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

What a wonderful bit of news we saw this week.  The good news is that the ice in the Arctic is forecasted to recede so much that there will be a summer passage for ships between the Atlantic and the Pacific by 2070.  This will allow cheaper, faster transportation of goods around the world.  Good deal.  Better for consumers, producers, and for the environment.

The bad news?  According to the great scientific mind of Al Gore, the sea levels will rise by 20 feet and by 2050 the Arctic could be ice free in the summer.  These changes, according to Mr. Gore, will result in the extinction of a million species and 300,000 human deaths a year.  Droughts and heat waves will be longer.  Wildfires will be more damaging and more frequent.

One way to be sure something is not going to happen is to get a forecast that says it will.  This is especially true in the areas of weather and climate.  The forecast in the AP  story is less dire than that made by the hysterical politician and flim-flam-man Al Gore.  Both, however,  make assumptions that temperatures will increase forever with no reversal as a result of climate or solar changes.  With these prediction we can forecast that Earth will become a new sun at some convieniently distant point in time. 

The fact is that temperatures have increased over the last few decades.  My first reaction to this fact is, good.  I would rather wear shorts.  My second reaction is, good.  I would like to have a vacation home in Alaska where I can wear shorts.  Okay, I mean without the looks of incredulity.  My third reaction is, huh?  You mean I can reduce my energy consumption by 20 or 30 percent and stop the temperature of the Earth from increasing.  My fourth reaction is, stop.  If we all die at 12:15 tomorrow, and our corresponding energy consumption drops by 100 percent, the Earth will not cool unless it would have anyway.  It will just stink for a few months until the bacteria does its job.

This latest environmental push reminds me of how a ship’s captain dealing with a tribe of natives would use his knowledge of an upcoming eclipse to make himself seem powerful to the natives.  If these con-men can get society to buy their bull and temps start to drop in five years, they will claim credit for ‘Saving the Planet’.  We can pay them a tribute and hand over our daughters for there ‘Good Works’. 

The fact is that their data shows the increases don’t coincide with development or reduce as Europe, for example, has willingly donned the harness of environmental restriction, regulation, and taxation.  It is chilling to think that adults have bought into this idea that a small reduction in consumption will affect global temperatures.

If we want to put a real stop on pollution there are some very simple things we can eliminate right away.  The effect will be huge and it may truly ‘Save the Planet’.  We need to put draconian restrictions on the production  and the existence of certain products in our society.  The troubling products include but are not limited to: lawyers, politicians, scientists, professors, …!

We know when we are over-stocked in one of these products when they leave the area of their own profession and start having to look around in far reaching areas of society for something to do.  When profs are preaching instead of teaching, when scientists are scarring instead of studying, when politicians are selling instead of representing, when lawyers are advocating against society instead advocating for a client, there are too many.  We need to fight ‘Global Hypocrisy’ by cutting back on ‘Professional Pollution’.  The benefits to society are too many to list.  I can tell you, you’d breath a lot easier.  Amazing how getting a few hundred pounds of dead weight off your chest will do that.

If you aren’t skeptical now, you’ll be sorry later.

Brutus!

On forums and on various shows on radio and tv I hear people discussing how they are advocating the replacement of incandescent light-bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.  It is always in the name of stopping ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Saving the Planet’. 

This is a good example of doing things backwards and getting in the way of real progress.

If you follow their advice and go searching for these fluorescent bulbs you will find that they have come down in price.  In Walmart you can buy them for about .74 cents.  It varies somewhat by location.  You can buy other bulbs of higher quality for $1 to $5.  I suppose you can spend as much as you would like on these things much like anything else.  The point is they have come down to where they are only about four times the cost of incandescent bulbs.  Why?  Is it like other new products in the market place?  Increased production, new technology, and competion driving down prices.  Well, I would like to think this did it but its not the main driving force to lowering prices, its subsidies from the Federal and various State and local governments.  What could be wrong with that?

It is government messing with the free market.  Trying to speed it up.  What they have done is doomed the compact fluorescent bulb.  How could that be?  On these programs and sites pushing this technology even the proponents have to admit the problems with these bulbs.  They have a reliability problems in many uses and with some models.  The light quality and quantity is not what people need or want in many settings.  And finally with government subsidies, they are four times the cost of incandescent bulbs. 

