Obama and his progressive / socialist / Communist coalition are issuing orders regarding so-called global warming CO2 production. Yes, as has been the view of this blog since post number one, this is potentially, and eventually if they get their way, extremely destructive to this country. It is also of nil value in affecting any climate change, even if we needed climate modification, which we do not. The new orders regarding taxation of energy usage will, at least at first, come from the EPA, not from congress. That is chiefly to avoid any congressional debate that could embarrass congressional supporters. Cap-and-Trade is an unpopular idea, as well it should be. It is a destructive attempt to solve a non-existent problem. (That is the non-cynical explanation.) Unfortunately, the evidence is piling up that their aim is strictly financial. Yes, that's right: greed. At the top of the heap are Gore and his compadres and corporate controllers, such as GE, and, who knows who else? They say it's the global elite's plan for world domination and fantastic profits via government sponsored piracy. That cynical explanation is shaping up to be more and more plausible and Glenn Beck is making more and more sense.
By the way, Mr. Beck's poem, actually Rudyard Kipling's, has AL Gore's poem beat by miles. By the way, the Huffington Post does not think very highly of it. It's not that they don't see the point, but it gets too much to their heart of darkness. How Prophetic:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Lamestream Press: None So Blind
Two incongruous news stories are worthy of note. Last weekend, Bill Moyers on his penultimate broadcast (thank God) of the Journal on public TV decried the death of investigative journalism. I am moved to ask myself what he could possibly mean by that. Given the current shenanigans of our federal government, the field seems ripe for this endeavor. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, now would seem to be the heyday of investigative journalism.
The other story was on Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning and apparently last night on television. This is the Frank Raines man-made global warming connection. As head of Fannie May, Mr. Raines made millions for himself while contributing to world wide economic melt down. (See Time Magazine article regarding the top 25 individuals responsible). It seems while he was bundling questionable mortgagees, just as the banks are being demonized for, he was setting up the structure for creating and trading carbon credits with Fannie May funds. All the interconnections are very murky and hard to follow. Glenn does his best with his blackboard. There are connections with the usual progressive and liberal money groups. Goldman Sachs, George Soros, and London are in there along with Al Gore and global warming crowd. I have to check out Glenn Beck's cite to get the full scoop. This is a fruitful area for investigation to my simple mind.
The other story was on Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning and apparently last night on television. This is the Frank Raines man-made global warming connection. As head of Fannie May, Mr. Raines made millions for himself while contributing to world wide economic melt down. (See Time Magazine article regarding the top 25 individuals responsible). It seems while he was bundling questionable mortgagees, just as the banks are being demonized for, he was setting up the structure for creating and trading carbon credits with Fannie May funds. All the interconnections are very murky and hard to follow. Glenn does his best with his blackboard. There are connections with the usual progressive and liberal money groups. Goldman Sachs, George Soros, and London are in there along with Al Gore and global warming crowd. I have to check out Glenn Beck's cite to get the full scoop. This is a fruitful area for investigation to my simple mind.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Roy Spencer, Hallelujah Climate Truth at Last
A Scientist, Roy Spenser (a REAL scientist), on Coast to Coast tonight knows what he is talking about regarding Global Warming. He says that scientists have been making basic logical blunders. Many of the others are voicing what they heard, over and over, without doing their own work on the subject. Furthermore they are not even doing research on alternative explanations. I agree. This scientist did his own work to find their errors. Of course, for the most part he isn't listened to (yet).
He is funded by the US Government, not the oil companies, etc. which would of course be the first response.
There are no large scale substitutes for carbon based fossil fuel. This guy is saying what I thought was obvious but everyone ignores. He also had access to the data and the time to work through their formulas.
He does say that man is probably responsible for the slight increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. But so what, it doesn't cause warming. In fact it is good for life on earth.
This is the guy I have been waiting for.
He is funded by the US Government, not the oil companies, etc. which would of course be the first response.
There are no large scale substitutes for carbon based fossil fuel. This guy is saying what I thought was obvious but everyone ignores. He also had access to the data and the time to work through their formulas.
He does say that man is probably responsible for the slight increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. But so what, it doesn't cause warming. In fact it is good for life on earth.
This is the guy I have been waiting for.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Cliff Mass: You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!
Cliff Mass is a professor at a Sate University here, I believe the University of Washington. He wrote a book: The Weather of the Pacific Northwest. The other day, on Public Television,he gave a very interesting lecture regarding the types of local weather patterns and their causes. However, he wrapped up with a quick and dirty condescending discussion of Man-Made-Global-Warming (mmgw). Condescending because, although he obviously had not made a detailed study of the issues, he gave us the same old lines: yes it is real, us scientists say so. You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!
He says we should picture CO2 as a blanket around the Earth. OF COURSE it is warming, he assures us. He does not say, and may not know, what a thread-bare blanket it is. Science is nothing without magnitudes -- measured with NUMBERS -- What a concept.
His discussion consisted of a few statements and a few charts. It was interesting that his pages showing the coming warming were printed in darker and darker shades of red. His graph, employed a highly skewed choice of scale to show that CO2 concentration on earth's atmosphere has grown from a tiny, tiny line at the bottom of the chart straight up, up, up -- It shoots up off the page lake a rocket launched into the stratosphere. In fact the CO2 concentration has increased over 50 or so years from about 300 parts per million to a little over 400 per million. (I believe those are the approximate claimed figures.) So with a different choice of scale, the graph would appear to not even move. The change would not even be visible. Obviously, a choice of scale somewhere in between would be appropriate. Scientists know this; they often spend a few minutes lecturing on the proper choice of scale to convey information on a graph properly. I have never heard a scientist explain how to choice a scale that would be persuasive of a disputed issue. Real scientists go out of their way to develop and sympathetically address the opposing point of view; they do not intentionally misrepresent it. This scientist is a fraud.
