Thank God for Global Warming!
Home of healthy skepicism about Global Warming.

It’s a good question.  My gut/knee jerk reaction is, No.  But lets look at some bits and pieces of experience and such nonsense I use to come to that conclusion.

First, I live in the Pacific Northwest.  Logging has been part of life here since pioneers settled this region.  In the early days logging was done for materials and to clear land.  The resource seemed infinite to them.  Over time lessons have been learned.  As logging techniques and technology has improved the amount of harvesting we can do, the limited size of the resource started to become clear.  Where trees were harvested before and the forest left to regrow on it’s own, someday, now there are about 6 seedlings planted for each mature tree harvested.  The time frame is about two to three years for replanting a clear-cut.  Most of the trees harvested today are not the huge old growth trees that were harvested in the past.  Now most trees harvested are 35 to 50 years old.  They run 3 or 4 feet in diameter at the butt.  Many are even smaller than that, being 18 inches on the butt.  Old growth trees that are harvested are not in high demand.   They are harvested for the health of the forest overall.  They are not in demand because most mills have been retooled to handle small logs.  The big logs simply won’t fit.  This is the modern way of logging here.  It is based on harvesting trees from areas that have been replanted and will be replanted for a future harvest down the road.

The concern about deforestation is normally centered on the Rainforest’s of Brazil and other South American nations.  It is clear to me that there is a real problem with the way the forests are managed down there.  They are not focused on future forests to meet future demand, but only on the money they can make by cutting trees now.  The problem is a made worse because of slave labor practices by loggers there and the illegal cutting done by people only focused on the here and now.

Is it a real problem?  Yes of course.  However, in statements made by various people on the issue they seem to focus on stopping logging altogether.  Trying to work against all of that inertia in a goal like that will make the goals set up by environmentalists unattainable.  What we need is to push for good forest management.  It does not throw their economy under the bus and gives them a reachable goal of sustainable logging practices.

In my experience, working within the limits of reason and common sense, makes a difficult goal much more attainable.  If the people want to make real change they (we) have to be realistic about what change we can shoot for.  The real problem lies first with the government and second with their culture.  It is not easy to change so much in a short time frame and I would say it will not change until they see the problems they are causing themselves.  By taking an adversarial tact on these issues, we are likely only to delay a change of heart rather than speed it forward.

All of that having been said, is logging causing Global Warming.  Well, if it is we are in real trouble.  You live in a structure of some type I would guess.  What should it be built of.  Cement, steel, or wood.  Two of those materials are mined, and nonrenewable.  One is renewable and sustainable.  Guess which one.  Next time it’s raining or freezing, try going outside for just one day and you will see why logging is important to your well being.  The United States is capable of supplying our economy with enough lumber and plywood to meet our demands and we have more trees in Oregon than when Lewis and Clark stopped by for a visit.  Logging can be done right and it can be done for the long term.

The amount of deforestation that has occurred is not insignificant but to say it is causing the temps to rise on a global scale seems a bit far-fetched.  Why is it when we see a problem that should be addressed, there is always some group who thinks it is a looming catastrophe of the highest magnitude.  Can’t the problem be of normal size with reasonable solutions on the table instead of the looming end of life argument.  This exaggeration is a technique designed to end debate.  Like the boy who cried wolf, it will be used too many times.  One day a real disaster may loom and we will ignore the warnings.  Instead of being an impossible problem to solve, it will be simple.  It might be ignored because of this kind of grand standing.  Does that prove that logging doesn’t cause Global Warming.  No.  But if it causes Global Warming the solution will be one type or another of suicide.  The assumption we should carry with us on such adventures is that life must go on.  If we can’t agree on that, we are not going to agree on any solutions.

Brutus

Is it a bad concept?  Is it a good concept? 

No, it is just a concept.  Necessary and yet dangerous. 

The key to control is another important concept, in fact maybe a couple of them. 

Balance and Freedom.

A society with only freedom is unruly and eventually unsafe.  A society with only control is oppressive and eventually tyrannical.

Balance is what makes it all work.  Finding that balance is not easy though. Society like the climate is dynamic.  Always moving one way or the other, passing balance on it’s way to the other extreme.  There are of course forces at work in any society that are willing to give up the oscillations around balance  and push toward and even beyond the extreme, to fulfill self interest at the cost of stability.  At the cost of control.  At the cost of freedom.  These forces are a genuine threat to civilization as we know it.

What wild talk.  What odd ideas.  What cynicism.

Are you suspicious of any group or organization?  I hope you are suspicious of something.  Otherwise you are the lamb being led to the slaughter.

