Punkin's

The girls with their pumpkins.

If you look closely you can see a Cora ghost moving from left to right.

Jess wanted a dog, and Cora and Maren both wanted frogs. I drew to different frogs but they both ended up wanting the same one. Not to bad, if I do say so myself.


CAUTION DELUSIONAL (and possibly self serving) RANTING FOLLOWS
Continue at your own risk

So for the past few weeks, I have been contemplating the global warming issue. I find myself somewhat in a minority. I consider myself an experimental scientist first and a psychologist second. Placing me in what I consider to be a minority is the fact that I am much more politically conservative than my colleagues or professors. As a result, I feel I may hold the beliefs in their findings under a more critical review than said colleagues. Here's my thoughts. First, if we look at measurement theory we discover that every measurement is subject to error. It may be minuscule such as the difference between a board cut 72 and 3/4" long and one cut 72 and 25/32" long. Such a difference isn't going to make a difference in whether a house stands or falls but there is some error there. If I understand the theory of global warming we are talking a world wide increase of only 3 degrees. If that is an accurate representation of the theory a 1/32 of a degree becomes a very big deal. The result is you need to have a very accurate thermometer to measure such changes. I don't argue that we don't currently have that accurate of a thermometer, but it has been a relatively recent development, which leads me to my second criticism that follows directly out of measurement issues. The model is based on past data and trends. At best the data has the type of precision necessary for maybe the past thirty years (I think that is a pretty generous allotment of time), gathered by the same people who can't create accurate models that predict 3 days out let alone years. So we are expected to trust a model based on an extremely finite degree of change when we have such a limited capacity for measurement of said change. Third, suppose the model is fairly accurate, and the climate has been increasing in temperatures, we have only recently been able to demonstrate some of the issues we have been discussing, and therefore have very little supportive evidence of the so called man made effect were talking about. It is just as reasonable to suppose it is due to natural fluctuations of the earth. Finally, and perhaps most convincingly (and this is where the psychologist comes into play) if you were really seriously concerned that life on this planet as we know it was going to be over if we did not take drastic measurements to change our current course, would you choose Al Gore to be the poster boy for that? Now I have heard that Steven Hawking is an absolute jerk, but at least his name lends some credibility, he is, after all a well known and renowned scientist, but what credentials does Al Gore have? Now that I have laid down that base, here comes my conspiratorial rantings. Now I am not proffering my opinion based on any research just my own logical examinations, and I am not putting a world dominating body of "they" who are orchestrating political events around to produce this. After 9/11 the right (and left) grabbed onto the terrorist threat and used it very successfully for political capital. As we saw when we went into Iraq, very few members of the House or Senate opposed those actions. The right has continued to use the war on terror for political capital. In examining global warming the thought occurred to me that the left is now using this for political capital. The huge green movement has been grabbed and pushed in front of us so heavily that the left has easily used the same tactic as was used after 9/11 to ensure that people vote out of fear; whether it is fear that terrorists are going to blow you up the next time you get on a plane, or fear that you are going to have beach front property in Utah, it's still fear based persuasion. Anyway, that is just my take. I can recognize my own limits, first of which is my inability to see the logical fallacies in my own thought processes. So, just thought I would throw that out there. Finally, I am not against conservation, and the development of alternative renewable resources, but I am also not against continued use of the resources we have (ANWR). I am getting a little tired of it being shoved down my throat, followed by ridiculous legislation, like California's new law that bans big screen t.v.'s that use "to much" power. Personally I think that is to protect all those aging actors from having their wrinkles broadcast in 72" of HD. Okay, I'm done.
~Josh