.  The sooner we can get past this the less time, effort and resources will be wasted and we can use them for much better purposes.

Issues with the IPCC Methods, Part III


In Part I  the basics for a different kind of climate model which we call the Pattern Climate Model (PCM) were discussed and in this section we will present a method where the real reasons for global temperature movements can be demonstrated in a very simple model.  The reason or logic for developing this model is that based on geological evidence the link between Carbon Dioxide and global temperature appeared weak at best, especially at elevated levels meaning over 400/500 ppm.  More currently over the past 2000 years or so there appeared to be patterns to the climate that had better relationships to orbital changes, Milankovitch Cycles, and variations in the suns output.  As discussed in the seventh point over the past several thousand years the Milankovitch Cycles appear to give a global warming and cooling cycle of some 1,052 years with a swing in temperature of about 1.46 degrees Celsius.  This swing appears to match well with the timing of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming as well as other warming and cooling cycles going back further than those two just mentioned. With a swing of almost 1.5 degrees Celsius this is has probably been the primary driver of global temperatures for the past 4000 years. Figure 3 follows.

IPCC-03However the Milankovitch Cycles cannot explain all of the variations as there are clearly many ups and downs observed with shorter times and less magnitude. The solar variation from internal variation in the fusion process in the suns interior appears to be the primary reason we have the short cycle of almost 67 years and with a swing of about .32 degrees Celsius.  Putting these two cycles together get’s us very close to observed NASA-GISS temperatures but there does seem to be more needed and we find that if we use a sensitivity value for Carbon Dioxide of .64 degrees Celsius and then add that value to the long and short trend that we end up with a very good match to the NASA-GISS temperature plots.  Because of the way the sensitivity value works in the models the actual temperature affect on the Climate is the highest when there is very little of it and it gets proportionately less the more there is. That may seem to be counter to logic but what happens is basically a “saturation” beyond which the affects of the Carbon Dioxide becomes almost zero.  If this were not true then during those periods where Carbon Dioxide was 10 or 20 times what it is now would have produced temperatures that would have killed off much of the life on the planet. Figure 3 shows the mathematical result of properly adding all these factors together and they are shown as the blue plot ladled the PCM. In addition just as was shown in Figure 1, an orange trend line for the yellow NASA-GISS temperatures is shown and both match the blue PCM plot very closely from 1960 to the present unlike that of the IPCC plot. Figure 4 follows

IPCC-04

There is a very clear difference between the blue PCM plot verses the IPCC red plot compared to the NASA-GISS temperature plot. Now that the short trend is moving down global temperatures have stopped increasing (this is why the orange trend plot has turned down) and will now move down between .08 and .16 degrees Celsius by 2035 and this assumes that Carbon Dioxide reaches 450 ppm by the end of 2035 which is in line with the IPCC “ar4 forcings.” This effect, the reversal of the past increasing trend is clearly shown in the current NASA-GISS data as shown in Figure 3 and 4 of actual NASA-GISS temperature data as of July 2013.

In Figure 4 we put some probability bands around the PCM model using the same values as used on the IPCC model a high (+.15 degree C) and a low (-.15 degree C) and they represent a deviation of +/- 1.0% from the mean. We can see that the PCM models bands contain most of the yellow NASS-GISS values from 1958 to 2013 with 51 of 56 points inside its bands for 91.1%. We also show the orange trend plot with its equation to the yellow NASA-GISS data which shows that their data plot is trending closer to the PCM plot than the IPCC plot and there have been no years outside the bands since 1998 which is 15 continuous years. If the NASA-GISS data plot continues following the current pattern for three more years then no more temperature plots can be expected to fall outside the dashed blue lines and the issue will be settled as it will get harder and harder for a temperature plot to fall into the red bands as that IPCC trend continues to more higher and higher.

For reference in Figure 1 all the values on the red plot to the left of 1988 are back calculated and all the values to the right of 1988 are forecasted values by the IPCC GCM system.  Then on Figure 3 we have the PCM system where all the values on the blue plot to the left of 2009 are back calculated and all the values to the right of 2009 are forecasted values by the equations in the PCM system.  Unlike NASA-GISS table LOTI temperature values the PCM Temperature values do not change as new temperatures are added to the data table. The model is what it is and lives or dies on the accuracy of its predictions.

