On Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming is threatening to become the breakout religion of the 21st Century. By re-codifying the definition of hysteria (see also conversion disorder) as Post Normal Science, the high priests of the Church of Ecology are not only waging a war for the hearts and minds of advertising-addled, blurb-fed, spin-meistered, atheistic consumers void of the third leg of humanity (reason, empathy and faith), but for their pocketbooks as well.

Consider this: Instead of fear-mongering for AGW with a hand-wringing search for a savior leading to the old camel’s nose under the tent of global taxation managed by corrupt U.N. bureaucrats, why not state the problem to encourage a free-market solution? Instead of saying, “What shall we do? Somebody help us!,” say, “We need a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint.”

Simple, isn’t it? Which one do you think is more likely to generate a solution? Would you rather let the former lead to someone telling you to run hither and yon in the work camp, or the latter where you can control your own destiny? Here’s the problem: the 'environmentalists' won’t support the latter.

The 'environmentalists' won’t support “a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint,” for many reasons:

1. It takes control of the solution out of their hands, and hence their ability to levy taxes.
2. More power for less cost will produce affluence, leisure and quite likely, more children. That means more people straining their perception of the limits of a global Gaia.
3. Phrasing the problem in this way leads to a dead-end answer in their minds: Nuclear power.

That’s the bottom line. Ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint can only mean more nuclear power. So ultimately, their FEAR of nuclear contamination is stronger than their belief in AGW. The problem with that is in a consequential reality Global Warming can be measured and dealt with scientifically, while the only place fear can be dealt with in their minds.

In order to solve an urgency created through hysterical fear-mongering (AGW), you have to discard a valid solution previously dismissed by hysterical fear mongering (nuclear contamination). The old adage of, “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself” has never been more true.

Any time someone talks to me about AGW:

1. I immediately agree that we need “a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint.”
2. I ask them if they would support that as well.
3. When they answer, point out that solution already exists and demand to know if they would support the solution if it meant more nuclear power plants.
4. Restate their original position, yes or no, do they believe that Anthropogenic Global Warning will “wipe out humanity.”
5. Point out that in their minds, their FEAR of nuclear contamination is stronger than their belief in Global Warming and therefore either they do not believe the consequences of Global Warming are as bad as they think, or else they have to give up their fear of nuclear power. Which is it going to be fear of the unknown or fear of the known? This is the Sophie’s Choice that needs to be made.
6. If a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint were developed, you could use 99% of the solution to recapture carbon and still be even.
7. 99% of the costs associated with producing nuclear power are regulatory which can be wiped out with a stroke of the pen.
8. If AGW is going to wipe out humanity, why wouldn’t they accept a solution that would only wipe out half of humanity? If you could save half of humanity and completely anthropogenic carbon from the atmosphere, why wouldn’t you do that? In reality, if you removed regulatory restraints, and let them come back as PROVEN necessary, then you are still waaay ahead of the game.
9. Had we gone on building nuclear plants at the rate we were building them in the 1960s, we’d be in a lot better shape with regard to air quality, greenhouse emissions, and energy independence. Environmental concerns stopped that, but now environmentalists are beginning to look more favorably on greenhouse-friendly nuclear power.

Suddenly AGW isn’t the bogey man it is being puffed up to be, just as nuclear power isn’t the demon we were led to think it was.

An Iranian timeline vis-a-vis the Brits

(This blogger has put together a timeline of (mostly) relevant activities by the Iranians vis-à-vis the kidnapping of the British Marines. Go to his site for updates. I post here because it is an excellent summary. -Jim)

Verum Serum

Timeline: Iran vs. the US in Iraq (Updated)
Posted by John at 11:37 pm on March 26th, 2007

I’m assembling a timeline of events leading up to the kidnapping of 15 British sailors and marines based primarily on work done by FrontPage magazine, HotAir, Regime Change Iran and myself. Mistakes are likely mine. It’s possible not all these events are relevant or that some that are relevant aren’t included. Feel free to make suggestions in the comments. I may continue adding info to the timeline as I assemble more info (i.e. this may develop if I have time). [Note: I’m adding a few things per Allahpundit’s suggestion.]

August 2003: (link) First EFP (explosively formed projectile) attack in Iraq.

May 29, 2005: (link) An EFP attack near Amara kills 21-year-old British lance corporal, Alan Brackenbury.

June 2005: (link) A Japanese convoy near Samawa is struck by a roadside bomb which uses a remote control firing device typically provided by Iran or Hezbollah.

July 19, 2005: (link) The United States secretly sends Iran a diplomatic protest through Swiss intermediaries charging that Tehran is supplying lethal roadside explosive devices (EFPs) to Shiite extremists in Iraq. “Message from the United States to the Government of Iran” — informed the Iranians of the May 29th attack on Cpl. Brackenbury and notes that the Shiite militants who planted the device had longstanding ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran.

