Mark this day, July 26th, 2005, on your calendar. A New York Times published editorial comment reverses over a decade of lock-step doom and gloom eco-alarm. No, they haven't given up on their push for global warming inspired economic slow growth, but they have finally admitted that there is no science that proves mankind is causing gentle climate warming.
For me it's heartwarming to read this reversal from those who have trumpeted that all the planet's scientists agree we are killing Mother Earth. I've said that we don't know one way or the other. In fact, they say that: It may not be possible to say that this heat wave or the drought that is afflicting Europe has been caused by global warming, especially when some of the records that fell recently were set many years ago. But it is also impossible to say that these temperature extremes are not part of the cumulative human impact on the climate.
This admission isn't much when past abuses of pseudo-science and of political science are compared and contrasted. Yet the Times' editorial board does for once accept the fact that real scientists don't have a clue what human "green house" emissions do to our atmosphere, if anything. Now isn't that a breath of fresh air?
.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Let's See the Science!
After almost 15 years of unchallenged ranting, global warming's most celebrated gurus are now asked to present the scientific evidence. And they are screaming like stuck swine. How can Representative Joe Barton, (R) of Texas, be so disrespectful and insulting by questioning these "Popes" of the secular socialist religious revolution? They feel that Barton is obviously driven by oil interests by demanding to see how your and my tax dollars are spent by these heralded forward knowers.
I thought it is the province of science to doubt and to question and to re-re-re-research anew. For global warming, it's faith that is the coin of the realm. If we don't believe, it's off to the gullag of eco-Fascism. So who are these guys?
Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches in the Department of Meteorology and is Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). He's known for selective interpretations of data by weighting and adjusting it to fit his preselected conclusions.
Michael Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences. His interests are in climate variability and why climate changes, over a wide range of timescales. He did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. He also studies long past climates to predict today's climate by using computer models.
Malcolm Hughes, is a tree ring counter at the University of Arizona. He quickly answered Rep. Barton's letter requesting certain background data and certain qualifications for his participation in global warming conclusions. His letter reads almost like "I wasn't there" and "I was asleep" and "aliens made me do it." It appears that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes put their names on lots of "science" while they don't want to be held accountable for their conclusions.
.
I thought it is the province of science to doubt and to question and to re-re-re-research anew. For global warming, it's faith that is the coin of the realm. If we don't believe, it's off to the gullag of eco-Fascism. So who are these guys?
Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches in the Department of Meteorology and is Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). He's known for selective interpretations of data by weighting and adjusting it to fit his preselected conclusions.
Michael Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences. His interests are in climate variability and why climate changes, over a wide range of timescales. He did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. He also studies long past climates to predict today's climate by using computer models.
Malcolm Hughes, is a tree ring counter at the University of Arizona. He quickly answered Rep. Barton's letter requesting certain background data and certain qualifications for his participation in global warming conclusions. His letter reads almost like "I wasn't there" and "I was asleep" and "aliens made me do it." It appears that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes put their names on lots of "science" while they don't want to be held accountable for their conclusions.
.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
G-8 Global Warming Politics
President Bush arrives at the G-8 meetings in Scotland standing alone among the world's leaders by not joining hands with them on global warming politics. The NY Times, the rag of record for global warming zealots today says that: "Mr. Bush's approach to the environment is one of several topics on which he is at odds with other governments as well as public opinion in much of the world." Of course public opinion is the critical element in that sentence because public opinion is shaped by government propaganda.
It's often breathtaking to follow global warming mission creep from a few isolated facts that are matched with personal feelings and then multiplied by enviro-zealots and political extremists to equate that mankind is just plain bad. That assertion may just be true, but how does that equate to global destruction? It doesn't!
Real scientists still feel that a mini if not maxi ice age is fast developing on the next century's horizon. So higher Co2 in the atmosphere may just allow the oceans to keep it's food chain healthy during the cooling period. That food chain translates into a healthy planet of plants and animals even during centuries of much colder weather.
.
It's often breathtaking to follow global warming mission creep from a few isolated facts that are matched with personal feelings and then multiplied by enviro-zealots and political extremists to equate that mankind is just plain bad. That assertion may just be true, but how does that equate to global destruction? It doesn't!
Real scientists still feel that a mini if not maxi ice age is fast developing on the next century's horizon. So higher Co2 in the atmosphere may just allow the oceans to keep it's food chain healthy during the cooling period. That food chain translates into a healthy planet of plants and animals even during centuries of much colder weather.
.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Energy is Everywhere!