The concern over global warming as observed during the 70’s 80’s and 90’s was not unreasonable since Carbon Dioxide, a known “greenhouse” gas (we use this term even though it is wrong as explained in point nine), levels were going up and global temperatures were also going up.  The politicians that wanted to act got involved and created a solution before the apparent problem was even understood.  The green energy, sustainability and save the planet slogans that were developed and even the greenhouse effect words were all designed to convince the citizens that things must be changed or there would be dire consequences. The IPCC climate models will eventually be fixed to work as they will eventually realize that something is not working the way they thought.  Unfortunately the political damage has already been done as we poor hundreds billions of dollars into changing how we produce energy to fix a non-existent problem.  The sooner we can get past this the less time, effort and resources will be wasted and we can use them for much better purposes.

Image

Issues with the IPCC Methods, Part II


The IPCC climate models as discussed here have many issues most as a result of the method used to develop them e.g. showing that increased levels of Carbon Dioxide “would” increase the global temperatures to unacceptable levels. The models were started in earnest around 1988 when the IPCC was formed and much of this work was from James Hansen of NASA.  In 1988 he presented to the US Congress his estimate of what the increasing levels of Carbon Dioxide from the burning of carbon based fuels would do to the world’s climate; these were presented as Scenario A (worst case), B (expected case) and C (unlikely low estimate). Scenario B was the focus and its projections were shown from 1958 (when the first Carbon Dioxide levels were published by NOAA) to 2020 in the form as described in section four; after the formation of the IPCC and the global Climate models were developed they added to Hansen’s work and that plot (shown in red in Figures 1 and 3) is what is used here. It appears to be a form of a log function (black plot with the equation for it shown superimposed over the red plot) with a primary focus on the level of Carbon Dioxide (values listed in the IPCC table “ar4 forcings” also a form of a log function) which is assumed to be the proximate cause of global temperature changes.

IPCC-01

Although Carbon Dioxide did play a part, the real reason was that the long and short climate trends previously described in point seven were both moving up together; more on this in the next section.  This can be seen in the IPCC estimated global temperatures shown in Figure 1 as the red plot when it is compared from 1958 to 2000 with the yellow NASA-GISS temperature plot (orange trend line added with equation) where the red IPCC plot moves in synchronization with the yellow NASA-GISS plot of estimated global temperature. However, after 2000 things began to change as the yellow NASA-GISS plot, and the orange trend began to move down while the red IPCC plot and trend continued to move up.  Thirteen years have now passed and the IPCC still has no explanation for why global temperatures are trending down not up: so with no explanation we can say that the model is flawed and needs additional work before any estimates can be believed. This is clearly shown in Figure 2 where we added a high and low band of .15 degrees Celsius to the trend of the IPCC plot and they represent a deviation of +/- 1.0% from the mean. This shows where we can reasonably expect NASA-GISS temperatures to fall within; the IPCC has only 42 of 56 years between the high and the low bands for 75.0% inside the bands. The last time the NASA-GISS plot was inside the IPCC GCM bands was 2007 and the last time it was near the mean was 2002. There is no doubt that there is something seriously wrong here.

IPCC-02

Issues with the IPCC Methods, Part I


The following post is intended to show, to those with some technical background, that the major issues that surround the belief that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the proximate cause of the recent thirty year increase in global temperatures are not settled; as claimed.  To accomplish this we will go through ten issues associated with what passes for the Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, although they do not call it a theory, and their projections which they do not call forecasts. In essence what they are telling us is that their (IPCC) climate models might show what might happen, if we have considered all the variables correctly; in order words they aren’t sure.

These ten issues are not full discussions only short statements showing where there are problems areas; and they are not presented in any particular order or ranking.  Although there is a lot of technical jargon used here (the actual science is complicated) it has been simplified as much as possible which has also meant some liberties were taken with the use of some words. To the best of my knowledge none of these simplifications make any material change to the implications presented here.