You should be suspicious of all of them.  Because it is not ideology that corrupts the purposes of a group, it is its size and power.  Whether it is a religious organization, a political party, or political movement.  All are corruptible because they are run by people.  When these people serve their own self interests before those of the group they lead, then they are worse than of no value, they are a threat to the goals of the organization.  Even a threat to the organization itself.  If those who believe in the movement do not keep the goals and actions pure then at some point the hypocrisy becomes plain to all and often the organization is fatally injured.

We see this now in the Global Warming Movement.  The political leaders of the movement are exaggerating the predictions and in some cases making up catastrophes that are not expected to increase the alarm in the general populace.  They can reap the rewards of the extra attention they generate.  This will become evident in the future.  For those who look at the data we have available now, many conclusions touted by the movement are contrary to common sense.  This exaggeration and fabrication isn’t helping the environment,  Instead it is creating a ‘hand over our freedom mindset’.  If citizens looked at the costs vs the benefits they would flatly deny these expectations, but because they are ‘to save the planet’, they are revered as great sacrifices for the good of the planet.  The power of that emotional plee to over-ride logic and thought is what makes it so appealing to the power hungry.

It is not too much to ask for evidence supporting the claims of a government, or organization.  Accountability is not threat to a true heart, to a true motive.

We are not looking at the end of the planet or civilization.  The climate is changing very slowly.  The climate will continue to do this and has done it in the past.  The climate has not only been this warm before but far warmer.  Check sources about the history of our climate that are not part of a movement one way or the other.  Find your own sources and be objective.  It’s not too much to ask, for the good of society.  Before you get hoodwinked into giving our society away, be sure of what they are planning to do with it.  If you find out they were dishonest about the future only after you have given away the store you will only be able to stand outside and cry over the loss.  What a tragedy that would be, to only have your memory of being free.

Brutus

The warnings went unheeded. 

The evidence was shown and explained but people would not listen.  It was clear according to the studies of our most knowledgeable on the subject that action had to be taken and taken very soon.  People, however, lived their lives the way they wanted to.  They did not make the changes prescribed to avoid the catastrophe.  They went on blind as a bat.  You could talk to them and show them the evidence.  Plead with them to try to make some small changes, hoping it would be enough.  No, most would not hear of it.  They were too caught up in their world and their possessions.  They went headlong into oblivion, not even realizing it was disaster enveloping them when the end came. 

Well, it saddens me to think of how useless their loss was.  You see Global Warming was small compared to the real threat to mankind.

Judgement.

Yeah, that which humanity was trying to save is gone now, like an ember in the fire.  It wasn’t the Earth that needed saving, it was humanity.  Sadly the price was already paid, all they had to do was accept the gift.  Noble to try and save a planet and all who live on it but they could not save even one of themselves.  Maybe too many superhero movies or something.  Or maybe they thought because they could understand a little around them, they could control it all.  I don’t know, but in the end it’s better to know then to think we know.

An illustration of the similarity between religion and Global Warming.  In talking to people about the subject over the years, the knowledge of its certainty is complete and whole, even though the individuals knowledge on the subject is nothing more than regurgitated platitudes from the media or some celeb.  The faith is amazing to behold, but I tell you the truth, the evidence supporting the Bible as true is far, far more expansive than that supporting the Theory of Global Warming.

My challenge for anyone investigating the theory.  Check it out for yourself.  Don’t rely on Conventional Wisdom to build your faith.  You see for me, I listened to Conventional Wisdom about the Bible.  How it was useless and full of contradictions.  Until one day it occurred to me I did not know that to be true, I had just heard it.  It took 9 years of investigating God for me to conclude what was the right path.  7 1/2 of those years were spent looking everywhere else but the Bible.  Even after coming to the Bible it was 1 1/2 years before I knew enough to be sure that it was the Bible that was right.  I found Conventional Wisdom to be wrong and found the Bible to be without contradictions.  All other religious books I had investigated paled in comparison.

All I am saying is that Conventional Wisdom will often lead you astray.  Look with an open mind at the evidence for yourself.  You may find some startling facts.

Here’s to good old fashioned skepticism,

Brutus

The other day I was out looking for wild game to hunt and found an alarming discovery.  You see when looking for game one technique is to look for tracks to see where the animals are moving.  What I found was appalling.  The places I had hunted for so many years before were obliterated by scores and scores of carbon footprints.  I had never noticed them before.  Now I couldn’t make out the other tracks because of the litter of carbon footprints everywhere.  I checked location after location.  Same story.  That made me think.  What are we doing to the environment? 

So I thought about carbon footprints.