By the way, they are constantly telling us that we cannot draw conclusions about climate, which is a very long term phenomenon, from observations over a short period of time. Why then does the CO2 change over a few decades matter? (Because it is caused by industrialization, they will say, and that is something new.) That it is caused by industrialization is a hypothesis yet to be proved. In any case, it is significant that they have not measured the concentrations every 50 years for the last 10,000 years. I do not think they could measure that. They may have connected the dots of many (questionable) observation in ice cores, which have gaps of hundreds if not thousand of years. They assume that past concentrations are continuous and smooth because there was no industrialization to cause spikes in the concentrations. That is, they are assuming as true that which is to be proved. (Which is to say they are self-deluded, dishonest fools.)
He says we should picture CO2 as a blanket around the Earth. OF COURSE it is warming, he assures us. He does not say, and may not know, what a thread-bare blanket it is. Science is nothing without magnitudes -- measured with NUMBERS -- What a concept.
His discussion consisted of a few statements and a few charts. It was interesting that his pages showing the coming warming were printed in darker and darker shades of red. His graph, employed a highly skewed choice of scale to show that CO2 concentration on earth's atmosphere has grown from a tiny, tiny line at the bottom of the chart straight up, up, up -- It shoots up off the page lake a rocket launched into the stratosphere. In fact the CO2 concentration has increased over 50 or so years from about 300 parts per million to a little over 400 per million. (I believe those are the approximate claimed figures.) So with a different choice of scale, the graph would appear to not even move. The change would not even be visible. Obviously, a choice of scale somewhere in between would be appropriate. Scientists know this; they often spend a few minutes lecturing on the proper choice of scale to convey information on a graph properly. I have never heard a scientist explain how to choice a scale that would be persuasive of a disputed issue. Real scientists go out of their way to develop and sympathetically address the opposing point of view; they do not intentionally misrepresent it. This scientist is a fraud.
By the way, they are constantly telling us that we cannot draw conclusions about climate, which is a very long term phenomenon, from observations over a short period of time. Why then does the CO2 change over a few decades matter? (Because it is caused by industrialization, they will say, and that is something new.) That it is caused by industrialization is a hypothesis yet to be proved. In any case, it is significant that they have not measured the concentrations every 50 years for the last 10,000 years. I do not think they could measure that. They may have connected the dots of many (questionable) observation in ice cores, which have gaps of hundreds if not thousand of years. They assume that past concentrations are continuous and smooth because there was no industrialization to cause spikes in the concentrations. That is, they are assuming as true that which is to be proved. (Which is to say they are self-deluded, dishonest fools.)
Friday, April 2, 2010
Republican Minds Held Hostage: Copenhagen Syndrome?
Too many Republicans are becoming appeasers because they fear the mainstream press, which calls the Tea Partiers domestic extremists.
The main stream media (aka: The Drive-bys, the Government Controlled Press [GCP], the Lame-Stream Press) are domestic extremist groups in their attacks on freedom. We should not be intimidated by their propaganda. Propaganda takes many forms but it always has at least an element of untruth. Some of their statements and claims of dubious truth are as follows:
Doubtable declarations of the GCP, a sampling of items: unproven, highly doubtable Man-made Global Warming [mmgw] proclamations of long standing, now newly repeated. Greed of Bankers caused the meltdown (as if bankers now are any less greedy that ever). "We just want to help you" (Twilight Zone stuff, not to mention 1984 Big Brotherism)
More recently: Conservatives are accused of being "domestic extremists" (letters to the governors demanding resignation, group arrested in WI after FBI agent provocateur op with implied connections to tea parties); another attack on Catholic Church and the Pope; another attack on GOP and chairman Steele (many GOP’s suffering from Copenhagen syndrome go along with this one especially: their minds are held hostage by the GCP), the economy is improving; government health care will save money; Obama now will allow drilling for oil (that’s a good one); and for that matter – Obama is a moderate (everyone should have seen through that one by now); Obama is so smart (right), man-made global warming (we’ve stopped messing around, its time that You Will Believe, or else); Government takeover of student loans will save money by eliminating the "middleman" (the progressives will always eliminate the middleman, that is private enterprise, and the little man, by appropriating more and more power for government.)
Oh, I almost forgot, the Tea Party isn't racist either. Progressive schemes are what the Tea Party doesn't want. All races are welcome and encouraged to join the fight for freedom. As we know the progressive ideology is bankrupt. The Progressive deck has only a few cards: racism is the card that has worked best for them in the past. Common sense conservatives have no reason to fear it or them.
One more: Toyota cars are no good, according to the GCP. I used to prefer GM and was leaning toward the Chrysler Charger. No more; until they are again free, I will go with Ford, Toyota, and KIA. Also, Chinese products are probably being unfairly attacked. This is a scheme to enact tariffs by the back door.
The main stream media (aka: The Drive-bys, the Government Controlled Press [GCP], the Lame-Stream Press) are domestic extremist groups in their attacks on freedom. We should not be intimidated by their propaganda. Propaganda takes many forms but it always has at least an element of untruth. Some of their statements and claims of dubious truth are as follows:
Doubtable declarations of the GCP, a sampling of items: unproven, highly doubtable Man-made Global Warming [mmgw] proclamations of long standing, now newly repeated. Greed of Bankers caused the meltdown (as if bankers now are any less greedy that ever). "We just want to help you" (Twilight Zone stuff, not to mention 1984 Big Brotherism)
More recently: Conservatives are accused of being "domestic extremists" (letters to the governors demanding resignation, group arrested in WI after FBI agent provocateur op with implied connections to tea parties); another attack on Catholic Church and the Pope; another attack on GOP and chairman Steele (many GOP’s suffering from Copenhagen syndrome go along with this one especially: their minds are held hostage by the GCP), the economy is improving; government health care will save money; Obama now will allow drilling for oil (that’s a good one); and for that matter – Obama is a moderate (everyone should have seen through that one by now); Obama is so smart (right), man-made global warming (we’ve stopped messing around, its time that You Will Believe, or else); Government takeover of student loans will save money by eliminating the "middleman" (the progressives will always eliminate the middleman, that is private enterprise, and the little man, by appropriating more and more power for government.)
Oh, I almost forgot, the Tea Party isn't racist either. Progressive schemes are what the Tea Party doesn't want. All races are welcome and encouraged to join the fight for freedom. As we know the progressive ideology is bankrupt. The Progressive deck has only a few cards: racism is the card that has worked best for them in the past. Common sense conservatives have no reason to fear it or them.
