---by Micheal
The global warming alarmists try to spook the public lemming herd with tales of dire woe. "If we don't halt global warming, our coastal cities will be inundated." With this as a battle cry, they seek to pry billions of dollars from the lemmings.
First off, they glibly presume that if X Y or Z program to reduce "greenhouse gasses" is funded, that global warming will stop (or reverse). Folly! Here's an example. A study analyzed the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the famed Kyoto protocol (which President Bush is so easily bashed for). The study showed that if all the carbon-based initiatives in the CDM were 100% successful, it would slow the increase of carbon dioxide emissions by 6.5 days. Yes, 6 and a half days.
If nothing were done, the world would achieve a benchmark of accumulated carbon emissions by June 1, 2012. If all of the carbon-based CDM programs were totally successful, the world would achieve that same benchmark on the morning of June 7, 2012. Billions and BILLIONS of dollars to manage carbon emissions and all it buys us is six days? What's the bleepin' point?
And, this all assumes that the globe will continue to warm in proportion to those carbon emissions. This is by no means such a fiat accompli. Resist the green coyotes trying to get you, as a member of the public herd, to stampede. Take a closer look before blindly handing over your money. You can donate all you like, but if it's not going to make any real difference, why do it?
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
6.03.2008
Green Folly: Trying to Hold Back the Sea
---by Micheal
The last of Spencer Reiss's list of green re-thinks, is that the globe is warming, get used to it.
If the globe continues to warm, and glaciers melt, raising sea levels. Yes, this will pose a problem for cities built along the coasts. The problem is not global warming. The globe has warmed and cooled many times before. The real problem is that our civilization, out of smug hubris, opted to build large expensive cities on coastlines. Coastlines, like riverbanks, are ever-changing. So now, we've built our sandcastles near the waves and demand that everyone DO SOMETHING because the tide is coming in. Sheesh.
Many thousands of years ago, when North America was just past the peak of the last ice age, the ocean levels much were lower. The New England coastline was a hundred miles south of Nantucket. The indigenous folks back then probably dug clams along the beaches, much as the Narragansett or Massachusett indians did a few hundred years ago. They'd make up little shelter settlements near the beach. When the sea levels began to rise, they didn't gnash their teeth and rend their garments over having to build another log hut further inland. They just moved inland. They certainly didn't sit around trying to figure out how they could keep the sea from rising. Or, how they could demand that everyone else had to kick in some wampum to fund a government program that would stop the sea. Only WE are dumb enough to do that.
If the rise in global temperatures is going to raise sea levels, then folks need to plan for how they're going to deal with a higher ocean. All this talk of reducing carbon to prevent the seas from rising, is green folly talk. Instead of spending billions to reduce carbon (which really just puts the billions in certain people's hands and does little, if anything, to reduce warming), put those billions into mega-seawalls for NYC, Boston, etc. The whole carbon-management scheme will only LOOK like it's making a difference. The seas will still rise, and the coastal cities will have only pretty printed government reports with which to hold back the sea. Good luck with that.
Only bureaucrats and enviro-liberals think they're more powerful than nature.
The last of Spencer Reiss's list of green re-thinks, is that the globe is warming, get used to it.
If the globe continues to warm, and glaciers melt, raising sea levels. Yes, this will pose a problem for cities built along the coasts. The problem is not global warming. The globe has warmed and cooled many times before. The real problem is that our civilization, out of smug hubris, opted to build large expensive cities on coastlines. Coastlines, like riverbanks, are ever-changing. So now, we've built our sandcastles near the waves and demand that everyone DO SOMETHING because the tide is coming in. Sheesh.
Many thousands of years ago, when North America was just past the peak of the last ice age, the ocean levels much were lower. The New England coastline was a hundred miles south of Nantucket. The indigenous folks back then probably dug clams along the beaches, much as the Narragansett or Massachusett indians did a few hundred years ago. They'd make up little shelter settlements near the beach. When the sea levels began to rise, they didn't gnash their teeth and rend their garments over having to build another log hut further inland. They just moved inland. They certainly didn't sit around trying to figure out how they could keep the sea from rising. Or, how they could demand that everyone else had to kick in some wampum to fund a government program that would stop the sea. Only WE are dumb enough to do that.