I realised I had one.  We all do.  Then I thought about the environment.  Bear have a carbon footprint.  Deer, Elk, Cougars all have them.  Squirels have them.  Why?  Because they exhale, like us.  They don’t have as big a carbon footprint but they have one.  And there are a lot of squirels, for example.  To make matters worse, Deer and Elk eat foliage.  This has a multiplying effect on their carbon footprint.

Wow, what an Epiphany.  We have to save the environment.  Since we are the only species that is aware of the plight of the environment, then it is up to us to save it.  First, in order to reduce our carbon footprints, we need to reduce.  We need to reduce the population of animals on the planet by half in the next few years.  Next, we need to increase the number of plants on the planet.  Wait, I see a problem.  While plants consume CO2, they also emmit carbon and hydrogen as part of the normal respiration.  Worse, when fallen leaves or needles decompose they produce methane.  A green house gas much more potent than CO2.  Well the answer is clear.  The problem is not man.  It’s life.  The only way we can save the environment is to eradicate the primary cause of it’s destruction.  Life!

Ridicules!  Yes, and so are the assertions of the Global Warming Crowd.  Here is a link to an interesting article in Wikipedia.   Interesting how this article talks of cooler and warmer times than right now.  Larger effects on the Environment and yet it is all still here.  Even with Ice Ages and Warm Spells in the Arctic, life goes on.  Think you are a responsible environmental person?  Then read this about our ice age history.  According to this article, land formations and continental positions play a huge role in Ice Ages.  And the most common condition of Earth historically is one without the great ice sheet’s we still have today.

Man Made Global Warming, Ha.  How about Man Made Global Hoax.

I’m not just skeptical about Global Warming but am down right fed up with it.

Sence when does any scientific theory stand above debate and testing.

According to the Scientific Theory, NEVER.

Science is about test and retest not about protecting a particular pet theory for ones own aims.

Science is knowledge and it is powerful but when it is used for propaganda it stops being science and starts being a religon.

There is a lot of history about science that has been ruined by those who have too much to lose.  It is the darkest side of what is an otherwise noble endeavor.

Please at least be convinced by the evidence you see with your own eyes and not the fear tactics of a political movement.

Be skeptical,

Brutus

What to do to stop Global Warming?

 As I rise from bed this morning I wonder if I am contributing to the Crisis.

Did I leave the light on too long while trying to make my way to the bathroom without banging into something?

Probably so.  I should memorize the path to the bathroom so I do not need the light for this trip.

What about turning up the heat to warm the house in the morning?

Bad idea.  Let nature take it’s course.  Wear extra clothing and use exercise as a method for getting the blood moving in the AM.

Should I cook breakfast or eat a cold cereal?

Silly question, you should do neither.  Cold cereal is packaged in plastic and shipped long distances wasting precious resources.  Also by buying these products you will be giving incentives to workers who make the cereal to work longer hours, using more energy.  They will also make more money and that will be used to buy bigger homes and cars again wasting more energy.  Don’t get me started about  a nice hot breakfast of bacon and eggs with some hotcakes or perhaps a fresh trout with a cup of hot chocolate.  Out of the question.  You can go outside and see what’s growing in the surrounding area.  Maybe some mushrooms or wild vegetables.  Don’t give me any complaints about there not being anything in season right now or not knowing your edible mushrooms from the highly poisonous ones.  Worse case you can go without until dinner.

Dressing for work I wonder about what I could do to help the environment on this front. 

Dress in layers.  It will help you deal with varying temperatures and in the lower layers you can wear clothes from previous days.  By waiting a week or so to launder clothes and getting 5 or even 10 days wear out of them you save energy and time that you can spend teaching recycling or reduced energy consumption.

Traveling to work I already save, save , save.  No waste of energy here.  I find people going the same way I’m going and hitch a ride.  I had to invest in some protective clothing and some really good skates but I ride free nearly anywhere I need to go.

While at work, I notice some fringe benefits of my choices.  I have plenty of space in the office as it has been rearranged three times in the last few months.  Each change somehow increasing the area around me and findng new ways to fit more people into a small area on the other side of the office.  I let them know I feel guilty having so much more room than they have but they are adament about the changes being the right way to go.  It is nice to see we are all doing our part to reduce in our own way.

I have also found a way to conserve on lunches at work.  I graze on the lunchroom fridge.  I have certain rules of decorum I follow.  For example anything past it’s pull date is fair game.  It actually provides a benefit for all and I have only had to go home sick 3 time last month.  hitching on skates while holding down the nausea is challenging but a worthwhile experience.

Free time at home.  What to do?  I don’t watch TV.  Energy, you know.  I read until it gets dark then I head for bed.  Dinner?  Nah, I didn’t even notice I forgot it.  Getting used to being more responsible gets easier every day.

