Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report from Copenhagen, Denmark that said, in summary, “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero this century…” (I’m assuming they don’t intend to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans and other animals.)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”  The report once again mentions the “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice…”

I’ve expressed my opinions on this subject many times, and I still consider myself a denier, as the global warming advocates enjoy calling people who don’t agree with them. I still think the earth may warm, or it may cool, but it is certain the climate will change just as it always has.

I intend to focus on Antarctic and Arctic ice levels posted on the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. Recent peak levels in the Antarctic set a new record over the period of satellite observations. Global warming fans say that isn’t important. I reason, perhaps naively, that warmer temperatures probably would result in less ice and not more. Continue reading

Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957

dropshot book coverThis book, edited by Anthony Cave Brown, is startling. The U.S. military had determined in the mid to late 1940s that the only way the United States and its allies could combat an expected massive Soviet military assault in Europe as the Cold War progressed was with a full-scale nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Some military planners believed that the attack should be “preemptive or preventive,” and that the bombers carrying nuclear weapons should be unleashed on Soviet cities and military installations before the Soviets launched what U.S. military planners believed to be the inevitable World War III. Dropshot was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by General Omar Bradley in 1949 with the authority and knowledge of President Harry Truman. The plan listed the date for the outbreak of World War III as January 1, 1957, although that date was arbitrarily selected for planning purposes. The 330 page book is not written for any other purpose but to describe the complex plans to prepare the United States for Armageddon. It educates but does not entertain.

The Editor writes in the Prologue, “Dropshot was promulgated in three volumes of green-colored paper late in 1949. It became public property in 1977 through the United States’ Freedom of Information Act and may now be purchased at the National Archives for fifteen cents a page. This incongruous fact belittles its importance, for at the time nothing could have been more secret.” The editor continues, “Was it folly to make Dropshot public? I have thought extensively about this point, and I am bound to conclude it was folly to release this document. It should have been burned, buried, or preserved in some secret vault, for it cannot endear America to Russia. As will be seen, not only was Dropshot the blueprint for the atomization of Russia, but it provided for occupation by American armies of that vast continent.”“Why, therefore, was Dropshot made public? The Joint Chiefs were not required by law to declassify it?…The question, therefore, becomes a tantalizing one in which several conjectures are possible. The first is that there was no point in keeping it a secret because the Russians already knew about it. This is conceivable; Dropshot was hatched at a time of considerable Soviet intelligence activity…Stalin frequently in 1948 did refer to American war plans, and his representative at the United Nation, Andrei Vishinsky, did allege that America was planning atomic war against Russia over Berlin.” “Is it possible Dropshot was some gigantic blind, that it was created to hide some other relevant plan?” Continue reading

Hogwash

I admit I was a baffled wondering about the origin of this expression until I read the explanation at a web site for “Historical Origins of English Words and Phrases.” The site explains that the “wash” was used in the 15th century to describe “…waste liquid or food refuse from a kitchen…” that was used as food for domesticated animals and in particular as swill for pigs. The term evolved from a description for cheap food for pigs to describing cheap, poorly made liquor or “…poorly written manuscripts…” “In modern English, almost anything that is badly done or ridiculous can be equated to this term for barnyard slop. “

 

Request to Colorado Senators

Colorado now has a Democrat and a Republican as Senators, and I want them to forget that they are a Democrat and Republican and set an example. I want them to team up to bring legislation that is good for the country regardless of the opposing party lines. Cory Gardner’s defeated Mark Udall despite or perhaps because of the ads from Udall and at least one of his supporting organizations that Gardner was so opposed to birth control that he wanted to outlaw condoms. (That beyond-silly accusation was made in an ad by something called NARAL.) The majority of voters in the race ignored the insulting ads and elected a person they hope will be a better Senator.

I suppose it would be tempting to some of the new soon-to-be-Senators such as Gardner to follow the model established by President Obama. I recall seeing news reports of his narcissistic and arrogant response to Republican appeals when Obamacare was being debated, “I won.” I certainly hope that Gardner doesn’t waste any time celebrating that he won. I hope he instead teams with Democratic Senator Michael Bennet to start the process of addressing important issues. Tax reform, freeing up energy production and transportation (i.e. the Keystone pipeline) and addressing immigration should be on the list. Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gardner, put aside “what my party expects me to do” and think about what’s good for the country. Continue reading

The Los Alamos Primer

los_alamos-primerThe subtitle of this book is “The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb.” The book was annotated by Robert Serber and edited with an introduction by Richard Rhodes. It is a fascinating book that would take a long time to fully digest despite its length (only 98 pages including Appendices, Biographical Notes, and an index. The Biographical Notes includes many of the “famous scientists of the times,” but not Robert Serber. I enjoyed the book because it wove the very complicated scientific developments with refreshing non-technical descriptions and comments that made me feel less intimidated about the brilliance of what was being described. The descriptions were often “clipped,” which means it didn’t always flow as well as what you would expect from a literature major. Perhaps that is because the author was a physicist. Some of my favorite passages involve Charlotte Serber (who also is sadly not listed in the index), Robert Serber’s wife. For example, she is described as being the librarian for the project before there were books. I thought about buying a copy for each of our grandsons who are interested in science. However, I admit that I was a bit intimidated by the $40-$60 price for the used books. I suggest you request your local library to borrow it from a local university, which is what I did.

I’ve selected a few snippets from the introduction by Richard Rhodes. Young scientists began arriving in New Mexico to work on a project they were told could end the war. They knew they would be behind barbed wire and cut off from the world. They knew they would be governed by a blanket of secrecy, but “…unofficially they whispered that they had signed on to attempt nothing less than inventing, designing, assembling the world’s first atomic bombs…” “Signing on to invent and craft new weapons of unprecedented destructiveness may seem bloodthirsty from today’s long perspective of limited war and nuclear truce. Those were different times. War was general throughout the world, a pandemic of manmade death.” ix Churchill used the postwar phrase, “a miracle of deliverance.” Continue reading

Warts and All

I recently read an interview with magician James [The Amazing] Randi. He said: “You know the expression, ‘warts and all?’ Oliver Cromwell, I believe, was supposed to have said that.” I decided to take a look.

“Warts and All” means to show something in its entirety, even its unattractive aspects. Phrase Finder says the saying is attributed to Cromwell as his instructions to Sir Peter Lely, who was painting a portrait of him. However “there doesn’t appear to be any convincing evidence that Cromwell ever used the phrase ‘warts and all’. The first record of a version of that phrase being attributed to him comes from Horace Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England, with some account of the principal artists, 1764… We can only assume he was indulging in a piece of literary speculation.” Somerset Maugham used the same phase and attribution in his 1930 book Cakes and Ale

English for Students reproduces the same origin almost word-for-word as Phrase Finder. I didn’t find any source to dispute this, but it does illustrate one problem with looking for word origins. Many sources are not independent.