By having these bulbs pushed by many different groups into the front of the pack for being ‘Green’ they have people using a technology that will be inferior and expensive.  The technology was not allowed to mature in the market, being pressured by market forces to improve quality and lower price through innovation.  More importantly, by subsidizing this technology, it has an artifitial advantage against other new technology that may do a better job and could possibly have a long term advantage in value in the market place.  One of these technologies is LED lights.  They start with a huge advantage in reliability, lasting thousands of hours.  They are much more expensive but they are getting cheaper in many applications.  They are much more effecient in energy use and don’t have the problems with difficult to dispose of metals in their construction. 

Now when these are ready to become the primary type of lighting used in homes and business, the bad taste of compact fluorescents will still be fresh and the compact fluorescents will have s price advantage they don’t deserve.  Other new technologies could be coming around the mountain too, and they will have a more difficult time reaching the market and competing because of subsidies on older less efficient technology.  You may say, ‘Oh we’ll just stop the subsidies.’  That won’t be so easy.  It is these large companies that have used their political influence to get politicians and celebs to push their technology as an environmental savior.  They are the force behind getting the subsidies for their product because they couldn’t compete.  They won’t give up this technology and the subsidies for a new one easily.  There is not very much competition in the field of lighting which is the real obstacle to driving technology forward and the price down.  By subsidizing this technology It sours the market on new technology and keeps new technology from being as good a value to the consumer.

Pulling perfectly good bulbs out and replacing them with new ones is not good for the environment.  It is not conserving anything.  I think you should buy what you want.  It is handy to know if you are being manipulated though.  What ever decisions you make in your life about how you spend your money, you should do what you want and know as much as you can about your choices.  Than you go into those decisions with your eyes open.

Be skeptical and follow the money.  That’s usually what is behind these movements to change public opinion and behavior,

Brutus!

Imagine a Hollywood movie with a crisis looming that threatens life as we know it. 

The world’s greatest minds get together to make a strategy for solving the problem.  They come up with a list of ideas, some radical and some ridiculous.  They don’t limit themselves because of the seriousness of the problem.  It’s critical that a solution is found.  After this brainstorming makes a long list.  The great thinkers shave that list down to a manageable size by eliminating the impossible and the exorbitant.  What is left is the best solutions they can come up with.  They will have to pick one or two and begin the process of implementing the plan.

The question I have is, would one solution to the problem of *********  in the world be to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This would make the planet more ideal for plant life, making plants more productive and increasing the yield per acre on farmland. 

Another possible solution for ********* would be to find a way to increase the global temperature by a few degrees over a period of decades or maybe a century.  This would increase the atmospheric capacity for water vapor, thereby increasing potential precipitation.  Although the location receiving this precip would be hard to anticipate.  Another benefit of this solution would be the decrease in human mortality because of warmer conditions around the planet. 

If the problem were ********* instead of solving Global Warming, would Global Warming be the solution.

Can you guess what this problem is?

Those looking for solutions to environmental problems may be making bigger problems for humanity  if they could change the conditions around our world.  Not to worry, many aren’t really trying to change the environment, they’re trying to change society and make themselves feel better about themselves in the process.  Others are buying the argument that we can change the global temp by living a smaller, more poor lifestyle.  The fact is that prosperity will allow the technology that will really change society for the better.  As it always has.

Example:  Go back in time to anywhere in the world where people lived 200 years ago and you find a simpler life.  Most modern technology is erased.  The cities were a place of filth.  Whether it is coal for heat, or open ditches for sewers.  This is only the tip of the iceberg.  Sanitary food was nonexistent without plastic wrap and trays, or refrigeration.  Chemicals to create clean surfaces and stainless steel for food prep.  The list could go on and on.  We take a lot for granted.  You only have to visit the third world to see how technology can improve the environment and conditions for humanity.  Technology and prosperity go hand in hand.  Lets not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. 

Be skeptical,

Brutus.

Who can argue with a sentiment like that.  I think any person who has a goal like this has their heart in the right place.  So how many ways can we accomplish this.  Certainly more than we can count. 

