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

I was unhappy to learn the plight of so many people in Southern California this week.  Losing your home and most of your possessions is a tough row to hoe.  I was also sad to hear of the injuries and the firefighter who lost their life.  So many people being evacuated and worrying about their future.  My condolences to all affected.

I was not surprised by the occurrence of fires burning out of control during the Santa Anna’s.  It has happened before, though on a smaller scale.  The winds occur nearly every year.  They are not fun to deal with and effect many things in Southern California when they get going.  They did not pick up after Al Gore received his Peace award.  They have always been around as near as we can tell.  They have been around as long as people have been around to curse them anyway. 

So in the media we are hearing that the situation is being made worse or caused by…(imagine this, shocked was I) Global Warming.  If there is a catastrophe, blame Global Warming.  Fires, floods, wind, or lost elections.  Money wasted.  Crimes committed.  Yeah, Global Warming caused it. It’s like the Sunday cartoon where all the kids say ‘Not me’ to everything that happens in the home that is wrong, and the cartoonists has a ghost or imaginary friend labeled ‘Not me’ doing each dastardly deed.

When will people get tired of politicians who can’t do anything but play political games?  Surely they don’t really think we are going to buy this mollarky about blaming everything on Global Warming.  Will they?

If it works they will.  One thing politicians listen to is polls.  If people start holding them accountable for reckless accusations that have nothing to do with the crisis at hand then they will learn to butt out until they have something to contribute besides the sound of their voice when people are hurting.  This kind of useless grandstanding is a good part of what is wrong with government.  They can only point the finger of blame, not help anyone anymore.  We don’t have government to find a scapegoat for us, we have a government to take care of business that we need done.

Let’s not give them another free pass.  Any moron who stood up to cast blame toward Global Warming should be sent home ASAP to find out what it’s like to live outside DC.  Send someone else to do the job for a little while, until they start playing games full time instead of working to represent us.

Yeah be skeptical and maybe, when called for, be a little critical too.

Brutus

The debate on various political issues is a hobby of many who take one side or the other about a particular issue.  The debate becomes about who is right and wrong.  Neither side gives ground and especially those in politics use the issue to motivate their base and define themselves.  The issue falls by the wayside while we are all a dither about where people stand on the issue.

Global Warming is one of those issues.  I am obviously on one side of this issue.  I believe it is more about political power than about the environment.  When I go there, those who really are concerned about the environment and really do things in their lives to help make it better will bring up good points worthy of consideration.  My point is that we have the technology and know-how to grow the economy, improve our standard of living, and improve our environmental impact.

One area where this can be demonstrated is in the area of oil supply.  It is a legitimate concern that oil supply will dwindle in the foreseeable future.  I say, the technology will fill this gap.  They say, we can’t take the chance.

Fine, then I will prove it.  A discovery a few years ago allows us to make a crude oil from pig manure.  From this crude a diesel can be made.  It should be noted that human feces are chemically similar to that of pigs.  Largely, pig and human waste are a problem to get rid of rather than a product in short supply.  It could be a win-win.  Eliminate the waste and make fuel for heating and transportation.

This is the kind of innovation that will make a dwindling oil supply irrelevant to our needs for fuel.  We can apply this lesson to many of the problems we debate.  And I don’t mean just in the environment arena.  Problems can only be debated for so long.  At some point we have to start solving them.  Most of the time we can solve them if we put our minds to it.  Solutions that do nothing but get in the way of freedom and prosperity are not solutions.  We are better than that.

The problem I have with the Global Warming movement is that it is not a real problem.  Temperatures have been higher and lower in the past.  Why are warmer temps now a problem?  If it is a real problem, it is too big for us to solve. 

I would remind both of you who occasionally read these posts, (ha ha), Politicians rarely solve problems, they just talk about solving them.

Be skeptical, be wise, and expect better.

Brutus

This is the day for change through blogging. 

Well, I enjoy blogging.  I even enjoy the blogging of people I disagree with.

In looking at what is correct behavior for the environment, I am a little disappointed.  There is nothing wrong with the actions I read about but it seems so anemic.  I am one who does not think that Global Warming is a catastrophe at all.  I believe it has happened before and will happen again as part of the normal patterns of climate in a dynamic and complex system such as what we have here on planet Earth.

If the people who are afraid for the planet think doom is in our near future, then shouldn’t the actions be more all encompassing.  On a larger scale perhaps.  What about shutting down all power plants during the nights during spring and summer.  Making batteries illegal.  Make a foodstuff that is nutritional but simple and make it mandatory all the time except on your birthday when you can have a chocolate cupcake.  In fact according to the Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore, we are the cause of this change and it is a bad thing to have happen.  Ultimately Humanity should jump off a high cliff and put an end to this torture of the planet. 

