Climate change affecting water cycle 09 December 05

It’s really very unfair that the rich people in mega-homes in distant suburbs, driving 80 miles to & from work each day in single-occupancy SUVs, are causing the poor people in mut huts to lose so much of their meager worldly goods.

Hi,

Hear in the seath east region of the UK are water levels are at the loest point since the mid 70’s. If we have a cold dry winter we could see water shortages like we did in the summer of 76.

The difference now being that are water companies are privatised. I will be intereste to see how the public will react to that this time.

In a strange way. I hope that it happens, we need a kick up the backside about water, it is a very special resource not to be waisted. You would be amazed to know how much energy is required to pump the stuff around a very old and punctured system to come out of your tap. Its amazing how much more energy is used in cleaning it. If I am not mistaken, I think that process gives of CF4 only 23 times more effective then CO2 as a green house gas.

Hot tip, turn your tap off while you brush your teeth. You will save about ten pints of water. thats about half the water your average African gets to use in a day for washing, cleaning and drinking.

Best Ian.

These are not expensive, and come with pipe kits that are easy to fix. 2×50 Imp Gal barrels will go a long way towards doing without the garden hose. Also, water plants in the evening: less evaporation. Taking this a stage further, there are some really good rainwater and grey-water recovery systems available now. In some areas, where metered water charges are high, these can have quite a reasonable pay-back period. Water for laundry, toilet flushing etc. can all come from this source. Here’s a link to one UK manufacturer’s site: it gives quite a good explanation.

http://www.freerain.co.uk/index.html

kind regards to all

Colin

I wonder with the advent of newer technologies never before available, how much of all of these new climate phenomena are really just rehashings of things which have been happening before but simply never measured before (technology was not there).

Little Ice Age-1150-1460 and 1560-1850

Lasted a long time and was measured by things like the price of rye (crops couldn’t grow in the coller climate periods) The technoloogy to measure things like ocean currents and sea surface temperatures did not exist!

Causes for this are theory and speculation with no hard data to show what really happened- Sun spots, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, earth albedo- the real cause? Who knows?

probably some combination…

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html

Great Dust Bowl- 1930’s

lasted 8 years and covered 5 southern plain states in the US. Drought affected 2/3 of the country.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/dustbowl.htm

Climatology research on this? Anomolous sea surface temperatures and interactions between the atmosphere and land surface increased in intensity.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5665/1855

Scientists believe that the 1930s drought coincided with a severe La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. Cool sea surface temperatures reduced the amount of moisture entering the jet stream and directed it south of the continental U.S.

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Cunfer.DustBowl

But other than modeling they really don’t know because the technology to measure the areas was not in existence!

30 years on the climate time line is like a second in human years. I don’t see how these studies cited here covering 30 years or more have any longitudinal validity to mandate anything with absolute certainty!!

Who knows how these things are interconnected and affecting climate. Unusual things happen all the time. Look at the latest on the shifting of the earth’s magnetic north? Could this somehow be also in play as some weird variable with ocean currents and the earth temps? Who knows?

The Earth’s north magnetic pole is drifting away from North America so fast that it could end up in Siberia within 50 years, scientists have said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4520982.stm

Could this somehow be also in play as some weird variable with ocean currents and the earth temps? Who knows?

People with a basic science education know.

But anyway, plopping some links down with a bunch of uneducated questions doesn’t refute Mark’s claim. I hope you don’t think it does.

A good library will contain information to answer your questions. Good luck in your search for answers.

Best,

D

was obviously not caused by AGW. But it’s so amazing how not only can nature, but also humans, emit the necessary GHGs to increase GW by 6 degrees C, and trigger runaway GW that will kill lots of life, including people this time.

So what’d’ya say, we pull the trigger on runaway GW now, or wait around another 100 mill years for nature alone to do it?

DanO’s either a paid blogger or someone with WAY too much time on his hands.

I have not exhausted the sources but found some examples of DanO’s authoritative prose.

EXAMPLE 1

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=433#comments

I do want to make a comment about a statement made by Dano that I’ve seen a few times before and I have a real problem with

“If these two can actually go out and write a real paper of their own [with data they collected and analyzed to make their point] showing how their idea is robust (I won’t hold my breath), this debate may go somewhere.”