One, Carbon in the form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been declared to be a pollutant and thereby must be controlled under the guidelines of the 1963 Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Further this was ruled to be a valid interpretation of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 and therefore Carbon Dioxide is now a “legal” pollutant and “must” therefore be regulated; meaning reduced to the lowest possible value.  However, this logic flies in the face of reality as Carbon Dioxide is a “requirement” of the process that plants use to grow, known as photosynthesis.  The lower the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere the harder it is for the plants to grow; and, in fact, the optimum level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would probably be three to four times what it is now; and that level would also be more consistent with the earth’s geological records. Because of this misconception that Carbon Dioxide is a “pollutant” there is even talk of setting up some form of Geo-Engineering to remove the Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. This is literally insane for if they were able to get the Carbon Dioxide down to below 100 ppm they would kill off all the plants and trees on the planet. Just to get back to 300 ppm we would need to stop using all Carbon based fuel and process 290.1 Tt of air to get to 1,560.2 Gt of CO2 to pull out 406.9 Gt of Carbon.

Two, Geologically there is a poor link between Carbon Dioxide and global temperatures with periods of high Carbon Dioxide and low temperatures and periods of low Carbon Dioxide and high temperatures. It also appears that global temperature increases generally precede Carbon Dioxide level increases thereby seeming to show a reverse cause and effect from what we are being told.  In addition it also appears that whatever the link between Carbon Dioxide and temperature, it is relevant only at very low levels i.e. less than 300 ppm since Carbon Dioxide has been as high as 7,000 ppm, which is a range of values from low to high of 0ver 2,000%. Generally Carbon Dioxide has been more in the range of 1000 ppm and has only been at the current very low levels of under 400 ppm twice before once at 300 million years ago and once about 450 million years ago.  Even with that wide range of Carbon Dioxide values the global temperature has been relatively stable geologically ranging between a high of ~22 degrees Celsius and a low of ~12 degrees Celsius which is only a difference of 3.5% in heat value.  This shows that the thermal processes on the planet do not have any positive feedback associated with them as the current Climate Model’s seem to be implying or the temperature swings would be much greater. Lastly, we are currently at 14.6 degrees Celsius which is 3 degrees Celsius below the historic global mean temperature since we have probably still not completely recovered from the last ice age 11,500 years ago.

Three, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations (UN) in 1988 to “show” what the higher global temperatures caused by the observed increasing levels of Carbon Dioxide would do to the planet physically and economically. It was “assumed” that global temperatures would go up in a direct relationship to the higher levels of Carbon Dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels (which are primarily Carbon) for the creation of energy.  The charter of the IPCC was not to find the “cause” of global warming but to show how Carbon Dioxide “was” changing the climate. Showing what will happen with higher global temperatures is not the same as “proving” that Carbon Dioxide will cause global temperatures to increase to levels that will cause major problems. The true relationship of Carbon Dioxide and global temperatures has never been established.

Four, Determining the global temperature is a daunting task and the science and engineering behind it has not been established in a transparent mode. The core issue is how to put all the individual temperature records together into one master value.  This process is accomplished with software today that determines an anomaly (a difference) from some base.  NASA-GISS (Godard Institute for Space Studies) publishes this number monthly in their LOTI table (LOTI is the Land Ocean Temperature Index which is a composite of all the NASA temperature reading they have collected each month adjusted into one number) as a hundredth of a degree Celsius plus or minus from the base temperature which is currently set as 14.0 degrees Celsius.  NASA-GISS publishes global anomalies back to January 1880; unfortunately because of the process that they use this means that every month all the numbers in the index change.  So with no fixed base how do we even know what the temperature change is, i.e. in October 2009 the LOTI which is a derived number determined by software which purports to be the global mean temperature) value for January 1880 was 28 and on July 2013 the LOTI value for January 1880 was -34. Converting to degrees Celsius and comparing to the current temperature, that is a change of only .32 degrees Celsius using the 2009 figure but it’s a change of .94 degrees Celsius using the 2013 figure, so which is it?  This process has not been subject to independent peer review and it must be if the process and the numbers are to be believed.  Also it makes no sense to keep changing all the numbers back to 1880 every month and some of the changes are not small as just shown. There is agreement that temperatures have gone up but that’s about the extent of the process.