August 2005: (link) Iran denies any connection to the EFPs being used in Iraq.

September 2005: (link) British forces arrest Ahmad Jawwad al-Fartusi, the leader of a splinter group of the Mahdi Army that carried out E.F.P. attacks against British forces in southern Iraq. American intelligence concludes that his fighters might have received training and E.F.P. components from Hezbollah.

October 2005: (link) British ambassador to Iraq, William Patey, tells reporters in London that Iran is supplying lethal technology that had been used against British troops. Prime Minister Tony Blair adds, “The particular nature of those devices lead us to either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah.”

April 2006: (link) EFP attacks in Iraq rise sharply.
October-December, 2006: (link) Excluding casualty data for the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, where the explosives have not been found, the devices (EFPs) account for about 30 percent of American and allied deaths this quarter of the year.

November 2, 2006: (link) Cpl. Daniel James –interpreter for Gen David Richards, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan — is charged with “prejudicing the safety of the state” by passing information “calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy”. It was said he had communicated with a “foreign power” in the incident on Nov 2, believed to be Iran.

November 15, 2006: (link) The Telegraph reports on links between Al-Quaeda and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard:
“From the evidence we have seen, Iran’s links to al-Qa’eda go far deeper than simply supplying them with equipment,” said a senior Western intelligence official. “They are allowing them the use of training facilities so that they can ensure their attacks are as effective as possible.”

December 9, 2006: (link) Iran really wants peace, says Time magazine:
“TIME’s sources, in contrast to U.S. charges that Tehran is fueling instability there…indicate that Iranian officials essentially agree with the Baker-Hamilton conclusion that while Iran gains an advantage from having the U.S. mired in Iraq, its long-term interests are not served by Iraqi chaos and territorial disintegration.”

December 20, 2006: (link) The US announces that it is moving a second carrier group to the Gulf “in a display of military resolve toward Iran.”

December 21, 2006: (link) On a tip, US forces raid the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shia leader, and arrest two senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds Force including Brig. Gen. Amir Mohsen Shirazi (link) (other reports call him Moshin Chizari or simply Chizari). Chizari is the #3 commander of the Revolutionary Guard (link). (Note that the only story to give the exact date is this one from ABC)

According to the Washington Post, Chizari has on him (link):
detailed weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information. Officials were particularly concerned by the fact that the Iranians had information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq, weapons that have been used in roadside bombs to target U.S. military armored vehicles.

Michael Ledeen’s summarized the find this way (link):

He was carrying documents, one of which was in essence a wiring diagram of Iranian operations in Iraq. That wiring diagram included both Shi’ite and Sunni terrorist groups, and was of such magnitude that American officials were flabbergasted.
Ledeen goes on to say that the information had (by Jan 2 when his post was published) reached the President.

Late December 2006: (link) After the President “was given new intelligence on the scale of Iranian operations to foment violence in Iraq” he signed a “clandestine directive” ordering “US forces to launch a military offensive against Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards…in Iraq”

December 29, 2006: (link) Against the wishes of the US, the two captured Iranians are returned to Iran by al-Maliki’s Iraqi government.

January 10, 2007: (link) President Bush addresses the nation saying, in part:
Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

January 11, 2007: A US led raid on a consular office in Irbil, Iraq leads to the capture of six Iranians including (link):
Hassan Abbassi, a strategist “close to” President Ahmedinejad and the only individual with any diplomatic credentials.
Mohammad Jaafari, an aid to National Security advisor Ali Larijani
Jalal Sharifi, a professional intelligence officer.
Brig. Gen. Mohammad Djafari Sahraroudi, a Kurdish affairs expert wanted by Interpol
Mojhadi
Safderi, two Revolutionary Guard officers (link).
One of the six, (Hassan?) is released. The other five remain in custody.

Mid-January, 2007: (link) Immediately after the capture of the Irbil six, “Ayatollah Khamenei hastily convened a national security damage control committee to devise new strategies for reducing Iran’s footprint in Iraq. It was staffed almost exclusively with top Rev. Guards officers, including the head of IRGC intelligence, Maj. Gen. Morteza Rezai, and former deputy IRGC commander, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqr Zolqadr.”

January 17, 2007: (link) “Iraqi intelligence sources disclosed to The Daily Telegraph that Iran plans to reap the huge financial rewards presented by the southern oil fields and prevent Western businesses from gaining a foothold inside Basra.”

January 19, 2007: (link) The Brits are skeptical: “As for the anxious U.S. warnings of Iranian support for the insurgency in Iraq, a British officer was not so sure. “We have no hard evidence that the Iranians are directly involved in the attacks against coalition forces here. We have some suspicions, but so far we have found no direct proof,” the officer said.”