One more: Toyota cars are no good, according to the GCP. I used to prefer GM and was leaning toward the Chrysler Charger. No more; until they are again free, I will go with Ford, Toyota, and KIA. Also, Chinese products are probably being unfairly attacked. This is a scheme to enact tariffs by the back door.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Global Warmies Keep Rolling Along
We can expect damage control after the recent exposure of lies from the global warming so-called scientists. Our answer is that a diploma, government grant, or high paying quasigovernmental job does not a scientist make. The latest damage control talking point is that the 'science' is still rock hard, just a few of the spokespeople got a little carried away. There is still not one word of a scientific nature from the current spokespeople in defense of their proposition that manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. The science is settled, it is 'rock hard.' The dire climate situation is worse that we thought. Instead of being 64.7% sure, we are now 97.8% sure that we are correct about being doomed if we continue the current unsustainable course. (By the way they failed to mention the 64.7% part when they made their earlier dire predictions.)
A strong indication of where the are coming from is that almost invariably they eventually advance the augment that even if there is no global warming, this is still the right thing to do. The 'thing' is often unstated but what they want and have always wanted is a cap-and-trade like scheme. Cap-and-trade schemes, by their own terms, involve new government controls over any enterprise that uses energy.
(There was an elitist demagogue so-called scientist on the Bryan Suits KVI radio show the other day, who used the 'rock hard' talking point)
In any event, we still await a scientific (i.e. mathematical) statement of the global warming theory, if any exists. Then we want to see their scientific defenses of their theory. Then we can take it apart scientifically. If there are other environmental arguments for more economic interference in the way energy is obtained, supplied, and used; those are different questions. We would be glad to refute those and we have refuted those separately. (Which is precisely why they need the global warming deception.) If changes in policy are proposed because of global warming, then we want to have the global warming debate. It was promised and is overdue. They claim they had the debate among themselves and we lost. Public policy should be an open covenant, openly arrived at, shouldn't it?
A strong indication of where the are coming from is that almost invariably they eventually advance the augment that even if there is no global warming, this is still the right thing to do. The 'thing' is often unstated but what they want and have always wanted is a cap-and-trade like scheme. Cap-and-trade schemes, by their own terms, involve new government controls over any enterprise that uses energy.
(There was an elitist demagogue so-called scientist on the Bryan Suits KVI radio show the other day, who used the 'rock hard' talking point)
In any event, we still await a scientific (i.e. mathematical) statement of the global warming theory, if any exists. Then we want to see their scientific defenses of their theory. Then we can take it apart scientifically. If there are other environmental arguments for more economic interference in the way energy is obtained, supplied, and used; those are different questions. We would be glad to refute those and we have refuted those separately. (Which is precisely why they need the global warming deception.) If changes in policy are proposed because of global warming, then we want to have the global warming debate. It was promised and is overdue. They claim they had the debate among themselves and we lost. Public policy should be an open covenant, openly arrived at, shouldn't it?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Petition to RFK, Jr. RE: Get Some Sense
[left click to enlarge, back arrow to return]I received a letter from Robert F Kennedy, Jr. today. I was flattered and thought that maybe he had been reading chickenshitnewworld. However as I read the letter I realized that he certainly didn't learn anything if he had been reading this blog or the linked sites. In fact he started out bad-mouthing Sarah Palin, which I thought was very unbecoming and unimaginative. What he wanted was money, like everyone else. He wanted to help some polar bears who he thought were in danger. I was disappointed. I thought that he and a few of his friends could get together enough cash to help hundreds of polar bears.
Anyway, I did not send any money because of his attitude. Besides not liking Her Excellency, Gov. Palin, he was against drilling for oil. Even though some oil companies want to drill on only a very tiny area of Alaska, he is against it. Because he believes in man made global warming (MMGW), he is against oil altogether. He obviously has been taken in by the Al Gore tricksters, too bad.
I did sign and return the petition that he sent, after making a few corrections. As the nephew of a president of the United States and son of an attorney general, I felt he was due that respect. Hopefully, he will use some common sense and stop being a Democrat. I attach the the petition above. On the envelope, I used the Alaska Statehood 50th anniversary stamp and the 3 cent Lincoln Gettysburg address stamp from the 1960's. ("That government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth")
Sunday, December 13, 2009
More Global Warming, Emperor still Naked
For radio talk show junkies, there has been plenty of Global Warming discussion lately. There is not much to add to the incessant questioning of what seems like the mass-insanity of the Man Made Global Warming movement (MMGW). However, tonight on Coast To Coast, there was a discussion of the data. Trouble was, without knowing how the data is used in the theory, there is no way of knowing if the fudged data is significant. Of course, as aforesaid ad infinitum at this site, the warmies have not given us a definitive mathematical statement of their theory, so how can we judge? The Coast to Coast guest also calls into question the validity of computer 'models' to arrive at valid conclusions. He also mentions that the same financial brokers who made a mess with the mortgage derivatives, will be in charge of trading carbon credits. Since this would involve billions of dollars, don't we have the right to question and to know? He might also have mentioned that is was computer models that concluded the mortgage derivatives had extremely little risk of default problems. It's been said before: garbage in, garbage out. With global warming it appears that there was garbage in, so don't they need to show us explicitly why it isn't garbage out?
One of the famous studies of CO2 in the atmosphere were the measurements made in Hawaii that gave rise to the MMGW theory. For no reason that they could explain, the CO2 concentrations were rising so they kept up the measurements through the present. The increase was from approximately 325 parts per million to approximately 385 parts per million from 1960 through 2009. My first naive question would be, is that really enough to make any difference? After all, the Green House Effect hypothesis was born to explain warming of the early earth, when CO2 concentrations were .6 to .7 million parts per million. That's about 2,170 times as much as at present. That's a big difference to extrapolate any conclusions of the original hypothesis to the present day.