Five, In order to determine future global climate changes based on temperature changes Global Climate Models (GCM’s) of various kinds have been established by the IPCC. These are extremely complex constructs that to work must have equations to determine all the thermal flows of energy on the planet from the deepest ocean to the top of the earth’s atmosphere. There are two issues with this, one being we do not know all the processes and variables involved nor even what values to assign to many of them and two we do not have computers powerful enough to process the data at a resolution sufficient to determine global energy policy. The resolution is a major factor, since for these kinds of models to work the entire planet must be covered in a grid or mesh in all three dimensions, e.g. a box; the current state of the art means that these boxes are much larger than major cities and many of the key thermal flows are at much smaller sizes that cannot then be properly modeled. Then when the current GCM’s are run they never give the same result twice and so an average of a number of runs is used for each. In addition they change the population and economic circumstances such that it not even certain if they are projecting climate or economics for example in the current report, AR4, seven different economic scenarios are shown.  That range of outputs is way too broad to give any certainty to the output especially with the current downward global temperature trend which is not even possible, with the way the GCM models are currently programmed.

Six, A key number that is not known with sufficient certainty is the Radiative Forcing value of Carbon Dioxide which determines the Climate Sensitivity or the amount the global temperature will increase with a doubling of the level of Carbon Dioxide.  The IPCC uses 3.0 degrees Celsius in its models but they also admit in their Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) issued in 2007 that the range of values is from .4 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.   This wide range gives results ranging from no climate effect to global catastrophe and the use of 3.0 degrees Celsius puts the models into the range of catastrophe.  The apparent need for the value of 3.0 degrees Celsius is that is what was needed to make the models show a global temperature that matched that which was observed between about 1960 and 2000. The mistake in this was assuming that there were “no other significant factors” in play and that Carbon Dioxide was the primary cause if not the ultimate cause of the increase. It seems when properly used the Carbon Dioxide sensitivity value is closer to .64 degrees Celsius than the 3.0 degrees Celsius the IPCC uses.

Seven, The IPCC has mostly ignored orbital and solar variations and that is what has forced them to use the high climate sensitivity values for Carbon Dioxide.  The orbital changes as first defined by Milutin Milankovic and now known as the Milankovitch Cycles have three components: Precession, Axial tilt and Eccentricity all of which are well documented.  Over the past several thousand years they appear to give a global warming and cooling cycle of some 1,052 years with a swing in temperature of about 1.46 degrees Celsius.  The solar variation from internal variation in the fusion process in the suns interior are the primary reason we have the short cycle of almost 67 years with a swing of about .32 degrees Celsius.  In both cases these numbers do relate to the primary cause of the observed temperature increases but they are mitigated by all the thermal sinks on Earth and so they do not exactly correlate year for year.  These two patterns are the bases for an alternative climate model called a PCM here.

Eight, Reliable thermometers were not invented until 1724 by Daniel Fahrenheit so there was no  way to know what the global temperature really was although other cruder devices were in use prior to then; however by around 1850 there were enough weather stations recording temperatures to begin trying to determine what the average global temperature was.  It must also be understood that before 1850 everything regarding temperature is proxy data which means that it is derived from things like the ratio of the isotopes of Oxygen 18 to Oxygen 16 in wood, stalagmites, ice and sediments; the size of tree rings and coral growth.  That is not to say that there is no relationship to temperature but since other things also contribute to the items being measured its difficult if not impossible to know the true cause and therefore the global temperature. More importantly there is no “one” global temperature, whatever the number is said to be it is strictly an artificial number derived by some process e.g. software today.   The reason this is an artificial number is that the earth is a spinning global with one side facing the sun (being heated) and the other deep space (cooling down); this creates three climate bands on each side of the equator. First is the equatorial band from the equator to 30 degree north or south which receives the bulk of the available heat from the sun. Next are the bands north and south from 30 to 60 degree, where the continental United States is, that receives about 1/3 less. Lastly we have the Polar Regions from 60 to 90 degrees north and south which receives almost no heat from the sun. Considering the planet as a whole, front and back; only 5.6% is directly under the sun at any one time with another 16.7% getting a reasonable amount of solar heat, all the rest is, in effect, cooling down. The complex planetary air flows that create our climate are a direct result of the heating patterns from these bands and the spinning globe. The energy from the sun is also significantly reduced by clouds levels, and the temperature on the surface depends whether it‘s land or water and what the elevation is.  This is a very complex process that is not yet completely understood at the local level, yet we are shown a stated value, the anomaly, which are actually degrees Celsius shown to the second decimal place.  This indicates a relatively high degree of precision but since the values change every month we have low accuracy.