January 20, 2007: (link) A team of twelve men disguised as U.S. soldiers entered the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, where U.S. soldiers conducted a meeting with local officials, and kidnaps five US soldiers. They are later killed. Within a week, investigators have a suspect “this raid appears to have been directed and executed by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps.”

January 26, 2007: (link) CBS News:
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have been catching Iranian agents, interviewing them and letting them go. A report in Friday’s Washington Post says the administration is now convinced that was ineffective because Iran paid no penalty for its mischief.
As one senior administration official told the Post, “There were no costs for the Iranians. They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.”

January 31, 2007: (link) Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Wednesday “We will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces, but does this not exist? It exists, and I assure you it exists.” Also: “We have told the Iranians and the Americans, ‘We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you, please solve your problems outside Iraq,”

(link) Half as many US deaths caused by EFPs imported from Iran as in December.

February 1, 2007: (link) The NY Times editorial desk says the US must stop “bullying “Iran:
Mr. Bush’s…disastrous war in Iraq has done so much damage to America’s credibility…that it no longer frightens America’s enemies. The only ones really frightened are Americans and America’s friends.

February 6, 2007: (link) Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad is kidnapped by 30 gunmen wearing the uniforms of a special Iraqi army unit that often works with United States military forces in Iraq. The next day, Iran’s ambassador to Bagdad accused the US of being behind the abduction (link).

February 7, 2007: (link via HotAir) Gen. Alireza Asgari disappears from his hotel room in Istanbul, Turkey. He is believed to have defected to the US.

February 8, 2007: (link via HotAir) Gen. Soltani — said to have intimate knowledge of foreign intelligence operations — travels to Bandar Abbas and then disappears.
According to the Frontpage article, “the generals revealed the names of nearly a dozen top Iraqi politicians who were on the payroll of the Iranian government.”

February 11, 2007: (link) At an intelligence briefing in Bagdad, the Pentagon puts on display weapons captured in Iraq with Iranian markings. The main culprit is a type of bomb called an EFP or “explosively formed penetrator.” They pentagon estimates the damage caused by such weapons as “more than 170 Americans killed in action and more than 600 wounded”

That Night In Iran: (link) The office of former reformist president Khatami is raided and all computers, files and fax machines are taken. Only a couple of small, independent papers mention the raid.

February 12, 2007: (link) A cache of more than 100 fifty-calibre sniper rifles manufactured in Austria and sold legally to Iran is discovered in Iraq. The rifles cost nearly $20,000 each.

Early February: (link) Fox News reports: “Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled his Baghdad stronghold for the friendly confines of Iran’s capital…within the past few weeks out of fear for his safety and security.”

And take this one with a grain of salt, but a report from a Kurdish news site claims to have uncovered a letter from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warning Muqtada al-Sadr to keep his Iranian connections under wraps. Oddly, the Kurdish site is down but a reference to the report including an image of the letter can be found here.

March 9, 2007: (link) US General Mixon, commander of Multinational Division-North and the 25th Infantry Brigade in Iraq, seizes a large cache of Iranian made weapons and says “I’ve got momentum and want to press forward.” Gen. Mixon is responsible for the area of Eastern Iraq known as Diyala.

March 15, 2007 (link) An EFP attack in in eastern Baghdad kills four American service members and wounded two others.

March 18, 2007: (link) In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

The same day: (link) Jerusalem Post reports that a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards’ operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

March 21, 2007: (link via HotAir) The Associated Press reports:
“the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran.” Furthermore, “hundreds of these fighters have crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.”

March 22, 2007: (link) The Khazali brothers — former ranking members of al-Sadr’s Shia movement — are arrested by US forces near Basra. The brothers are believed responsible for the Karbala raid on January 20, 2007. Mehdi Army commanders claim that the Khazalis had split with al-Sadr and lead 3,000 fighters with financing from Iran.

March 23, 2007: (link) Lt Col Justin Maciejewski tells the BBC that while he had no “smoking gun” to prove Iranian interference in Basra, local community leaders informed him that Iranian agents were paying local men 500 US dollars a month to carry out attacks and providing them with sophisticated modern weapons.

Later the same day: (link) Fifteen British Navy personnel taken at gunpoint by Iranian forces off the coast of Iraq.

March 25, 2007: (link) The Sunday Mirror reports:
According to Western intelligence sources, intercepted radio communications show Tehran has been panicking over key operatives being picked up by Coalition forces in Iraq.

An Israeli source told The Sunday Mirror that Iranian undercover units in Iraq have been ordered to mount hostage-taking operations against Coalition forces in retaliation.

Later the same day: (link) The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves new arms and financial sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

Starting a "Right to Carry Roadshow"

INTRODUCTION

I would like to put together a proposal for a CCW "Road Show" similar to the one organized by the New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Ranges. This proposal would provide the required Florida paperwork to assist people in meeting the standards for the State of Florida to issue a CCW to a non-resident, and shepherd them through the process.