Albert Einstein was concerned that he was asking the world to believe the theory of relativity without his being able to proof it. This bothered him because he was a real scientist who realised that without proof science would become useless speculation. He offered three experiments that could be performed to prove that his theory was wrong. At the time we did have the technology to perform the experiments. Since then, Relativity's predictions were found to be essentially correct. Einstein acted as the devil's advocate for his own theory. On the contrary, the so-called scientists of global warming censor any dissenting views and are very defensive of their theory. If truth was their goal, they should be happy to listen to dissenters. They should insist upon having a devil's advocate. (A term that originated with the Catholic Church's practice of appointing someone to research a candidate for sainthood and to argue why he or she is not worthy of canonization.)
Why would supposedly intelligent world leaders expend trillions of their people's resources based upon the word of these disreputable so-called scientists? Instead of listening to the politicians in Copenhagen, they should listen to a different Dane, Hans Christian Anderson, who said the emperor has no clothes.
To mention one last questionable claim: Man is causing melting of Arctic ice. I read in 1421, The Year that China Discovered America, that 580 years ago, the Chinese sailed around the north coast of Greenland. It must have been melting then and there was little human-generated greenhouse gasses then. Also, while reading about my ancestors, the northern Indian
tribes, I found that at the time of early European exploration, the past warming was known to the indigenous people. It was their belief that melting of the ice disrupted the Eskimo whaling. As a result the Eskimos moved south where they ran into my relatives who engaged in warfare with the Eskimos ever since. (My apologies to J. D. Salinger)
My conclusion has long been that Al Gore and his compadres are fools and/or thieves, at any rate their proposals are very dangerous. /See the first post of this blog which consists of the whole story of The Emperor's New Clothes. /
One of the famous studies of CO2 in the atmosphere were the measurements made in Hawaii that gave rise to the MMGW theory. For no reason that they could explain, the CO2 concentrations were rising so they kept up the measurements through the present. The increase was from approximately 325 parts per million to approximately 385 parts per million from 1960 through 2009. My first naive question would be, is that really enough to make any difference? After all, the Green House Effect hypothesis was born to explain warming of the early earth, when CO2 concentrations were .6 to .7 million parts per million. That's about 2,170 times as much as at present. That's a big difference to extrapolate any conclusions of the original hypothesis to the present day.
Albert Einstein was concerned that he was asking the world to believe the theory of relativity without his being able to proof it. This bothered him because he was a real scientist who realised that without proof science would become useless speculation. He offered three experiments that could be performed to prove that his theory was wrong. At the time we did have the technology to perform the experiments. Since then, Relativity's predictions were found to be essentially correct. Einstein acted as the devil's advocate for his own theory. On the contrary, the so-called scientists of global warming censor any dissenting views and are very defensive of their theory. If truth was their goal, they should be happy to listen to dissenters. They should insist upon having a devil's advocate. (A term that originated with the Catholic Church's practice of appointing someone to research a candidate for sainthood and to argue why he or she is not worthy of canonization.)
Why would supposedly intelligent world leaders expend trillions of their people's resources based upon the word of these disreputable so-called scientists? Instead of listening to the politicians in Copenhagen, they should listen to a different Dane, Hans Christian Anderson, who said the emperor has no clothes.
To mention one last questionable claim: Man is causing melting of Arctic ice. I read in 1421, The Year that China Discovered America, that 580 years ago, the Chinese sailed around the north coast of Greenland. It must have been melting then and there was little human-generated greenhouse gasses then. Also, while reading about my ancestors, the northern Indian
tribes, I found that at the time of early European exploration, the past warming was known to the indigenous people. It was their belief that melting of the ice disrupted the Eskimo whaling. As a result the Eskimos moved south where they ran into my relatives who engaged in warfare with the Eskimos ever since. (My apologies to J. D. Salinger)
My conclusion has long been that Al Gore and his compadres are fools and/or thieves, at any rate their proposals are very dangerous. /See the first post of this blog which consists of the whole story of The Emperor's New Clothes. /
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Krugman Speaks (in His Native Tongue)
In his column appearing in the Seattle Times today, Paul Krugman says that the usual suspects (i.e. conservatives) will go wild if there is progress at the Copenhagen global warming conclave. He also thinks there will be cries that this is a vast scientific conspiracy which will destroy jobs and economic growth. In fact conservatives have been a little wild and more that a little angry. They have lately been wild with enthusiasm that the recent "climate-gate" revelations show that there is indeed a vast conspiracy that is finally being exposed. They have also been angry that such a hoax continues to be perpetrated against the citizens of this country and of the world. For myself, I am somewhat numb. I have seen too much of the ignorance of those who are the willing victims of this hoax to feel much outrage anymore. I still believe that global warming ranks in the top ten in all the history of tyranny against the mind of man. Satan in the Garden being number one and Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and a few like minded others vying for the other top spots. Unfortunately, for the same reasons that Mr. Krugman is optimistic, I am growing pessimistic.
Of course, Mr. Krugman is guilty of advancing and perpetuating egregious violence against reason, but I do not blame him. He is locked into a mind set that has hopelessly befuddled his thinking (related to "Keyneseism"). He advances several arguments in favor of the economic benefits that would accrue to us if we adopted a policy of cap-and-trade to fight global warming. To be generous to him, his thesis is probably better stated as something like, "cap-and-trade would cause far less decline than has been claimed by its detractors." It is a little difficult to say if maybe he does think there could be a net gain when he states that businesses will, "be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon." Actually, he means that they will mitigate their losses under cap-and-trade by "burning" less carbon. The only ones to profit will be those in the marketing of the carbon credits, i.e. the tax collectors
In any event, in his reasoning he falls prey to one of the most pervasive economic fallacies, the fallacy of the broken window. This was named by Bastiat and referenced by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. The Nobel Laureate, Mr. Krugman claims that there can be economic gains by investment in development of various ways to emit less greenhouse gas. This is like the investment that Bastiat talks about to repair the broken window. The manufactures and the installer will all benefit by the "investments" made in repairing the broken window. They will spend their new gains, thus stimulation the economy. Therefore would it not be beneficial to break more, of even all windows? Especially, as claimed by Mr. K, at a time of economic downturn? The answer is: No.
The reason for this is not difficult to discern. The resources that go into the repair of the window would have been used for something else if the window had not been broken. If for some reason, no windows were broken for a year, we would experience an upsurge in the production of other economic goods. Perhaps the capitol, labor, and natural resources used in the production and installation of windows would go to the building of new houses. (The exact composition of the new goods would depend upon the what purchasers in the market demanded, for the consumer is king in the unimpeded market.) If more windows are broken, we cannot say what would be lost for we can never know what might have been. That so few can see this simple fact is what causes my pessimism.