If the rise in global temperatures is going to raise sea levels, then folks need to plan for how they're going to deal with a higher ocean. All this talk of reducing carbon to prevent the seas from rising, is green folly talk. Instead of spending billions to reduce carbon (which really just puts the billions in certain people's hands and does little, if anything, to reduce warming), put those billions into mega-seawalls for NYC, Boston, etc. The whole carbon-management scheme will only LOOK like it's making a difference. The seas will still rise, and the coastal cities will have only pretty printed government reports with which to hold back the sea. Good luck with that.
Only bureaucrats and enviro-liberals think they're more powerful than nature.
5.26.2008
Green: Hard to Swallow?
When it comes to energy demands, we're our own worst enemy. One of the "invisible" ways we consume fuels (adding to cost, supply depletion and pollution) is how far our food must be shipped before it gets to us. Grapes from Chile. Oranges from the middle east. Even grain from the Midwest or seafood from the gulf. What we eat has to trucked a long way to get to our tables. We're told by green evangelists to buy local produce instead. But can we?
This phenomenon of long-distance food is really only a hundred and fifty years old, though. Back in the mid 1800s, people mostly ate local -- because they had no choice. New England farmers battled the rocky ground to grow grains. These grains were ground in local mills and baked in local bakeries. Local farms raised cattle and produced milk. These very perishable foodstuffs couldn't travel far without spoiling.
Before refrigeration, people laid up a winter's worth of food. They salted meat butchered in the autumn. They stored away the autumn grain harvest carefully so it could be turned into bread through the dark cold months. If you were doing well, the winter diet of salted meat, bread and some rootstocks would be getting boring by the time spring came. If you were less well off, you were running out of food before the spring grass gave cattle something to eat again (resuming milk production) People got through the winter on a pretty short menu.
Things changed in the mid-1800s when railroads opened up Midwest farms to a larger market. It became cheaper to buy grain from Ohio than to grow it in New Hampshire. Local New Hampshire farmers turned to perishable foods which couldn't come from Ohio (yet). One was dairy (hence the famous Hood dairies of Derry) and apples, (hence the many orchards of Londonderry, etc.)
This trend has gone global. Food comes from all over now. But what if you tried to a good green do-bee? What could you eat that was grown locally? New Hampshire produces about $53 million in dairy, $21 million in livestock, $12 million in veggies and $8 million in apples. Compare this roughly $100 million in food with the $380 million NH grows in "ornamental horticulture". Could New Hampshire live off what we grow? It isn't sounding too likely.
But here's the question for you. Would YOU be willing to lay up a larder of cheeses, some salt beef, a few dried veggies and dried apples, (and bushels of dried flowers) to live on all winter? I don't see many hands being raised. How can we "buy locally" if we're not willing to (a) eat what's grown locally or (b) grow locally what we want to eat?
It's easy to preach green. It's a lot harder to put your mouth where you dogma is.
This phenomenon of long-distance food is really only a hundred and fifty years old, though. Back in the mid 1800s, people mostly ate local -- because they had no choice. New England farmers battled the rocky ground to grow grains. These grains were ground in local mills and baked in local bakeries. Local farms raised cattle and produced milk. These very perishable foodstuffs couldn't travel far without spoiling.
Before refrigeration, people laid up a winter's worth of food. They salted meat butchered in the autumn. They stored away the autumn grain harvest carefully so it could be turned into bread through the dark cold months. If you were doing well, the winter diet of salted meat, bread and some rootstocks would be getting boring by the time spring came. If you were less well off, you were running out of food before the spring grass gave cattle something to eat again (resuming milk production) People got through the winter on a pretty short menu.
Things changed in the mid-1800s when railroads opened up Midwest farms to a larger market. It became cheaper to buy grain from Ohio than to grow it in New Hampshire. Local New Hampshire farmers turned to perishable foods which couldn't come from Ohio (yet). One was dairy (hence the famous Hood dairies of Derry) and apples, (hence the many orchards of Londonderry, etc.)
This trend has gone global. Food comes from all over now. But what if you tried to a good green do-bee? What could you eat that was grown locally? New Hampshire produces about $53 million in dairy, $21 million in livestock, $12 million in veggies and $8 million in apples. Compare this roughly $100 million in food with the $380 million NH grows in "ornamental horticulture". Could New Hampshire live off what we grow? It isn't sounding too likely.