Now Ross made some comment on it and someone else as well, but nobody brought out the essential point. Little or none of the data used in MBH or any of the other proxy studies were collected by the authors of the studies. So why should Steve and Ross be expected to?

The point is that the whole ad hominen attack on Steve and Ross because they’re not “scientists” is absurd since what is done in climate proxy reconstructions isn’t science as opposed to statistics. Steve and Ross actually have the better training and experience for what is being discussed. This is the dirty little secret that the Hockey Team can only try to hide by throwing dirt everywhere.

Comment by Dave Dardinger — 11/18/2005

Firstly this paragraph by “D”

“Arguments like these that the denialists rely on are why the debate matters – this is all they have. There is nothing else in their bag o’ tricks: no models, no alternative theory, nada.”

Turning the alternative hypothesis into the null hypothesis.

Comment by Paul — 11/19/2005

“I don’t know why Dano thinks that I should have to collect tree rings and ice cores and corals in order to do statistics. I haven’t noticed Mann or Crowley or Jones on any glaciers and Dano doesn’t dump on them.”

Comment by Steve McIntyre — 11/20/2005

I guess not everyone agrees with your mastery of climate knowledge

ANOTHER BLOG SITE

http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=541

June 20th, 2004 Climate Change From the comments, jfs says:

“I think the global warming nonsense the commenter is refering to is not that fact that temperatures are increasing, which is what you cite in your links, but that the increase is not part of some natural climatic cycle….”

The commenter raises a great question. Given the relatively short time we’ve had thermometers and recorded data, how can we make such bold assertions about the effect industrial greenhouse gas emissions might be having on climate?

For starters, I don’t think we should be making bold assertions, and I’m always pretty careful about how I phrase what we know and don’t know here. This is tough science. But there are some good answers to the question jfs raises.

John Fleck Says:

June 21st, 2004 at 8:46 pm

If we’re to rely on the IPCC (as I think we should – tell me if you disagree, Dano), then it’s worth remembering the care they use in their assessment of this question:

“most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm), where “likely” is defined as a 66-90 percent chance. I’m just echoing their caution with my use of the word “hypothesis.”

You’ve been at this a while a DanO?

Seeing as you live near Seattle the picture is becoming clearer…

ANOTHER BLOG SITE

http://www.env-econ.net/2005/10/epa_to_announce.html

“the heart of my argument that the[re] is a large wing of the envi[ro]nmentalist movement that is using envi[ro]nmental issues as an [excuse] for a power grab and the promotion of socialist ideals… “

This isn’t your argument, it’s a parrotted talking point, not made any more true jus’ ‘cuz you done repeated it.

This is an EnvEcon blog, where folk discuss EnvEcon, not a ‘relay fearmongering claptrap to rubes’ blog. If you have a comment germane Environmental Economics, bring it, otherwise…well…

D

Posted by: Dano | October 27, 2005 at 04:47 PM

Dano,

so i should “shut the * up”...thats nice.

well one thing is now true i am no longer the most shrill on this blog…and i must also note that i have never asked anyone (or told, like you just no did) that thier opinions are not welcome and should not be discussed here…why do you feel it is your right?

surely if this was the case tim or john would have told me as much awhile ago.

Posted by: joshua corning | October 27, 2005 at 06:28 PM

It’s standard to think someone might react negatively to a typical widdle ‘socialism’ anti-vurnmintalist fact-free dogma rant when one comments on an EnvEcon blog. You wouldn’t go into a Wazoo bar in Husky purple and start trash-talking that all dirt roads lead to Pullman without a contingency plan to run away. Maybe you would – what do I know?

Don’t tell me you’re so naï you didn’t expect a reaction. If you don’t want a reaction, don’t post inflammatory comments.

When you get out in the big world one day, actions have consequences and although we live in a civil society, one can’t count on civility. So I don’t like fact-free BS allegations about socialist vurnmintalist plots. Get over it.

D

Posted by: Dano | October 27, 2005 at 08:21 PM

Dano,

You missed my point entirely…I welcome your posts with a sort of domented viger. and you can call me what you like…pigeon hole me anyway you think can stick…

But I have never told you not to post, or that your opinions are not welcome.

and I never will.