With the case of global warming, the atmosphere is what is broken, according to Al Gore and the warmies. Much of the scarce recources of planet earth have to go to stopping the damage to the atmosphere, according to them. In the opinion of the conservative wing, we do not even get a new window, since the atmosphere is not really broken and our efforts will not fix anything.
Now Mr. K also says that to believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax, one would have to believe in a vast scientific conspiracy. That may be so. Yet to believe as Mr. K does, one would have to believe in a conspiracy of all the fossil fuel users around the globe. He says that we can reduce emissions at relatively low cost by, "improved insulation, more efficient appliances, more fuel efficient cars and trucks, greater use of solar, wind, and nuclear power and much, much more." All we need is the economic incentive of cap-and-trade to find and develop all these new ways. However I would point out that we already have the incentive of $70 to $100 per gallon oil. I would think that, unless there is some vast conspiracy among oil users to keep using oil, we would already be expending vast amounts of resources to use less. Yet petroleum, coal, natural gas, and firewood sill provide maybe 70% of the world energy needs. If significant use of alternatives and conservation had "a relatively low cost" why aren't they here now?
According to economists, which I now perceive Mr. K is not, the answer to that question is a little more subtle and involves the concept of economic decisions being made at the margin, and diminishing returns. Suffice it to say, that even common sense allows us to say that all decisions involve a trade-off between alternative actions. Whatever those trade-offs are, they cannot be as cost-free as the cap-and-traders want us to believe. I really don't know how much solar energy development would costs, but if there would be a great return to low cost efforts in that direction, it seems that we would have a lot more of it now.
If the schemes of the warmies come to fruition, those of us not among the elite architects of the conspiracy, will not like the result. However, if we are so ignorant as to be deceived by the likes to Al Gore and Paul Krugman, then we were literally made to be sold.
Of course, Mr. Krugman is guilty of advancing and perpetuating egregious violence against reason, but I do not blame him. He is locked into a mind set that has hopelessly befuddled his thinking (related to "Keyneseism"). He advances several arguments in favor of the economic benefits that would accrue to us if we adopted a policy of cap-and-trade to fight global warming. To be generous to him, his thesis is probably better stated as something like, "cap-and-trade would cause far less decline than has been claimed by its detractors." It is a little difficult to say if maybe he does think there could be a net gain when he states that businesses will, "be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon." Actually, he means that they will mitigate their losses under cap-and-trade by "burning" less carbon. The only ones to profit will be those in the marketing of the carbon credits, i.e. the tax collectors
In any event, in his reasoning he falls prey to one of the most pervasive economic fallacies, the fallacy of the broken window. This was named by Bastiat and referenced by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. The Nobel Laureate, Mr. Krugman claims that there can be economic gains by investment in development of various ways to emit less greenhouse gas. This is like the investment that Bastiat talks about to repair the broken window. The manufactures and the installer will all benefit by the "investments" made in repairing the broken window. They will spend their new gains, thus stimulation the economy. Therefore would it not be beneficial to break more, of even all windows? Especially, as claimed by Mr. K, at a time of economic downturn? The answer is: No.
The reason for this is not difficult to discern. The resources that go into the repair of the window would have been used for something else if the window had not been broken. If for some reason, no windows were broken for a year, we would experience an upsurge in the production of other economic goods. Perhaps the capitol, labor, and natural resources used in the production and installation of windows would go to the building of new houses. (The exact composition of the new goods would depend upon the what purchasers in the market demanded, for the consumer is king in the unimpeded market.) If more windows are broken, we cannot say what would be lost for we can never know what might have been. That so few can see this simple fact is what causes my pessimism.
With the case of global warming, the atmosphere is what is broken, according to Al Gore and the warmies. Much of the scarce recources of planet earth have to go to stopping the damage to the atmosphere, according to them. In the opinion of the conservative wing, we do not even get a new window, since the atmosphere is not really broken and our efforts will not fix anything.
Now Mr. K also says that to believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax, one would have to believe in a vast scientific conspiracy. That may be so. Yet to believe as Mr. K does, one would have to believe in a conspiracy of all the fossil fuel users around the globe. He says that we can reduce emissions at relatively low cost by, "improved insulation, more efficient appliances, more fuel efficient cars and trucks, greater use of solar, wind, and nuclear power and much, much more." All we need is the economic incentive of cap-and-trade to find and develop all these new ways. However I would point out that we already have the incentive of $70 to $100 per gallon oil. I would think that, unless there is some vast conspiracy among oil users to keep using oil, we would already be expending vast amounts of resources to use less. Yet petroleum, coal, natural gas, and firewood sill provide maybe 70% of the world energy needs. If significant use of alternatives and conservation had "a relatively low cost" why aren't they here now?
According to economists, which I now perceive Mr. K is not, the answer to that question is a little more subtle and involves the concept of economic decisions being made at the margin, and diminishing returns. Suffice it to say, that even common sense allows us to say that all decisions involve a trade-off between alternative actions. Whatever those trade-offs are, they cannot be as cost-free as the cap-and-traders want us to believe. I really don't know how much solar energy development would costs, but if there would be a great return to low cost efforts in that direction, it seems that we would have a lot more of it now.
If the schemes of the warmies come to fruition, those of us not among the elite architects of the conspiracy, will not like the result. However, if we are so ignorant as to be deceived by the likes to Al Gore and Paul Krugman, then we were literally made to be sold.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Global Warming Non-Debate Continues
There is so much to find fault with in the stance of man-made-global-warming [MMGW] advocates (warmies) that it is astounding that so little notice is taken of those faults. Let me reiterate a few:
1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.
2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.
3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)
4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)
5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)
6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)
7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.
8) contiued
1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.
2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.
3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)
4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)
5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)
6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)
7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.