What is it about energy that enviro-politicals find so disgusting? Our healthy planet uses and converts energy everywhere. And mankind functions on the same principles. We create many of our consumer products and our housing and clothing out of organic energy. We eat energy in the form of proteins that animals and plants provide for us. This all seems reasonable and natural.
But then why don't we manage our energy so that it provides the greatest possible productivity for our social fabric? Some say it's because the enviro-political climate is really global warming. There is evidence that the past regulatory and taxing environment is so toxic that it kills much of the possible productivity of natural resources.
One excellent example is "solid waste management," sometimes called urban gold. Few processes are as taxed and regulated as solid waste collection and disposal. There is a major governmental bureaucratic industry built on solid waste activity. We control and tax its collection, its movement, its short-term storage, its recycling, its long-distance transport and its landfilling. I've read that more bureaucrats regulate and tax solid waste than private sector workers collect, transport, and dispose of it. While curb cost can be $500 per ton, actual transport and disposal might only be $100 of it, or often less than 20%.
Government often takes where it can, so this example wouldn't really be important if it didn't disrupt the use and conversion of billions of tons of often pure energy. The United States is THE consumer society. We consume to create by-far the world's highest living standard for even our poor. In fact, consumption by all lowers the costs for big screen TVs and for stereos, and for very low cost cars with 100,000 mile warranties, and for medical procedures, and for almost anything and everything. We consume over 75% of the world's disposable income providing the underpinnings for the world's economy. It won't be long before we create one half of the world's economic activity. Consumption also provides huge opportunities for changing or converting organics back into energy to power our consumption and to power our travel and to light our lights.
Today we in the United States dump and waste trillions of possible kilowatts or hundreds of billions gallons of bio-fuels or alcohols. This takes place because enviro-extremists control the solid waste management processes. As they controlled federal energy policy before the G W Bush administration. Their mantra was conservation rather than more productive use of energy. That is why we have almost $3 per gallon gasoline and up to and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. The regulations and taxes for solid waste management are driven by groups that hate human kind's footprint on earth. They also demand their form of recycling. Which they feel is pure by requiring that wood is used for wood and plastic is kept as plastic and paper must remain paper. No matter how unproductive and often corrupt that strategy.
.
But then why don't we manage our energy so that it provides the greatest possible productivity for our social fabric? Some say it's because the enviro-political climate is really global warming. There is evidence that the past regulatory and taxing environment is so toxic that it kills much of the possible productivity of natural resources.
One excellent example is "solid waste management," sometimes called urban gold. Few processes are as taxed and regulated as solid waste collection and disposal. There is a major governmental bureaucratic industry built on solid waste activity. We control and tax its collection, its movement, its short-term storage, its recycling, its long-distance transport and its landfilling. I've read that more bureaucrats regulate and tax solid waste than private sector workers collect, transport, and dispose of it. While curb cost can be $500 per ton, actual transport and disposal might only be $100 of it, or often less than 20%.
Government often takes where it can, so this example wouldn't really be important if it didn't disrupt the use and conversion of billions of tons of often pure energy. The United States is THE consumer society. We consume to create by-far the world's highest living standard for even our poor. In fact, consumption by all lowers the costs for big screen TVs and for stereos, and for very low cost cars with 100,000 mile warranties, and for medical procedures, and for almost anything and everything. We consume over 75% of the world's disposable income providing the underpinnings for the world's economy. It won't be long before we create one half of the world's economic activity. Consumption also provides huge opportunities for changing or converting organics back into energy to power our consumption and to power our travel and to light our lights.
Today we in the United States dump and waste trillions of possible kilowatts or hundreds of billions gallons of bio-fuels or alcohols. This takes place because enviro-extremists control the solid waste management processes. As they controlled federal energy policy before the G W Bush administration. Their mantra was conservation rather than more productive use of energy. That is why we have almost $3 per gallon gasoline and up to and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. The regulations and taxes for solid waste management are driven by groups that hate human kind's footprint on earth. They also demand their form of recycling. Which they feel is pure by requiring that wood is used for wood and plastic is kept as plastic and paper must remain paper. No matter how unproductive and often corrupt that strategy.
If we could only free solid waste from bureaucratic enslavement and abusive taxing and corrupt contracting with select solid waste processors and haulers. That seems almost impossible today. However, another decade of conservative government will allow honest and productive processes to trickle down to all energy conversion opportunities. Bio-fuels can create ten times the electricity today generated by wind and the sun combined. Free our solid waste so it can free range to a cycle of energy efficiency.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)