But here's the question for you. Would YOU be willing to lay up a larder of cheeses, some salt beef, a few dried veggies and dried apples, (and bushels of dried flowers) to live on all winter? I don't see many hands being raised. How can we "buy locally" if we're not willing to (a) eat what's grown locally or (b) grow locally what we want to eat?
It's easy to preach green. It's a lot harder to put your mouth where you dogma is.
5.24.2008
Cutting Wood, Being Green
For the past couple of weeks, I've been cutting up trees to burn as heating fuel next winter. It turns out I'm doing a "good" thing, as far as trendy environmentalism goes. (Not that I was trying to, mind you)
As it turns out, trees are only a temporary solution to carbon dioxide. Sure, they absorb CO2 while alive and growing, but when they die and rot, they give it all back to the atmosphere. All that "green" piety of buying indulgences for your SUV by planting trees, is a crock. Your "carbon offset" is only a loan, at best. It's like saying my family budget is "neutral", but I'm using my credit card to make up for the income I don't have. That pigeon will come home to roost eventually.
Trees do help absorb CO2 while their alive, but dead, they're a liability. This hurts the time-honored "green" mantra of saving old growth forests at all costs. Not that we should then cut them all down. Rather, we need to see that there is give AND take. Dead or nearly dead old growth would (from the greenhouse gases point of view) be better off cut into lumber or burned as fuel.
Actually, burning wood releases less carbon than rotting wood does. Who'd have thought? While I've not found useful figures on the amount of CO2 released by a cord of wood vs 100 gallons of fuel oil, it's a sure bet that burning the oil AND letting the wood rot is a double whammy.
To tell you the truth, I really didn't care about reducing my CO2 "footprint". (such a trendy gimmick) I'm laying up a winter's worth of wood because I can scarcely afford heating oil. I suppose I feel less guilt. Actually, I think I feel a little relieved that the enviro-activists won't be screeching at me when I'm just trying to keep my family marginally warm this winter.
As it turns out, trees are only a temporary solution to carbon dioxide. Sure, they absorb CO2 while alive and growing, but when they die and rot, they give it all back to the atmosphere. All that "green" piety of buying indulgences for your SUV by planting trees, is a crock. Your "carbon offset" is only a loan, at best. It's like saying my family budget is "neutral", but I'm using my credit card to make up for the income I don't have. That pigeon will come home to roost eventually.
Trees do help absorb CO2 while their alive, but dead, they're a liability. This hurts the time-honored "green" mantra of saving old growth forests at all costs. Not that we should then cut them all down. Rather, we need to see that there is give AND take. Dead or nearly dead old growth would (from the greenhouse gases point of view) be better off cut into lumber or burned as fuel.
Actually, burning wood releases less carbon than rotting wood does. Who'd have thought? While I've not found useful figures on the amount of CO2 released by a cord of wood vs 100 gallons of fuel oil, it's a sure bet that burning the oil AND letting the wood rot is a double whammy.
To tell you the truth, I really didn't care about reducing my CO2 "footprint". (such a trendy gimmick) I'm laying up a winter's worth of wood because I can scarcely afford heating oil. I suppose I feel less guilt. Actually, I think I feel a little relieved that the enviro-activists won't be screeching at me when I'm just trying to keep my family marginally warm this winter.
5.23.2008
Green Dilemma: Food or Fuel?
---by Micheal
Another example of not getting to have our cake and eat it too, is the problem of biofuels and food. Yes, converting from non-renewable crude oil to bio-fuels has merits, but as we're discovering, to simply divert a big chunk of agricultural resources to fuel means a decrease in food for an already hungry world.
A quick look at basic statistics shows the problem. There are 6.6 billion people in the world. There are about 7.7 billion arable acres in the world. That's only a little over an acre of farm land per person. In pre-industrial times, it took around 4 acres to grow food to sustain one person. Industrial farming has dramatically improved that ratio, but it can only be pushed so far. Factor in how yields vary from year to year and not all land remains equally productive, and you can see how we're already living on the edge.
To take a chunk of that 1 acre per person out to raise bio-fuels pushes things to the brink. Biofuels are not a simple answer.
Another example of the food vs fuel conundrum shows up in Spiess's first green counterinutitive: Live in large cities. Living in very dense clusters (on the order of Manhattan) will free up once-sprawled land, but it only adds to the problem of bringing food to all those millions living in the concrete canyons. Their food must by hauled in to them. That takes more fuel. You gain some land, but increase fuel requirements. Dense urbanization helps one problem, but generates another.