By the way I do think this analysis of mine was very germain.

This sounds very familiar

ANOTHER SITE

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2003/10/01/lomborg-foreign-aid/#comment-9158

Dano Says:

October 2nd, 2003 at 10:47 am Perhaps, then, PK can turn his attention to the NASA GISS GCM.

Please explain how this model can hindcast 50 years, and then tell us the validity of it’s forecasts with respect to your statements.

And then, if you could, explain how chaos exists in a closed biotic system, and what other ecosystem processes, if any, are chaotic.

Or, better yet, explain how chaos in natural systems is a myth.

D

PK Says:

October 2nd, 2003 at 11:24 am Not sure I fully understand what you’re asking for here Dano.

I don’t think chaos is a myth. Nor are weather and climate closed systems. Weather and long-term climate are chaotic systems, which by their nature are impossible to predict (at least using current science).

Are you putting forward a single example of a forecast that was right? Not very convincing. Maybe we should go to a casino where we can witness someone winning?

Been at this a very long long time. Who is the shill?

ANOTHER SITE*

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=186&c=1

Re #5:

Pat, what is the concern? Do you not expect speciation rates to advance in such events, or is there some concern about speciation in the present case?

Thank you,

D

Comment by Dano — 23 Sep 2005 @ 11:36 am

Dano,

Much of Earth’s vegetation will not adapt or be able to advance to new areas, particularly during the expected longer hotter and drier summers. Insects and animals that depend on vegetation will not reproduce as usual, or their young will perish. Humans will have a tough time, especially with limited air conditioning available only to those who can afford it, with limited fuel to run the power plants and work-home backup generators. What concerns me most is the environment that young people now will have later. I’ve advised my young adult daughters to think about what kind of environment will be here 50 or more years from now – before deciding whether or not to start their families. Think about the life that the yet to be born will likely have when they reach their senior years, then make the decision to not have children.

Comment by Pat Neuman — 23 Sep 2005 @ 11:53 am

Why is the hydrological cycle always omitted from the lists of first order forcings? Water vapor is clearly the most abundant greenhouse gas, and clouds most certainly have a first order impact on the global mean temperature.

The hydrological cycle reacts to each of the other effects very rapidly. It has such a significant role and we cannot accurately quantify its impact on global climate change. I’m afraid the error bars on H2O would dwarf the other greenhouse gases.

Thanks,

[Response: That’s easy. Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing (at least most of the time). – gavin]

Comment by Dan Pawlak — 23 Sep 2005 @ 4:08 pm

Got it Pat. I thought you were on about speciation or selection pressure or something.

I recently told my sophmore-in-college niece pretty much the same thing you just wrote, only not so direct. We will soon learn as a society how far we expanded our range due to cheap energy availability, and when we contract our range we will have limited arable land on which to support ourselves, in addition to issues of water accessibility.

Hopefully soon our societies can have a dialogue about what to do with our environmental refugees.

Best,

D

Comment by Dano — 23 Sep 2005 @ 4:35 pm

A real giant on this blog site

ANOTHER

http://cascadiascorecard.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/city_salmon.html

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7#comments (big green group hug)

ANOTHER

http://instapundit.com/archives/001855.php

Bob Strauss’ post above gives some interesting ‘scientists’ to reference opposing ‘evidence’ of lack of global warming. i won’t comment on the sophomoric column he linked to.

Robert Balling has earned well into the 6 figures from energy interests. Michaels works for the Western Fuels Association. Not exactly non-boased.

Climate is difficult to master – and in the political rhetoric jumble floating about, one must also fact-check the author of anti-ecohype essays to see where their paychecks come from.

Posted by: Dano at June 18, 2002 04:30 PM

---

Dano: Indeed- pity that the political rhetoric is usually based on picking and choosing whichever sources happen to support the preferred point of view, rather than examining the actual state of the scientific study of the issue. God forbid people should take the climatological community seriously when there’s convenient (if critically embattled) books like Lomborg’s to point at.

Posted by: Demosthenes at June 18, 2002 07:06 PM

---

Mr. Orwin is a gentleman. And then there’s Dano:

Climate is difficult to master – and in the political rhetoric jumble floating about, one must also fact-check the author of anti-ecohype essays to see where their paychecks come from.