8) contiued
Friday, November 27, 2009
Global Warming Exposed at Last: Zero Integrity
The hacked emails of the global warming elite (CRU) discuss strategy to hide negative evidence and maintain the global warming scam. So far the only defense they proffer is that the emails were illegally obtained. The emails purportedly are to and from so-called scientists desiring to deceive a gullible populace into believing that global warming is an eminent danger AND is caused by human activity. The purpose: a vehicle for political purposes, one world government, and population control (not to mention their rake-off from the several trillion dollars of redirected (wasted) world resources.) (See examiner .com)
Dr. Tim Ball, much abused global warming denier, has the story. (He is an atmospheric scientist and climate and energy specialist from the University of Winnipeg.) His opinions have long been censured by politicians and so-called scientists.
Will they hide the evidence of the monumental deception plan? They will try.
Dr. Tim Ball, much abused global warming denier, has the story. (He is an atmospheric scientist and climate and energy specialist from the University of Winnipeg.) His opinions have long been censured by politicians and so-called scientists.
Will they hide the evidence of the monumental deception plan? They will try.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lying to Save the Planet
Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Huffington Post Gets It Right Sort Of
Huffington Post's story on this subject:
"Glenn Beck has uncovered a plot! (Yes, another one.) Turns out Van Jones, President Obama’s green jobs czar, is going to coordinate a vast radical/communist/black nationalist takeover of our sweet, virginal land of liberty. Most diabolical of all, he’s going to do it by organizing efforts to train and employ low-income people in private sector jobs. Don’t you understand? They’re going to take over from the inside! You know: them. Admit it, it’s brilliant. Here Beck exposes the cabal of Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, and Big Commie, orchestrated by the many-tentacled Apollo Alliance"
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/
Right on Huffy.
Huffington Post also reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce wants a court trial of Global Warming. That also seems appropriate to me. If the press had given us the promised debate, a trial would not be needed.
Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity could not be proven. Instead he stated three propositions, which if empirically proven, would disprove relativity. He also wrote a book that he said was understandable to anyone with a high school education (at the time), in which he derives and explains his theory. I think that we should demand similar exposition of man made global warming theory before we waste our precious time, manpower, and resources on Cap-and-Trade or any similar scheme.
The books written about global warming for the general public, are 99% devoted to the supposedly dire results of global warming. I suppose a little is also devoted to the claim that CO2 control is the only solutions. I read a book written about atmospheric science that came out in the late 1960. (by John Houghton, Cambridge University.) It was over my head, but I could get the general idea of each chapter without following the mathematical development completely. It was about all of the physical (i.e. scientific) factors that need to be addressed and calculated in the determination of weather and climate. His conclusion regarding human caused global warming via a greenhouse mechanism was that the evidence was inconclusive. We need more books like that with a slightly less mathematical approach. Professor Houghton's recent book on the subject is somewhat dumbed down. It is mainly about conclusions and their ramifications. He talks about the "precautionary principle." He does bring up economics as a consideration. I cannot comment on that without reading a little more. I bought the book recently and I will read it. The earlier book I had checked out of the library a while back and had for only one month. I would recommend the first book and similar ones, although they are scarce compared to the "we are doomed" variety. Professor's Houghton's conclusion in the second book also seems to be that he is not sure if human generated green house gases are a significant determinate of climate. Unfortunately, he devotes most of the book to dire consequences assuming it is true. He does not seem to get into mitigation of those consequences via preparations, etc. HE DOES NOT, nor does anyone else, play devil advocate by giving any kind of evenhanded presentation of alternative theories or mitigation proposals nor does it respond to objections. Remember: the debate is over unless you're a complete dope.
Questions we have not adequately explored:
1) Is there global warming?
2) Is it caused by man?
3) What is the best way to prevent global warming and/or mitigate its affects if it is going on?
"Glenn Beck has uncovered a plot! (Yes, another one.) Turns out Van Jones, President Obama’s green jobs czar, is going to coordinate a vast radical/communist/black nationalist takeover of our sweet, virginal land of liberty. Most diabolical of all, he’s going to do it by organizing efforts to train and employ low-income people in private sector jobs. Don’t you understand? They’re going to take over from the inside! You know: them. Admit it, it’s brilliant. Here Beck exposes the cabal of Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, and Big Commie, orchestrated by the many-tentacled Apollo Alliance"
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/
Right on Huffy.
Huffington Post also reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce wants a court trial of Global Warming. That also seems appropriate to me. If the press had given us the promised debate, a trial would not be needed.
Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity could not be proven. Instead he stated three propositions, which if empirically proven, would disprove relativity. He also wrote a book that he said was understandable to anyone with a high school education (at the time), in which he derives and explains his theory. I think that we should demand similar exposition of man made global warming theory before we waste our precious time, manpower, and resources on Cap-and-Trade or any similar scheme.
The books written about global warming for the general public, are 99% devoted to the supposedly dire results of global warming. I suppose a little is also devoted to the claim that CO2 control is the only solutions. I read a book written about atmospheric science that came out in the late 1960. (by John Houghton, Cambridge University.) It was over my head, but I could get the general idea of each chapter without following the mathematical development completely. It was about all of the physical (i.e. scientific) factors that need to be addressed and calculated in the determination of weather and climate. His conclusion regarding human caused global warming via a greenhouse mechanism was that the evidence was inconclusive. We need more books like that with a slightly less mathematical approach. Professor Houghton's recent book on the subject is somewhat dumbed down. It is mainly about conclusions and their ramifications. He talks about the "precautionary principle." He does bring up economics as a consideration. I cannot comment on that without reading a little more. I bought the book recently and I will read it. The earlier book I had checked out of the library a while back and had for only one month. I would recommend the first book and similar ones, although they are scarce compared to the "we are doomed" variety. Professor's Houghton's conclusion in the second book also seems to be that he is not sure if human generated green house gases are a significant determinate of climate. Unfortunately, he devotes most of the book to dire consequences assuming it is true. He does not seem to get into mitigation of those consequences via preparations, etc. HE DOES NOT, nor does anyone else, play devil advocate by giving any kind of evenhanded presentation of alternative theories or mitigation proposals nor does it respond to objections. Remember: the debate is over unless you're a complete dope.
Questions we have not adequately explored:
1) Is there global warming?
2) Is it caused by man?