There are no simple easy answers. Beware who say there are. They're either naive, or after your wallet.
Another example of not getting to have our cake and eat it too, is the problem of biofuels and food. Yes, converting from non-renewable crude oil to bio-fuels has merits, but as we're discovering, to simply divert a big chunk of agricultural resources to fuel means a decrease in food for an already hungry world.
A quick look at basic statistics shows the problem. There are 6.6 billion people in the world. There are about 7.7 billion arable acres in the world. That's only a little over an acre of farm land per person. In pre-industrial times, it took around 4 acres to grow food to sustain one person. Industrial farming has dramatically improved that ratio, but it can only be pushed so far. Factor in how yields vary from year to year and not all land remains equally productive, and you can see how we're already living on the edge.
To take a chunk of that 1 acre per person out to raise bio-fuels pushes things to the brink. Biofuels are not a simple answer.
Another example of the food vs fuel conundrum shows up in Spiess's first green counterinutitive: Live in large cities. Living in very dense clusters (on the order of Manhattan) will free up once-sprawled land, but it only adds to the problem of bringing food to all those millions living in the concrete canyons. Their food must by hauled in to them. That takes more fuel. You gain some land, but increase fuel requirements. Dense urbanization helps one problem, but generates another.
There are no simple easy answers. Beware who say there are. They're either naive, or after your wallet.
5.22.2008
Blissful Green Ignorance. Ten Ways to Be Wrong
---by Micheal
Crowds love quick answers. They don't have to be correct answers, mind you. They just have to be easy to remember and assimilate. The currently trendy "green" wave running through our culture is a perfect example. So many people swell with genuine zeal to "save the planet", yet charge off half-cocked to subdue mere windmills. In reality, they're doing virtually no good (beyond feeling good.)
A fine spotlight on this Pointlessly Green phenomenon was highlighted in a recent article in Wired magazine: Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What it Means to Be Green.. Author Spencer Reiss lists off ten counterintuitive (for crowd-think) truths about the environment.
1. Live in Cities: Stacking us up in urban density is easier on the rest of the planet
2. A/C is OK: It uses less energy to cool a home than heat one. Move south.
3. Organics Hurt: Organic crops and meats actually produce more greenhouse gases.
4. Farm Old Growth Forests: Old trees absorb less CO2 than young growing ones.
5. China is the Solution: Whatever that many people do, will matter a lot.
6. Accept Genetic Engineering: Tweaked crops and animals can require less energy.
7. Carbon Trading Doesn't Work: It's a shell game.
8. Embrace Nukes: Like 'em or not, they produce tons of power without CO2
9. Used Cars, Not Hybrids: Hybrids require lots more energy to make. Go used.
10. Prepare for the Worst: The planet is warming. Deal with it.
Most of these reveal how complex the world actually is. We can't simply adopt one "wonder" solution (such as avoiding nuclear waste) and ride off into the sunset. Each choice has ramifications which need to be weighed.
Are we really open to the personal changes required of "reducing our carbon footprint"? (which is the trendy noble thing to pretend to want to do) Are you willing to sell your suburban house and take an apartment downtown? Are you willing to give up your car? Are you willing to eat whatever's best for the planet and not what you want?
A couple of Reiss's points were interesting food for thought. More on those in later posts.
Crowds love quick answers. They don't have to be correct answers, mind you. They just have to be easy to remember and assimilate. The currently trendy "green" wave running through our culture is a perfect example. So many people swell with genuine zeal to "save the planet", yet charge off half-cocked to subdue mere windmills. In reality, they're doing virtually no good (beyond feeling good.)
A fine spotlight on this Pointlessly Green phenomenon was highlighted in a recent article in Wired magazine: Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What it Means to Be Green.. Author Spencer Reiss lists off ten counterintuitive (for crowd-think) truths about the environment.
1. Live in Cities: Stacking us up in urban density is easier on the rest of the planet
2. A/C is OK: It uses less energy to cool a home than heat one. Move south.
3. Organics Hurt: Organic crops and meats actually produce more greenhouse gases.
4. Farm Old Growth Forests: Old trees absorb less CO2 than young growing ones.
5. China is the Solution: Whatever that many people do, will matter a lot.
6. Accept Genetic Engineering: Tweaked crops and animals can require less energy.
7. Carbon Trading Doesn't Work: It's a shell game.
8. Embrace Nukes: Like 'em or not, they produce tons of power without CO2
9. Used Cars, Not Hybrids: Hybrids require lots more energy to make. Go used.
10. Prepare for the Worst: The planet is warming. Deal with it.
Most of these reveal how complex the world actually is. We can't simply adopt one "wonder" solution (such as avoiding nuclear waste) and ride off into the sunset. Each choice has ramifications which need to be weighed.