Some people volunteer in their community or donate to groups who work in the community to help people who need it.  This decision is as personal and varied as any other we make.  It is one I respect and appreciate.  So when I read a blog about someone trying to improve their world, I let them know how much I appreciate the effort.  This holds true even when I disagree with the person’s world view.  It holds true when they are trying to solve a problem that I don’t think is a problem.  I still respect that their motives are pure.  These people are not a threat to life as we know it. 

I do wish sometimes that they were as skeptical of governments as they are of businesses.  Politicians and bureaucrat’s take good intentions and use them to increase their own power.  Anytime an issue becomes a political football, finding a solution is nearly impossible.  A discussion about the facts takes two sides that are willing to share and listen.  Unfortunately, the discussions turn into personal attacks and demagoguery.  It happens on both sides, and is a result of the politically charged nature of the debate.  The fact is that there are people on both sides who are working to make their world better.  There are also people, especially leaders of various movements and politicians who are only in the debate for their own agenda.

Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, all I can ask is to set aside prejudices and debate the facts.

My belief about the Global Warming agenda is that it is being used by people to increase government power and decrease opportunity’s in our society.

I also believe that an increasing global temperature is beneficial in many ways that are ignored.

I believe Global temperatures will go up and down in a cyclic manner over a  period of centuries or millennia.

These beliefs are not strange ideas but conclusions drawn from the examination of evidence. 

You may disagree based on your own examination of the evidence.  I just hope you don’t disagree because some politician told you differently, or because some celeb said so.  Even scientists are not immune from having an agenda.  Any scientist that does not embrace genuine skepticism is not being true to the ‘Scientific Method’.  I really hope you don’t disagree because of my beliefs or affiliations.  I hope you have your own ideas.  Then we have the basis for a good debate.

Skepticism is not the same as criticism.  Skepticism just requires evidence and asks questions that demand to be answered.  Skepticism looks at agendas and arterial motives.  Skepticism can not be bullied or ignored.  Skepticism is the responsibility of the free.  Skepticism is the guardian of liberty.  Skepticism can only be answered with the truth.

Be skeptical and engage in the debate,

Brutus.

About half the people who read the title of this post are probably wondering ‘Are you allowed to say that?’. 

In talking to people about Global Warming, I am surprised at how easy they accept the line sold by the proponents of the theory.  There is no skepticism, no research, and no doubt.  We are talking blind faith.

Talk to these same people about God and many will shake their heads and look at you like you are a simpleton who should be pitied.

This fasinates me.  People are willing to put their faith in the politician who they know lies about every issue on the table to get elected. Likewise they will continue this behavior to increase the budget and our taxes. 

God who made it all and manages it all is impossible.  Scientist keep saying over and over ‘ There has to be life on other planets because there are so many planets.  This accident has to have happened somewhere else.’  What if it’s not an accident but a plan. 

You don’t have to accept that argumment to discount the theory on Global Warming being sold by media, celebs and politicians.  My point is that there is more evidence supporting the existance of God than there is to prove Global Warming is caused by mankind.

Any theory that can not stand up to skepticism is not a scientific theory.  It is an article of faith.  It is a religon.

Brutus

Global Warming.

When looking at any theory, or belief system we find people of varying degrees of faith in that idea.  Global Warming is no different. 

We can look at a few sets of temperature data and see some interesting facts.  The many different conclusions drawn from those facts are where we see the differences in people’s faith. 

Some draw detailed conclusions with catastrophic changes to the environment being the the center piece.  These results either feed their agenda or their pessimism.  Their faith is totally invested in a dark future with little hope for survival.  It takes very little data to convince these people that the worse case scenario is going to come true.

Others have a less catastrophic view but still call for changes to society that are going to have large effects on society over the coming decades.  Their view is more realistic.  The sky is not falling it’s just turning gray.  They wish to change society more than save the environment.  Their views are more pragmatic and more threatening to our way of life because they sound more reasonable.  Their faith is not as strong in catastrophe.  It simply is a means to an end.  When the data stops supporting the theory at hand they will move to another theory useful to their agenda.  Example: The Ozone Hole.  They dropped that like a red hot poker when the data showed it disappeared.

People get told about the theory, the looming catastrophe, the consensus, and begin to believe in what they are told.  The agenda moves forward and society changes.  The data falls away, the theory is abandoned and people are stuck with ’solutions’ that are expensive and sadly unnecessary.

It pays to be skeptical and pay attention to the agenda.