Most of us, I hope, consider fact-checking someone’s ass to be a matter of, well, checking his facts. Checking his checks is a species of ad-hominem argument.

Very true, though, that climate is difficult to master. Why, then, do we have people here saying that you can arrive at the truth about it just by stepping outside?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at June 18, 2002 07:30 PM

June 2002… still attacking the messenger rather than the ideas… some tactics don’t cahnge

You’ve got to love the internet!

I’ve never heard you bring any of this information up Dano.

Where is your sceientific objectivity?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

The mighty IPCC… er should I say biased IPCC

“Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea”

---

It would seem stronger, to me, to remain and fight. Surely no one is going to ‘fire’ him over this flap – staying and exposing any bias in the process would do a lot more good.

It will be interesting to see how this gets trumpeted, and the Crumb Trail trackback is the first clue – perhaps giving weight to the phrase ‘making a picnic out of a crumb’.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano at January 17, 2005 08:47 PM

Singing a different tune here Dano?

Your responses are becoming a bit boring. I don’t think that asking questions (which may have been asked before) is wrong but simply reflects an openness of ideas. No need for condescention Dano.

Whatever pal. So what. You still don’t get it. The tactic is that the denialists don’t engage with Enlightenment Principles, and I meet them on their own terms.

Folk tend to get upset when you call them on their tactics. You, Jim, just don’t have mastery over the tactic, and therefore are frustrated – you think you’re bringing facts, but instead are bringing Luntzian-type tactics to the “debate”, which isn’t a “debate” at all; the debate over the science you think you raise here is in the scholarly literature. The debate over societal direction takes place mostly outside the literature in the public realm, and part of the “debate” is the gaming of the information by vested interests.

BTW, I’m an applied researcher in public health and built environment areas, with two specialized degrees that allow me to do this. If you want to accuse me of something else, you can do so but don’t expect me to stand idly by if you don’t bring good facts and argumentation.

You have pointed out here that I don’t suffer fools, so you know what’s coming. And go out and educate yourself so you can defend your arguments. That still needs work, and this little tactic shows how much self-edgeamacatin’s left to do.

Best,

D

Jimbo

You really are making a fool of yourself with this and some other posts. I say this more in sadness then anger. There are an awful lot of things you clearly just do not understand. And quite what motivates you to visit this site and insult people and display your ignorance escapes me.

I was a teacher for a chunk of time and I would occasionally have a student who wasn’t quite bright enough to understand that they weren’t quite bright enough to … You get the picture … I hope!

You’ve been advised to visit a library. That was good advice. Take it.

Douglas Coker

a person simply trying to figure things out. But now I wonder…

Even William F. Buckley has converted to believing in AGW, with all the evidence pouring in week after week for over 15 years, and getting especially stronger these past few years.

Except for scientists, who should continue to question all science that gets produced in their field and raise legitimate doubt, the rest of us non-scientists (not paid by oil) are jumping on the “Prudence Bandwagon.”

So, anyone left doubting AGW, even scientists, to the extent they think nothing should be done to mitigate it, I’m beginning to think, is probably in cahoots with fossil fuels (maybe owns large shares, at the least), or is not very well informed. But methinks you’ve been around the blogs & sci books enough to be well-informed.

While Dano is often strident in his attacks on contrarians, I admire him for tackling them on their own websites, and having a lot more knowledge and ability to address their esoteric “number of angels on the head of a pin” issues they raise to try & confuse us. I would prefer a softer approach, because I think it is more effective—IFF one is dealing with reasonable people.

The real point is, if Dano’s wrong & the contrarians are right, and we act as if Dano’s right & reduce GHGs, esp in cost-effective ways, then no harm will be done & we will have saved some money and/or reduced other harms.

If Dano’s right and the contrarians are wrong, and we act as if the contrarians are right & we keep on increasing our GHGs, not only will we fail to reap economic benefits from efficiency, but we will bring about tremendous catastrophe – from millions sinking into poverty and/or dying each year by 2100 & beyond (my low end projections), to billions of people eventually suffering or dying & a massive extinction level outcome (high end projections). Remember, CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time—1/4 of it staying up to 100,000 years, according to Dr. David Archer. The harm that keeps on harming.