Are we really open to the personal changes required of "reducing our carbon footprint"? (which is the trendy noble thing to pretend to want to do) Are you willing to sell your suburban house and take an apartment downtown? Are you willing to give up your car? Are you willing to eat whatever's best for the planet and not what you want?
A couple of Reiss's points were interesting food for thought. More on those in later posts.
12.19.2007
Winter: Not dead yet
---by Micheal
One of my favorite scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, is the spoof on the Black Plague. For those of you not as intimately familiar with the movie, this is where Eric Idle is pushing a cart of "bodies" through the muddy village streets calling out "Bring out yer dead!" At this call, John Cleese comes out with an old man over his shoulder. "Got one for you." At this, the old man says, "But I'm not dead." Cleese scolds the old man. "Oh shut up. You will be in a minute." The old man protests again. "I'm feeling bettah. I think I'll go for a walk..." Cleese scolds again, "You're not fooling anyone..."
I was thinking of this scene when I was snow blowing off my driveway -- again -- after last Sunday's snow storm. Last year, we had no snow until late January. People who promote the dire scenario of global warming were quick to point to 2007's brown January as proof of doom to come. (Though I'm not sure how not having to snow-blow figures into doom.) This winter, we've got 17 inches of snow on the back deck, and it's not even officially winter yet.
This year, it's like winter, slung over shoulder of the global warming alarmists, is protesting, "But, I'm not dead." The alarmists are probably parroting Cleese by saying "You're not fooling anyone." But, to my eye, winter seems particularly healthy this year. Not at all ready for the "dead" cart of climate doom.
I know some of my snow-hating friends won't appreciate this, but I'm kind of glad to see the snow. Oh sure, it's not fun to drive in, but NOT leaving myself 5 minutes to get someplace and driving 100 miles per hour seems to have mitigated that problem. On the plus side, my raspberry bushes and perennials have a nice insulating layer of snow on them, so the frost won't kill the roots. And, the landscape looks Currier & Ives picturesque. We're getting the much sung-about white Christmas! The kid in me thinks that's pretty cool.
I think it's nice to see a good ol' fashioned winter again. But you know, if things do warm up over the years to where snowy winters live only in grandpa stories, that's okay too. I'll try my hand at growing oranges. Change need not automatically be bad.
However, I won't spend any time worrying over where I'll plant those orange trees. Winter has reminded us all that he's not quite dead yet.
One of my favorite scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, is the spoof on the Black Plague. For those of you not as intimately familiar with the movie, this is where Eric Idle is pushing a cart of "bodies" through the muddy village streets calling out "Bring out yer dead!" At this call, John Cleese comes out with an old man over his shoulder. "Got one for you." At this, the old man says, "But I'm not dead." Cleese scolds the old man. "Oh shut up. You will be in a minute." The old man protests again. "I'm feeling bettah. I think I'll go for a walk..." Cleese scolds again, "You're not fooling anyone..."
I was thinking of this scene when I was snow blowing off my driveway -- again -- after last Sunday's snow storm. Last year, we had no snow until late January. People who promote the dire scenario of global warming were quick to point to 2007's brown January as proof of doom to come. (Though I'm not sure how not having to snow-blow figures into doom.) This winter, we've got 17 inches of snow on the back deck, and it's not even officially winter yet.
This year, it's like winter, slung over shoulder of the global warming alarmists, is protesting, "But, I'm not dead." The alarmists are probably parroting Cleese by saying "You're not fooling anyone." But, to my eye, winter seems particularly healthy this year. Not at all ready for the "dead" cart of climate doom.
I know some of my snow-hating friends won't appreciate this, but I'm kind of glad to see the snow. Oh sure, it's not fun to drive in, but NOT leaving myself 5 minutes to get someplace and driving 100 miles per hour seems to have mitigated that problem. On the plus side, my raspberry bushes and perennials have a nice insulating layer of snow on them, so the frost won't kill the roots. And, the landscape looks Currier & Ives picturesque. We're getting the much sung-about white Christmas! The kid in me thinks that's pretty cool.