Nine, there is no “greenhouse” effect and there are no “greenhouse” gases!  The processes going on in the earth’s athomosephere “are not” the same processes as that occurring in a greenhouse used to grow food.  The heat in the greenhouse is trapped in there by the physical barrier of the glass or plastic panels.   There are no physical barriers in the atmosphere and so the process is very different.  Sunlight reaches the earth and as it enters the atmosphere 30% of it is reflected back into space, mostly by the white clouds.  The remaining radiation warms the air the land and the water but by doing so the energy must also “eventually” leave the planet to maintain a thermal balance and does so as radiation in the infrared (IR) bands. Some of that outgoing Infrared is absorbed by the Carbon Dioxide and then reradiated and either shifted to water vapor or sent out into space. There is a lot more water than Carbon Dioxide and, in fact, water is the primary “greenhouse” gas if we have to use that term.  The water in the atmosphere acts as a thermal buffer and that raises the global temperature from a negative 18.5 degrees Celsius to 14.5 degrees Celsius which is a positive swing of 33 degrees Celsius, and of that 33 degrees Celsius about 15% is from the affect of Carbon Dioxide at present levels.  Now here is the important fact, using the more realistic Carbon Dioxide sensitivity values there is only about .5 to 1 degrees more of a temperature increase that can be realized by the level of Carbon Dioxide in the athomosephere no matter how high it goes.  The programming in the IPCC climate models apparently use some form of logarithmic function related to Carbon Dioxide which forces the model into a positive feedback mode which is just not supported by geological records. This is why the lower value makes more sense since the planet has never been as hot as the IPCC Carbon Dioxide higher sensitivity values would take it in the near future. This value is at the heart of the argument and so knowing what it really is, is probably the single most important element in the debate.

Ten, A model of any kind is only as good as its ability to accurately predict future events and the better the model the further into the future the model can accurately predict that which it is programmed to do. According to Wikipedia “Modeling and simulation (M&S) is getting information about how something will behave without actually testing it in real life.” … “M&S is a discipline on its own. Its many application domains often lead to the assumption that M&S is pure application. This is not the case and needs to be recognized by engineering management experts who want to use M&S. To ensure that the results of simulation are applicable to the real world, the engineering manager must understand the assumptions, conceptualizations, and implementation constraints of this emerging field.” Global climate models are simulations of what will happen under the assumptions and restraints built into the models. And since this debate is on Climate that changes very slowly it will take decades to see what the real movements are and whether the IPCC models are any good.  The issue at hand is Carbon Dioxide levels which began to move up in concert with global temperatures starting around 1965.  That pattern was constant up until only a few years ago and that gave the illusion that Carbon Dioxide was the proximate cause of the Change; but three decades is less than a blink of an eye with Climate.  With global temperatures now actually dropping not increasing there is building doubt about the ability of the IPCC climate models to accurately show what is happening in the real world even a few years into the future. What we are currently seeing in the falling global temperature levels, while the OPCC GCM’s say they must go up, is the very definition of a bad model/simulation. This is a fundamental flaw not just a projection being a little bit off track!

Movie Review “Lone Survivor”


This movie is based on the book by the same name co-written by Patrick Robinson and Marcus Luttrell’s and his experiences in Afghanistan. The book is a fictional account of Operation Red Wings in Kunar Province Afghanistan in 2005.  Luttrell and three other Navy Seals from Seal Team 10 were on a mission to capture or kill a high value Al-Qaida operative, Ahmad Shah, that goes terrible wrong. Luttrell played (and produced) by Mark Wahlberg, Michael P. Murphy played by Taylor Kitsch, Danny Dietz played by Emile Hirsch and Matthew Axelson played by Ben Foster are caught in a moral dilemma soon after arriving between killing three Afghanis’ and completing the mission or letting them go and aborting.  Lt (Army Captain) Murphy, the team leader, lets them go and the team tries to extract.

Those of us that have served in combat know that no mission goes as planned once the mission starts, SNAFU (Situation Normal All F’ed Up).  Operation Red Wings is no exception starting with poor radio contact then being discovered and ending with the loss of one MH-47 Chinook helicopter, 8 Navy Seals and 8 Special Operations aviators on the helicopter and 3 Seal’s out of 4 on the mission, Luttrell being the only one that lived and that was just barely. Although the move doesn’t portray exactly what happened on that mountain in Kunar Province it’s close enough to being true (Google Operation Red Wings pick the Wikipedia link) that it just doesn’t matter one bit.