3) What is the best way to prevent global warming and/or mitigate its affects if it is going on?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Oil etc.
I have been wonder what the facts and figures are about a few energy issues. I can't believe that most of what I hear or read is true, or if it is, it's by accident. So many people just don't know what they are talking about. I was happy to find a report, which I do not totally agree with, but which has figures based upon sound research and economic reasoning. CNN Money article of yesterday: "Curb oil speculation? Why that's folly!" by Jon Birger, http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/news/economy/oil_prices_speculators.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009072816 cited a link to:
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp177.pdf
(The paper title is: Cost, Conflict and Climate: U.S. challenges in the World Oil Market, Severin Borenstein; June 2008; SSEM WP 177)
1) The author shows that market forces and not speculation were the most plausible cause of last years drastic oil price increases. Basically, since speculators are neither the buyers nor sellers of oil, the prices of future contracts are not artificial. Trades take place on a daily basis at those prices. It would not be practical to hoard the actual oil, which would be necessary to "manipulate" prices. (He gives a detailed and more complete analysis.) The author does not deal with the economic argument for the benefit of speculation, which is basically in providing information to the market, thereby reducing volatility.
2) Although U.S. policies probably cannot reduce world oil prices in the short run, and not much in the long run, we can adopt policies for energy security. These should include: providing a diverse set of energy sources and technologies; vehicle fuel economy improvements (Cash for Clunkers might actually be viewed as helpful in this regard, as it increases the fleet turn-over rate.); and less reliance on petroleum based transportation fuels. Such policies would have the advantage of lowering our transfer of dollars to petroleum producing countries. The author also argues that coal-to-liquid, tar sands, and oil shales could be cost effective if not for global warming. If you don't believe in man made global warming (I DO NOT), those would be desirable technologies also. Also, he believes that nuclear and domestic exploration would not be especially helpful due 1) costs of nuclear, including insurance against accidents and 2) relatively small amounts of known domestic oil. Solar, wind, etc. are not economically viable now but government should spend a lot more on research in these areas.
I believe that all of this could be accomplished by the market without the government. Also nuclear and domestic oil exploration (possibly gas and ethanol also) could make a helpful contribution to domestic wealth generation, a slight world oil price decrease, and domestic security. I also believe that the market, rather than government, can be relied upon to find the best avenues of investment in emerging technologies.
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp177.pdf
(The paper title is: Cost, Conflict and Climate: U.S. challenges in the World Oil Market, Severin Borenstein; June 2008; SSEM WP 177)
1) The author shows that market forces and not speculation were the most plausible cause of last years drastic oil price increases. Basically, since speculators are neither the buyers nor sellers of oil, the prices of future contracts are not artificial. Trades take place on a daily basis at those prices. It would not be practical to hoard the actual oil, which would be necessary to "manipulate" prices. (He gives a detailed and more complete analysis.) The author does not deal with the economic argument for the benefit of speculation, which is basically in providing information to the market, thereby reducing volatility.
2) Although U.S. policies probably cannot reduce world oil prices in the short run, and not much in the long run, we can adopt policies for energy security. These should include: providing a diverse set of energy sources and technologies; vehicle fuel economy improvements (Cash for Clunkers might actually be viewed as helpful in this regard, as it increases the fleet turn-over rate.); and less reliance on petroleum based transportation fuels. Such policies would have the advantage of lowering our transfer of dollars to petroleum producing countries. The author also argues that coal-to-liquid, tar sands, and oil shales could be cost effective if not for global warming. If you don't believe in man made global warming (I DO NOT), those would be desirable technologies also. Also, he believes that nuclear and domestic exploration would not be especially helpful due 1) costs of nuclear, including insurance against accidents and 2) relatively small amounts of known domestic oil. Solar, wind, etc. are not economically viable now but government should spend a lot more on research in these areas.
I believe that all of this could be accomplished by the market without the government. Also nuclear and domestic oil exploration (possibly gas and ethanol also) could make a helpful contribution to domestic wealth generation, a slight world oil price decrease, and domestic security. I also believe that the market, rather than government, can be relied upon to find the best avenues of investment in emerging technologies.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
A Convenient Theory
One of the many comments to this blog directed our attention to an essay:
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/07/10/top_stories/doc4a576b0ec9caa441243158.txt
This is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. Not only does the author demonstrate the irresponsibility of environmentalists who make unfounded predictions of doom, he exposes quite handily the snobbery and elitism of said environmentalists.
It has become clear to me that environmentalists, (at least the growing extremist fringe), hate capitalism. Why it is that they and liberals in general hold this view, given the irrefutable facts of history, is one of the great mysteries of our time. They want to turn back the clock and undue the advances of the modern world. They disguise there plans in a feigned concern for dangers to nature. They get monetary and moral support from some genuine environmentalists. However, to these radical environmentalist, who are actually not environmentalists at all, global warming is the latest and most convenient theory so far to help them with the destruction of capitalism, which is what they actually wanted all along. Thirty years ago, when they foretold the coming man-made ice age, their solution was the same: more and more limitations on industry. Doesn't this raise some suspicions? I guess if you're a mundane journalist with his marching orders who drank the conformist Cool-Aid, you're beyond help. God help us all.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/07/10/top_stories/doc4a576b0ec9caa441243158.txt
This is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. Not only does the author demonstrate the irresponsibility of environmentalists who make unfounded predictions of doom, he exposes quite handily the snobbery and elitism of said environmentalists.
It has become clear to me that environmentalists, (at least the growing extremist fringe), hate capitalism. Why it is that they and liberals in general hold this view, given the irrefutable facts of history, is one of the great mysteries of our time. They want to turn back the clock and undue the advances of the modern world. They disguise there plans in a feigned concern for dangers to nature. They get monetary and moral support from some genuine environmentalists. However, to these radical environmentalist, who are actually not environmentalists at all, global warming is the latest and most convenient theory so far to help them with the destruction of capitalism, which is what they actually wanted all along. Thirty years ago, when they foretold the coming man-made ice age, their solution was the same: more and more limitations on industry. Doesn't this raise some suspicions? I guess if you're a mundane journalist with his marching orders who drank the conformist Cool-Aid, you're beyond help. God help us all.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Cap-and-Trade Revealed
It is becoming clear why the Capitol Hill Mob did not want the global warming bill read or debated. It is a framework for complete control. The various pay-offs that they call credits or off-sets will buy whatever independence is left in the large corporations. As the climate "heats up" the legislation will be in place to tighten up the screws. Just as the propaganda machine was turned against the bond-holders of Chrysler and as GM had to do the bidding of the Party after it took their cash, the corporations will be under the power of the Central Committee once they start to play the cap-and-trade game.