For me in examining an issue I think examining the extremes can tell us a lot about what the range of possibilities are for a solution.  In my extreme example, would this drastic solution end Global Warming?  Or would the world go on as if we were never there and continue warming in spite of our premature departure.  In honest reflection on this issue I think one has to consider the possibility that nothing would change.  So when we compare the small changes that people make and consider what we are told is a huge problem, I have a bit of a problem with the relative scale of the two.  Problem vs Solution.

I’m all for making the world a better place, but I think many of the things people do have more to do with making themselves feel like they are doing something good and important.  Nothing wrong with that.  In that same category of good other people put similar amounts of time into helping poor, abused, or disabled people.  There are efforts to improve communities by providing or modernizing water supplies.  Educating the disadvantaged.  Inspiring the hopeless.  These efforts improve the world also but they may not be as in vogue as saving the Planet.

Each of us will have different callings and interests.  I just wanted to plant a seed of thought about the purpose of our efforts.  And the changes we can spawn.  Today on Blog Action Day, I would suggest that there is more than one way to better the planet than just the Green way.

Brutus

No one is happier about Global Warming than me.  I prefer wearing shorts anyway. 

Well, maybe one person likes Global Warming more than me.  Al Gore. 

Thanks to the catastrophe looming in the future he has an Academy Award and now a Nobel Peace Prize.  He is truly idolized by the Left for his efforts to get the word out about the climate. 

Al Gore lives the life of Riley because he has been such an important tool in the effort to get you and I to live the life of drudgery they say is needed to ‘Save the Planet’.

No one else has done more or been as effective a hypocrite in the war on prosperity.  I wonder if this is a cover for the failure of the war on poverty.  They can finally withdraw the troops in this war because they can claim it would be better for the Planet to leave them where they are.  In fact in the new war we need to get nearly  everyone into poverty. It’s just the ‘right thing to do’.  

Maybe we can’t handle prosperity.  Only smart people like King Al can.

It makes me sick to think how many people follow blindly behind the pied piper of environmentalism. 

If the US is the cause of Global Warming and our prosperity is such a problem, then we  need to stop the rest of the world from prospering. 

I think prosperity is viewed as a threat by these people.  Doing well and having extra money and resources is the problem, yet it is this prosperity that allows us to be able to afford the luxury of environmentalism.  Without this prosperity people around the world can’t make the improvements we have in the last few decades.  Many parts of the world are gaining more and more wealth.  Increasing their standard of living and improving their world.  This is the hope of all mankind for saving their world and living a better and longer life.

Thank God for Global Warming because it is the best thing for us, all of us.  Better climate, more desirable and easier to live in.  Better for plants and livestock.  Better for people and the planet.  Be thankful, not fearful.

Brutus

The concept is one we know well today.  The ’socially conscious’ among us are often talking about ‘conserving energy’ as a means to helping the environment and specifically helping to curb Global Warming.

That energy they are conserving is electricity and fossil fuels.  Sounds good.  If I, an end user, conserve energy, it saves me money.  Many people are willing to modify behavior to save a little money.   For example, turning off unused lights.  Yeah, that saves money for the end user.  Well, not so simple.  Much of the prescribed change is much more expensive than the financial payoffs.  For example, it is an article of faith in the religion of ’saving the planet’ to buy a hybrid.  Even though hybrids don’t pencil out on paper when you calculate the extra cost versus the fuel savings.  A person can buy a similar sized subcompact without all the hybrid technology and pay 2/3 the price.  They have a less expensive car with fuel economy close to a hybrid without the future problems with replacing batteries.  A major expense and a serious environmental concern.  The government gets involved and subsidizes some hybrids with a tax credit.  Without that subsidy the hybrid does not compete and either comes down in price or disappears. 

There are many examples of environmental prescriptions that are too hard to swallow.  From compact fluorescent light bulbs to rapid mass transit.  The costs far out-way the benefits.  In both cases subsidies give the appearance of increasing efficiency and reasonable costs.  Without the subsidies, the costs of both of these items and many in-between would make these perscriptions fade into nonexistence.  They simply can not compete.

All of the worst, or some would say the best, ideas to ’save the planet’ are lacking the benefit of our economy.  What is the benefit of our economy?  Competition!  Through competition advancements are made.  Improvements are made.  Over time the competition eliminates poor or inefficient products and good solid products thrive. 