The heart of the movie is when Luttrell and the other three Seal’s are found by the Taliban and an intense running fire fight ensues.  The lack of radio communications means the Seal Team 10 commanded Lt Commanded Erik S Kristensen played by Eric Bana doesn’t know what happened to his Seals, and from personal experience that is one-hell-of-a-bad feeling.  After the fire fight starts Lt Murphy fights his way to high ground where he is killed but he does make contact with Kristensen who then loads a rescue mission on a Chinook helicopter and tries to save the team, he doesn’t get gunship support, in part because of command conflicts, and after reaching the site he is shot down by an PPG rocket and he and more seals and the air crew are all killed.

While Kristensen is trying to save his Seals Luttrell, Murphy, Dietz and Axelson are fighting their way down the mountain where they are picked off one by one in a very intense running battle that is one of the best acted and realistic portrayal of combat that I have seen — it was very close to what I experienced in Vietnam at a Green Beret in 1967. This is a must see move for anyone that wants to experience what Special Operation solders go through in combat. Like Luttrell I experienced a combat situation where I was the only one to survive and two others died and I can state unequivocally  that losing your comrades is something that you never forget and you will wonder why till the day you die why your were spared and they were not?

Disturbing Trends


Over the past few decades there has been a movement created to make a great many changes to our society to correct for the various injustices that are perceived to have existed.  For example we have, as a society, decided that it is wrong to exclude any American, regardless of cultural background, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, from the opportunity to participate in public affairs of any kind.  Ensuring that every American Citizen has equality of opportunity is an admirable idea as well as being part of our core beliefs; where we as a society often go astray is in the implementation of valid ideas.

We must remember: Our society is the result of thousands of years of development.  Culture and beliefs cannot magically be changed with the passage of a few new laws.  Real social change takes generations, and, in fact, changes that are imposed suddenly–and artificially–can only create new problems and backlash.  Worse they can disrupt the very fabric of a society.

As it stands, the laws that we have passed to prevent the exclusion of minorities from our political and economic processes proceed from the assumption that minority individuals (women, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) are entitled to opportunities because they come from minority backgrounds, not because they possess particular qualifications.

The original idea of not allowing the separate but “equal” concept that existed prior to the fifties for “blacks” to continue was fine, for it was clearly not equal.  The thinking went astray after that change when politicians decided that all minorities, and there was no end to them, could be made to believe that they were “entitled” to special treatment (going to the head of the line so to speak to make up for past injustices). There is little doubt that today, individuals are promoted in part because of their race or gender not because they are the best for the job.

This entitlement culture resulted in a continuing fragmentation of our society into “special interest” groups each vying for victimization status.  The result being that political and other decisions can no longer be made without consideration of the perceived impact on these special interest groups, regardless of the benefits these decisions may otherwise bestow.   A minority person is often appointed to a public position for no other reason than to provide “fair representation” of their minority group.  So, as a consequence, we end up discussing a person’s heritage or gender (real of perceived) not their ability to get the job done.

Another variation of current social thought. There was a television commercial a while back advertising a book on women and women’s issues that was written by a woman doctor.  This commercial implied that only a woman could understand the problems of another woman.  Therefore implying, only a female physician could truly provide effective treatment for a woman.  In other words, men do not experience women’s problems so they cannot possibly deal with them effectively.  It is easy to see that this logic is not only flawed, but is simply absurd.   By extension, only a doctor who has had cancer would be qualified to treat a cancer patient.   Most people would not buy the latter idea, but many are falsely led into serious consideration of ideas like that promoted by the “women’s” commercial, because these ideas carry the weight of “political correctness.”

Then we have the proposition that qualifications no longer mean anything.   In fact, the need for qualifications can be avoided altogether by the use of such techniques as “gender normalization:” This works like this, women are given “points” to compensate for physical differences with men — in strength, for example — in order to compete for jobs with physical requirements with males especially in the military.  Alternatively, the need for physical strength is written out of the job requirement so that women can qualify.   What we are doing with this is developing a social handicapping system, which penalizes skill and ability, bringing standards down to the level of those of lesser ability or achievement.