The point of no return may be reached within 10 years (many experts think this is the case). Scientists really can’t tell us exactly. But as Dan Kellog & the Apollo 13 commander say, “Failure is not an option.” We must work to prevent Spaceship Earth from self-destructing, and we must work now, not tomorrow. Prudence requires it, whatever your particular religion or ethical system my be.

And quite what motivates you to visit this site and insult people and display your ignorance escapes me.

IMHO, Doug, what happens is that there are denialist/contrascientist talking points disseminated across multiple robust networks. But there is no program in place for what happens when the “opponent” the denialists/contrascientists are trying to “beat” refuses to operate within the network’s frame.

For, really, it is not a “debate” the denialists/contrascientists are engaging in, rather it is a win or lose thing – despite all the sniffing about “debate”. The object is to get atomistic or cherry-pick with their argument when someone operates within their frame – just look at sci.environment to see what that has happened when folk attempt to debate the science in the frame defined by denialists. This goes nowhere.

I see some discussion about this from time to time (hello John A), but the basic response should always be: have a better argument than the other person.

The denialists/contrascientists, simply, have no theoretical framework of their own to call upon (as Jimbo found me saying and helpfully cut-pasted), thus their arguments have limits.

Pointing out Dano’s shifting tactics, reframing, or cut-pasting huffiness from some poster not liking what I write isn’t having a better argument than the other person – it is flailing about looking to place some mirrors in front of the fact that there is no there there in a position. Thus the flailing bounds a limit of the network.

What you see likely happening here, Doug, is frustration with there being nothing to Google in response to Dano. Nothing more. There are limits to mendacicization. Dano can read the journals and see what is being cherry-picked, and Dano can see the rhetorical strategies being employed. And Dano likes pointing them out.

Don’t be sad. Just watch carefully. There are clues in what the foot soldiers do. Societies need information in which to act, and some of the regular, unsophisticated foot soldiers are a window on how that information is being gamed.

Best,

D

It has gotten old.

I was actually musing about a Code of Ethics for Blogs yesterday, and it occurred to me that we do not know if contributors to this site are minors. In many respects we are flying blind when talking to people we don’t know compared to speaking with people face-to-face. It would certainly help me understand the context of Jimbo’s messages if I knew more about him in this respect.

that you have proven that anyone who disagrees with your position is completely incapable of thought. If I was to find a similar discussion by a Democratic political hack, would you admit that you and Michael Mann (Dano’s #1 role model) are wrong? I think not. Nor would there be any reason for you to make such an admission, the verbiage of a Democratic hack is just as irrelevant as the verbiage of a Republican hack.

You then go on to accuse Jimbo of employing Luntzian tactics. I do not see that in anything that he has posted. If you do, why don’t you document a few examples? Otherwise, find a more productive tactic for yourself. Your having said so does not make it so.

You then say, “The debate over societal direction takes place mostly outside the literature in the public realm, and part of the “debate” is the gaming of the information by vested interests’. The context makes it seem as though you believe that your link takes us to a site that describes how persons might play games with words in order to obfuscate a debate. The site that you linked contains a description of Gaming Theory, which is a legitimate mathematical construct of economists and psychologists doing research into how groups and individuals make decisions based on their own needs and wants. Either you are ignorant about what Gaming Theory is all about or you deliberately tried to mislead us. I cannot tell which.

In my opinion, you are a destructive influence on the debate on this site. Your rude dismissal and condescension poison the attitudes of others; your last paragraph is a prime example of what I mean. Narcissists are like that.

The s

The scientists are trying their hardest to figure out what it is – get as close to it as possible. Of course, there will be debate, since we finite beings and just don’t know the complete truth. But we have to work on what info we have, and we have a lot more proof of AGW, than we did of WMDs in Iraq before our invasion, and our Iraqi operations have cost us a pretty penny in money & lives (I do hope good comes out of it, for the Iraqis & us). So since AGW is more certain, we probably should be spending more to mitigate it than we’re spending on the Iraqi operations, esp. since AGW looks to be a much worse problems, esp over the long haul, and there is even a real possibility we may soon reach a point of no return, and launch into a runaway GW situation of massive extinction & human suffering. It is unfathomable how anyone would want to risk that.