We have throughout our history looked forward and tried to guess what society would look like.  We have always been wrong.  Technology that we thought would dominate the future disappeared or never materialised.  Been driving your flying car or buzzing around with your jet pack lately.  Technology we over looked comes along and changes everything.  In the 1970’s, computers were an interesting and useless sideline that most people did not know anything about.  Now they are an essential part of everyday life for most people.  Whether it is your home or work computer or some other tool or device that uses a computer as part of its inner workings.

This short sighted devotion to old ideas of how our society should look is hurting the environment.  The real advances that give the benefits that people would gladly support may be retarded in their development because so many people want the final solutions from existing ideas and technology.  That is not how solutions are found.  That is how stagnation is bred. 

Our economy works because it is a lot like evolution.  I’m not referring the theory of how life was created or made diverse.  I mean the process by which good, useful genetic changes have an advantage and they are carried forward in more of the offspring, therefore becoming more common in the future.  Likewise, technology that has benefits to society and to the environment will prosper, while technology that supposedly benefits the environment but cost far too much or just doesn’t help,  will die away.  Through subsidy we are prolonging the lifespan of ‘dinosaur’ technology or plans that should have been allowed to compete and die a natural death.

What is the force that drives the ‘dinosaurs’ forward?  Greed and power.  In both government and business there have been investments made in these ‘dinosaurs’.  We are paying and will pay the price in the future.  Sadly, with little or no benefit to the environment.  The good gains will be forsaken for the status qua.

It’s not that conservation is a bad thing.  We see in the approach taken by any bureaucracy, however, that they conserve their effort and money at our expense.  We should be conserving energy alright.  Our energy.  Our earnings that go away in higher taxes or get wasted in stiffer regulations.  Our time that is used up by new chores and duties made up by officials that think that time is free and as abundant as the air they breath.  They say we should be recycling.  Spending our time sorting and hauling trash.  We should be waiting at the bus or train stop.  Giving up the freedom of our own vehicle that allows us to be efficient with our time as we see fit. 

The power of our society and our economy is that if there is a perceived benefit for the consumer they will pay someone else a profitable price for a new bit of technology that is developed to accomplish a given task.  Even if it is an old task that people would like done in a cleaner more efficient way.

My point is that the people who advocate these ‘dinosaur’ environmental changes do not understand or appreciate the power of our economy or our society.  If they did, their proposals would be geared toward taking advantage of the power of competition.  It would give us technology that would work and work better than what is being forced down our throats now. 

Another good reason to be skeptical.  When their ideas are not the best, just the most expensive.

Brutus

If you randomly pick a celebrity or politician you have good odds on picking a person who supports the movement to combat Global Warming.

They talk of conserving, or restricting, or taxing to ‘Save the Planet’.  They participate in events to raise consciousness and bully support for the environmental movement.  They can easily afford the costs and their staff can shoulder the burdens.  They often don’t make the sacrifices they encourage others to make.  They have more square footage per person, including staff, than the average family has total in their homes.  They fly on private or chartered jets that burn more in fuel than most people make in a year.  They live in the lap of luxury while selling the average Joe on the burdens of ‘being environmentally friendly’ .  A burden that may require an extra part-time job to pay for. 

Many of these celebs and politicians will allay their guilt over their waste through the purchase of carbon-offsets.  Thereby showing how pure they are.  Offsets are sold by companies that calculate the carbon footprint for a type of consumption.  The celeb then purchases an offset to equal their sin, or emissions.  They don’t cut back at all, but simply pay a fee for their sin.  It is like the indulgences sold by the Catholic church several centuries ago.  A parishioner would buy an indulgence for a planned bit of sin and would be promised absolution through that purchase.  The Church came up with the scheme as a way to raise money.  So then the companies take the money paid by enviro-sinners and invests in environmentally friendly companies.  The enviro-sinner goes on with their lavish lifestyle and the company has an investment that will grow over time.  Environmental absolution. 

A good example is Al Gore.  He gets to buy his own carbon-offsets from his company, Generation Investment Management (GIM).  These offsets are investments held by the purchaser, normally for the long-term.  In the short-term they are expected to lose money.  However, in the long-term they make money.  Meaning that the carbon-offset can produce a profit rather that costing the ’sinner’ anything.  For Al Gore, he gets to benefit from his own offsets and profit from those of others.  No wonder he is such a champion for the environment.  Here is a link to a story about this.   Hypocrisy on Parade

As usual, follow the money.  Some people will do and say anything for it.  It would be a shame to pay the price for somebody else’s worthless scheme  That by itself is a good reason to be skeptical,

Brutus!