Along with the above social issues we have also saddled ourselves with the concept of “political correctness.” In plain language, “political correctness” means the prohibition of doing or saying “anything” which may offend anyone for any reason be it real or imaginary.”  Our language has even been modified to reflect this attempt to avoid offense of any kind.

Then we have the feminization of society.  For example, with the development of birth control methods, American women were, for the most part, freed from the burden of unwanted pregnancies, not a problem.   Then, partially because they had more time for other activities, women were put under pressure to work outside the home and to take on leadership roles in business and public life.  They are undeniably very capable of assuming these positions.

Unfortunately, when women assume the responsibilities previously held almost exclusively by men, women not only change the social dynamics of the work place with lots of unintended consequences, but they abdicate their former responsibilities as caregivers to our children.  Since the child-rearing skills of our women produced the men that conquered the world, we are losing a formidable body of skills, indeed.

The other side of the coin is that women are displacing men in the work force, and the men therefore must, in turn, become the caregivers to our children giving rise to a new tern “house husband.”  So it can be seen that we could have a double negative for if the women displace talented men in the work place and if the men aren’t as good as women in child rearing that the net affect on society will be very negative from a performance perspective.

Women are now entering all fields and occupations in the United States in a hell-bent race to “gender neutralize” everything.  But if jobs are to be doled out to people in proportion to their percentage of the population (quotas are the only way to be sure this happens), eventually all positions in all fields will be dominated by women, since there are more women than men in this country.  One documented result is we now have more women graduation from college then men as a result of this policy.

It also means that, to a greater and greater extent, household duties will have to be assumed by men.   Implicit in this train of events is the logic that household work and raising children is demeaning work, to be performed by people at the lowest social level (i.e. the smallest percentage of the population, which, in this case, means men).  The twisted logic inherent in trying to accomplish this kind of transformation is beyond comprehension.  Whether this next statement is political correct or not it is true that there are very real hard wired gender based roles is society.  If we ignore that then we do so at our own peril.

Another very popular social trend is “multiculturalism,” which is being touted as a way to make everyone feel good about themselves, in this case about their background.  As is true with all such “programs,” multiculturalism sounds like a positive idea, but, in fact, has a very negative and detrimental effect in practice.  Inherent in the multiculturalism belief structure is that all cultures are equal and no one culture is better then another.

If someone really believes that is true then there is no reason for anyone to immigrate here for here in America we have a very different culture then exists anywhere else.  The quote below from Teddy Roosevelt in 1919 gives a very good view on being an American.

”Rn the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt January 03, 1919

 To a great extent but not solely the result of the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections politicians that did not believe that the American system of the past 200 years was any good — were put in power.  Their view of what the country should be like as shown partially in this writing is not what the Citizens of the country think it is and so a very serious conflict is developing.  The Tea Party movement is just the beginning of that conflict.  This work has been written to give the Political and Social background for why this ‘change’ is being fought so hard by such as large portion of the Citizens.

We’ll end the discussion now with a final thought on society and political correctness.  Much to-do about nothing has been made in reverence to ‘names’ that people are called and how it affects’ them and how bad that is.  Well the author of this work has been called just about every name in the book from ‘baby killer’ to “racist.’  And he was discriminated against in the job market because he was a Vietnam vet.  Is there anyone in the world that has not been discriminated against at some time, probably not so the discussion is only on degree?

So what, is the proper response to negative words for if you allow anything like that to have any affect on you then you have given those that do or say things you don’t like “Power Over You.”  Their words are a Taunt made to you and if you react to them that reaction is what they want. Don’t give them the satisfactions of making you react, ignore it. You know if there is anything that you have done that is bad and for most of us it is not true.  But one thing is for sure if you react to those taunts in any way they will not stop.  By not reacting to the offending words you ‘Maintain that Power’ and you become a stronger person.

Consider this old saying which was told me by my mom after some confrontation involving name calling in grade school. It is as true today as it ever was.  Bullying and taunting today causes more problems then they ever did in the past because the kids today are sensitized to things like name calling.  They have never been told what my mom told me.

“Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones but Names will Never Hurt Me.”

That is unless you let them hurt you by your reaction and then you are at fault for the choice was yours after all.