I have a lot of time to think, though since I’m in bed by 6:30 this time of year.  Can’t we do more.  If we really want to make a difference couldn’t we sleep 12 or 14 hours a day.  That would mean a lot less energy consumption.  In fact couldn’t the government just put us in a medically induced comma for a while, just to see if it would help.  We have got to do something drastic.  Yeah, that’s the solution, 40 years of sleep per citizen.  Wow! I’ve solved the whole problem, right here in bed.

Brutus

When people stumble upon my site they think at first that I am anti-environment or something.  If they read a little, some have seen that I am anti-Global Warming  Movement instead.  That is because I believe that the movement has a political goal not an environmental one.  Most people see the movement as trying to help the planet but in my view, the leaders have an agenda of increased taxes and bigger government with no concern about the planet.  That is why they have used the Global Warming movement, because it is so big that they can milk it for all the big government they want and not scratch the surface.

I tend to take a skeptical view of many theories and claims until I can see something tangible.  I look at motivations and results.  I am critical of the hypocritical and the opportunists.  I come down hard on those who can not look objectively at the data and the reality.

On the flip side I try to consider the arguments of the sincere and the concerned.  I think that trying to improve the world is a good and worthwhile goal.  I may not agree with every assertion or conclusion but appreciate the honesty with which it is presented.

We will for the purpose of this post be ignoring the fakers and focusing on a real problem we can address.  It was presented to me by a reader recently as a real political/environmental problem that he felt we should know about and respond to.  I researched the issue and though I did not go into a lot of depth I did find a lot of confirmation of his assertions.  So I can be reasonably sure he was correct in his concerns.

The concern is two fold.  Number one it involves slavery.  This is not the misrepresentation of a days wages being small compared to our standard of living like is done so often when some one wants to punish a big successful business.  This is people being coerced or tricked into going to work in remote locations only to find they are indebted to their employer and can not leave.  They may work for weeks, months, even years and get nothing for their efforts.  Trying to flee may even cost a person their life.

Number two it involves deforestation.  As you can imagine, on the face of it, this is not a huge concern for me.  I live in the Northwest.  The term has been used to describe logging here for decades, yet we have more trees now than when Lewis and Clark came to the territory so many years ago.  We plant 6 trees for each one cut down.  It is different in this troubled land, however.  This deforestation is a problem, or will become one in the next decade or so.  We are in Brazil and the deforestation is happening for different reasons in different parts of the country.  Near farm land it occurs to grow crops for export.  Soybeans for European livestock for example.  In remote areas it is the result of illegal logging done solely for short term profit.  Up to 80 percent of the logging is illegal.

Whether we are talking about the slavery issue or the wasting of a huge resource for the people of Brazil, the problem is a failure of their government to enforce the law and change behavior that is causing a great deal of damage to the future of the country.

The reader who contacted me, was trying to get the word out about  how most of the hardwoods from Brazil, cherished by upscale homeowners, were supporting slavery and uncontrolled deforestation.  I agree that people should know what it takes for them to get these products.  There are other options for beautiful hardwood and if the demand does not drop the motivation to continue will only grow stronger.

In the last few years, sellers of these hardwoods have been using a certification process to address the concerns of buyers. As it turns out, the certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. There is no governing authority to insure that the products are taken without slave labor or that they are taken legally. The agency in charge has only a handful of inspectors and there is no indication that there is any pressure on logging companies to change their ways.

My goals and beliefs may differ from many who have been sounding the clarion call about this issue.  On slavery we agree, it is intolerable.  On the management of the forests we agree that the current system will leave the forest decimated.  The only differnce is that many of them may want to preserve the rainforest in total.  I on the other hand have a mindset of a conservation.  I think some of the forest should be planned for logging and in some way replanted for future logging.  Some rainforest should be preserved but not without some eye to changes in how it is managed in the future.  People should have access and it should be managed with the long view in mind. 

In terms of getting any changes made on these issues, it is an uphill battle.  It will take public pressure on US and European companies to back away from these practices.  The public would have to show their support by buying less of these products and letting the sellers of these products  know why they are not buying them.  The governments of Western nations would have to relate their concerns and offer the advice of our own experiences about sustainable logging practices.  All of this would have to take place over a long period of time.

It would be unlikely to change the minds of the Brazilians but I think people have to make choices about what they are willing to try to do.  This seems worthwhile if not difficult.  In the effort the Brazilian government may see the light.

This is at least an environmental concern that I see the point of and seems practical.  I hope you will look into this for yourself with an open mind.

I still say be skeptical but that can’t be an excuse to dismiss every concern that may show its ugly head.  Sometimes there is a problem.  And we can do something about it.

Brutus