In discussing this, one of the questions that came up was if the California "Handgun Safety Certificate" (HSC) met Florida requirements for "training". The CA HSC is issued after taking a test from a certified instructor, and is a state requirement to purchase a handgun. Most stores that sell firearms have one or more of the sales people certified as an instructor.

COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW

I would like to find out if the CA HSC meets the requirements defined for "training" under FL 790.06 (20)(h) "Demonstrates competence with a firearm by any one of the following". The CA HSC certificate may meet the criteria for any one or more of the following sub-sections:

1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state;

3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;

7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor;

DEFINITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HANDGUN SAFETY CERTIFICATE

The California statute that applies to the HSC is as follows:

12801. (a) As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:...

(2) "DOJ Certified Instructor" or "certified instructor" means a person designated as a handgun safety instructor by the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 12804.
12804. (a) The department shall develop an instruction manual in English and in Spanish by October 1, 2002. The department shall make the instructional manual available to firearms dealers licensed pursuant to Section 12071, who shall make it available to the general public. Essential portions of the manual may be included in the pamphlet described in Section 12080...

(d) The department shall prescribe a minimum level of skill, knowledge and competency to be required of all handgun safety certificate instructors.

The instruction manual is available as a PDF from this site.

Please note: THERE IS NO CLASSROOM REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A CA HSC. I do not know if this is meets Florida requirements or not.

In addition, anyone purchasing a handgun must demonstrate a knowledge of the safe handling of the firearm by demonstrating the manual of arms as coded in law under CA 12071. (b)(8)(D)(i).

The Seven Sisters of Oil

Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club posts on the new Seven Sisters of Oil, where he relays that according to the Financial Times, the original seven have been replaced.

It strikes me that this speaks to the heart of the "This is a War for Oil" anti-war meme. The idea is that the Iraq War is being fought by Bush who has been bought and paid for by American oil interests, as embodied in the 20th Century by The Seven Sisters. The problem with that is there are no longer any American interests in the Seven Sisters. The game has changed. The original Seven Sisters are now consumers, and are not the "rule-makers", but instead are the "rule-takers".

Fernandez point is that 40% of the world's oil was produced by Western countries in the middle of the 20th Century, and that within a few years 90% or the world's oil will be produced by Third World countries. Exporting oil production to these unstable reasons implies inherent risks. What the anti-war argument SHOULD be is that the Iraqi war is about stabilizing unstable parts of the world. Which as I think about it, is probably bad if you're a tree-hugging environmentalist who wants oil production stopped.

So the next time anyone tells you "this war is about oil", you can ask them to explain to you what they mean, and know that ultimately, they only answer they'll be able to give you is 'Haliburton,' a smallish international bit player in the "Oil Wars", or shake their fist in a "curse you Red Baron" while blaming Dubya for destabilizing the Middle East, which is what they really want in the first place…

The Original Seven Sisters of Oil (OLD), now referred to as the "Supermajors" group:

1. ExxonMobil (formerly Esso, formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey)
a. ExxonMobil (formerly Mobil, formerly Standard Oil of New York/Socony)
2. Shell (formerly Royal Dutch Shell Anglo-Dutch)
3. BP (formerly BP Amoco, formerly Amoco, formerly Standard Oil of Indiana, formerly British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC))
4. Chevron (formerly ChevronTexaco, formerly Chevron, formerly Standard Oil of California/Socal)
a. Chevron/BP/Cumberland Farms (formerly Gulf Oil)
b. Chevron (formerly ChevronTexaco, formerly Texaco)

The 21st Century Seven Sisters of Oil (NEW):

1. Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia)
2. Gazprom (Russia)
3. CNPC (China)
4. NIOC (Iran)
5. PDVSA/Citgo (Venezuela)
6. Petrobas (Brazil)
7. Petronis (Malaysia)

I can't help but notice that there are no U.S. companies in the list. Even Mexico's PEMEX is missing. Oh, and notice how neatly the original Seven have cannibalized each other as their market matured and they consolidated for economic efficiency. Do you think Petrobas will buy Citgo in 20 years or so? Or maybe CNPC might buy Gazprom? Umm, no. They'll stay separate and slowly grind down under dilapidated infrastructures until the governments they feed demand prices so high that they'll go to war instead of cutting benefits. But, then again, that's why this war is about Oil, isn't it?

OPEC
1. Saudi Arabia (Saudi Aramco)
2. Iran (NIOC)
3. Venezuela (PDVSA/Citgo)
4. Algeria
5. Angola
6. Indonesia
7. Iraq
8. Kuwait
9. Libya
10. Nigeria
11. Qatar
12. United Arab Emirates

Not OPEC:
Russia, China, Brazil, Malaysia

There is now talk that Russia may form a Gasoline consortium (link missing) to control the refining price of gasoline vis-a-vis ethanol.