To see how the bill can do this, read the comments on this web site: http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-ways-to-leave-your-freedoms.html , which links to the article, "50 ways to loose your freedom," which lists and explains 50 key provisions of the bill. These two sites do not even go into the fact that Global Warming is not a proven theory or even a plausible theory to begin with. They do explain why, even if there was man-made CO2 global warming on the way, this bill would not solve it. The bill is the power and money grab framework. Once adopted, the demagogues with the help of the press, a pliant congress, an intimidated court, community development organizations (i.e. ACORN), and now the corporate leaders could have their way with us. Why do you think this blog is named what it is?
To see how the bill can do this, read the comments on this web site: http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-ways-to-leave-your-freedoms.html , which links to the article, "50 ways to loose your freedom," which lists and explains 50 key provisions of the bill. These two sites do not even go into the fact that Global Warming is not a proven theory or even a plausible theory to begin with. They do explain why, even if there was man-made CO2 global warming on the way, this bill would not solve it. The bill is the power and money grab framework. Once adopted, the demagogues with the help of the press, a pliant congress, an intimidated court, community development organizations (i.e. ACORN), and now the corporate leaders could have their way with us. Why do you think this blog is named what it is?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Letter to New York Times
They are not accepting further emails regarding the Monday editorial in which Paul Krugman states that global warming deniers are traitors to the planet. I tried to send this:
Believe it or not there is a larger issue here that the global warming debate. The issue is whether we will have a free press. Mr. Krugman called for scientific debate on global warming. Unfortunately, he thought that the debate should have taken place last Friday in the House of Representatives in the few hours before the bill was rammed through. He has had a column in the NY Times for years yet I do not believe he has ever called for debate in that forum. I suggest a series of dueling full pages: an explanation of the CO2 manmade global warming connection and scientific arguments against it. Mr. Krugman might discover that the theory of Al Gore has been thoroughly refuted. But then, the theory of Karl Marx has also been thoroughly refuted and Mr. Krugman has not heard that either.
Believe it or not there is a larger issue here that the global warming debate. The issue is whether we will have a free press. Mr. Krugman called for scientific debate on global warming. Unfortunately, he thought that the debate should have taken place last Friday in the House of Representatives in the few hours before the bill was rammed through. He has had a column in the NY Times for years yet I do not believe he has ever called for debate in that forum. I suggest a series of dueling full pages: an explanation of the CO2 manmade global warming connection and scientific arguments against it. Mr. Krugman might discover that the theory of Al Gore has been thoroughly refuted. But then, the theory of Karl Marx has also been thoroughly refuted and Mr. Krugman has not heard that either.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Environmentalism is a Fake
I enjoy hiking, camping, running, photography, and other outdoor activities. I do not like seeing the natural world degraded. I pick up litter and do not leave any behind. Unfortunately, environmental organizations that I have respected in the past have not been honest and I now distrust any sort of environmentalism. They seem more intent on destructionism that preservation. The global Warming hoax is so outlandish that it at long last exposes them for what they are. Environmentalism is being used to advance socialistic type of control over the national economy. This will destroy the only thing about this country that separates us from the rest of the world: FREEDOM. Freedom is the only thing that I write about in this blog.
Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism
Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.
A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism
Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.
A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Global Warming
Once upon a time there lived a vain Emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes. He changed clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.
Word of the Emperor's refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the Emperor's vanity decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves at the gates of the palace with a scheme in mind.
"We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality."
The chief of the guards heard the scoundrel's strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the incredible news. The Emperor's curiosity got the better of him and he decided to see the two scoundrels.
"Besides being invisible, your Highness, this cloth will be woven in colors and patterns created especially for you." The emperor gave the two men a bag of gold coins in exchange for their promise to begin working on the fabric immediately.
"Just tell us what you need to get started and we'll give it to you." The two scoundrels asked for a loom, silk, gold thread and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor thought he had spent his money quite well: in addition to getting a new extraordinary suit, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.
"Go and see how the work is proceeding," the Emperor told him, "and come back to let me know."
The prime minister was welcomed by the two scoundrels.
"We're almost finished, but we need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the softness!" The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.
"I can't see anything," he thought. "If I see nothing, that means I'm stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!" If the prime minister admitted that he didn't see anything, he would be discharged from his office.
"What a marvelous fabric, he said then. "I'll certainly tell the Emperor." The two scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was requested to finish the work.
Finally, the Emperor received the announcement that the two tailors had come to take all the measurements needed to sew his new suit.
"Come in," the Emperor ordered. Even as they bowed, the two scoundrels pretended to be holding large roll of fabric.
"Here it is your Highness, the result of our labour," the scoundrels said. "We have worked night and day but, at last, the most beautiful fabric in the world is ready for you. Look at the colors and feel how fine it is." Of course the Emperor did not see any colors and could not feel any cloth between his fingers. He panicked and felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the fabric, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent. And the Emperor didn't know that everybody else around him thought and did the very same thing.
The farce continued as the two scoundrels had foreseen it. Once they had taken the measurements, the two began cutting the air with scissors while sewing with their needles an invisible cloth.
"Your Highness, you'll have to take off your clothes to try on your new ones." The two scoundrels draped the new clothes on him and then held up a mirror. The Emperor was embarrassed but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.
"Yes, this is a beautiful suit and it looks very good on me," the Emperor said trying to look comfortable. "You've done a fine job."
"Your Majesty," the prime minister said, "we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new suit." The Emperor was doubtful showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent.
"All right," he said. "I will grant the people this privilege." He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.
Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!"
"What a marvellous train!"
"And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.
A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked," he said.
"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
translation from: http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm
appears to be Public Domain
(Also see: http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)