As for Dano, I understand his frustration, though I may not use his style & I don’t have the science background to fight the way he does. There seems to be no way anyone can appeal to you, Jimbo, & others—not economic self-advantage, not brotherly love for our fellow humans, not concern for the children or future generations, not concern over human freedoms (which will either be reduced by coming GW catastrophes or we will be suffering a violent anarchy, or both).

Like Dano, I also live in very deep frustration over this issue. It is a pain that never goes away – not for the past 15 years. My heart bleeds – call me a bleeding heart environmentalist, if you will. You, Jimbo, Bush, my senators, and other contrarians contribute to this very deep frustration & pain. And that’s the truth.

If we are a pain to you, please forgive us.

I came on this site as a sceptic and as a layman. I had preconceptions and I did not (& don’t) pretend to be an “expert” on climate. I have learned a lot since being here. Terminology, acronyms and arguments for and against global warming and climate issues.

I shared information found. Asked questions I thought were relevant and pointed out what I saw as discrepancies. Yes, I defended what I saw as consistent unfair attacks on the US and Bush. I have enjoyed responses from most who only want to help the environment. I’m not against that.

I have cited experts on topics as I came across the information… Gray on hurricane frequency/intensity, McIntyre and Vonstorch on hockey stick study methodology flaws.

Others who are “experts” questioning Science and Natures study selection processes and vetting.

I have admitted when I got something wrong. I asked questions and threw out ideas.

But this latest was eye opening, sad and not asked for by me. I didn’t post to be attacked and was not attacking anyone (initially).

Evidently, from my Dano posting, I struck a nerve for some who are so heavily invested in getting blog strokes from others and getting their ideas across that any actual information or facts are casualties of the process.

Stumbling across the IPCC politicalization posting and resignation of Landsea also has been neatly tucked away (see prev posting) and will be demonized I’m sure as more sceptic denialist propoganda.

The one thing I’ve been convinced of from Dano’s “helpful” responses is how apprently invested he is in his world view and how seemingly mean-spirited he is against anyone challenging those views. Condescention is low and tiresome tactic.

Mascarading as psuedo-scientist in climate study (with dazzling verbage and distracting side tracks) yet discounting the pioneers in the very field to me rings of half truth, spin and dishonesty.

His last response included references to game play. I guess when you been blogging your opinion for years that is what it becomes…

Wishing all of you (even you Dano)

Merry Christmas :)

Merry Christmas, Jimbo. May you get a game theory book from Santa. :o)

Best,

D

Many of my friends voted for Bush – favoring his anti-abortion stand. I disagree with them. I was a young person when abortion was illegal, and knew of many women going in for it. So I don’t realistically think Bush will lower abortion, even if he makes it illegal (it is, however, reducing for other reasons, such as aging of society). And I think GW is headed for tremendous level of eco-genocide. At the very least people need to be informed about the possible dangers (& good solutions) so they can rationally decide & act. That’s not happening. No one I know of had any inkling of the Montreal Summit, for instance. To your credit, at least you are becoming informed about GW.

I’m an American, too, and it really hurts when I perceive America has done or is doing wrong. However, we’re never going to make this the greatest nation on earth, a perfect people (as God calls us to do in the Gospels), if we don’t acknowledge the problems & work to solve them. There’s no nation I know of that doesn’t have plenty of skeletons in its closet & isn’t doing some wrong today. Even oppressed peoples turn around and oppress others weaker than themselves. And all nations & people are quite capable of doing serious wrong in the future.

We must keep ever vigilent to do right & correct wrongs. We should carry our concerns & pain re our wrongs as crosses biting deeply in our shoulder’s flesh – the least we can do, when an entirely innocent man had to suffer so much more…for us & has shown us the way.

Bush may be right on some issues, and wrong on others. He’s human. We all are. What is needed is humility, which can be defined as truthful assessment of ourselves – knowing our weaknesses & flaws, and our strengths (& knowing these latter are all from God, not from ourselves).

The devil is entirely powerless against humility.