I think it's nice to see a good ol' fashioned winter again. But you know, if things do warm up over the years to where snowy winters live only in grandpa stories, that's okay too. I'll try my hand at growing oranges. Change need not automatically be bad.
However, I won't spend any time worrying over where I'll plant those orange trees. Winter has reminded us all that he's not quite dead yet.
12.02.2007
Carbon and the lynch mob
---by Micheal
The mob is all worked up. The rabble rousers preach from their soap boxes about impending ruin unless "someone does something." The mob wants to lynch someone, anyone, to avert the prophesied ruin. The soapboxers point at carbon. "There he is! Get him!" Everyone takes off with torches and pitchforks in hand. The hunt for the villain d'jour begins.
When did Carbon start wearing a black hat? When I was in school, Carbon was just a humble element on the periodic table, Atomic number 6, stable with 4 outer electrons, etc.. The stuff of graphite and organic molecules. Now, carbon is THE demon which threatens to kill us all. Who'da thunk? He seems like a nice quiet guy, as they always say.
Lynching poor carbon is a fairly recent phenomenon, but a highly suspect one too, judging from the bandwagon rhetoric. The populist theory to explain global warming is to blame "greenhouse gases." Despite the media fiat declaring all scientific debate ended on the matter, there are quite a few scientists who think the warming is due to other factors, not carbon. (The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, and Mars is a very very cold place.)
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, points out that global temperatures started rising around 1880 before carbon dioxide levels increased. How did carbon manage that? Like many lynch mobs, they may be stringing up the wrong guy, but that hasn't usually bothered lynch mobs much. They're upset, so someone must pay. Doesn't matter who.
Carbon has become the latest nasty thing which the environmentally pious ostentatiously remove from their lives, much like red dye or animal-tested products or transfats used to be. Now to be fashionably correct, one must be "carbon-neutral" or be striving to reduce one's "carbon footprint." Like poor ol' carbon is a toxin. I'm all for reducing oil use, material consumption and increasing recycling, but I'm not buying all this self-righteous gush about halting global weather changes by doing driving a hybrid. Hogwash.
You just watch. This rush to lynch poor carbon will result in a flurry of "new" products touting their "low-carbon" this or "carbon-neutral" that. Of course, Low Carbon Super Ultra Regular Bleach will be the exact same product it was before it was "low-carbon", but that won't matter. Flocks of well-meaning, but woefully uniformed people will plunk down buckets of dollars for all these scam products thinking that they're making a difference. It won't make one whit of difference.
You're certainly free to buy Carbon-Lite toaster pastries or Low-Carbon Latte, but if you think you're somehow saving the world through pious consumerism, you're not. You're just making some hucksters rich.
The mob is all worked up. The rabble rousers preach from their soap boxes about impending ruin unless "someone does something." The mob wants to lynch someone, anyone, to avert the prophesied ruin. The soapboxers point at carbon. "There he is! Get him!" Everyone takes off with torches and pitchforks in hand. The hunt for the villain d'jour begins.
When did Carbon start wearing a black hat? When I was in school, Carbon was just a humble element on the periodic table, Atomic number 6, stable with 4 outer electrons, etc.. The stuff of graphite and organic molecules. Now, carbon is THE demon which threatens to kill us all. Who'da thunk? He seems like a nice quiet guy, as they always say.
Lynching poor carbon is a fairly recent phenomenon, but a highly suspect one too, judging from the bandwagon rhetoric. The populist theory to explain global warming is to blame "greenhouse gases." Despite the media fiat declaring all scientific debate ended on the matter, there are quite a few scientists who think the warming is due to other factors, not carbon. (The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, and Mars is a very very cold place.)
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, points out that global temperatures started rising around 1880 before carbon dioxide levels increased. How did carbon manage that? Like many lynch mobs, they may be stringing up the wrong guy, but that hasn't usually bothered lynch mobs much. They're upset, so someone must pay. Doesn't matter who.
Carbon has become the latest nasty thing which the environmentally pious ostentatiously remove from their lives, much like red dye or animal-tested products or transfats used to be. Now to be fashionably correct, one must be "carbon-neutral" or be striving to reduce one's "carbon footprint." Like poor ol' carbon is a toxin. I'm all for reducing oil use, material consumption and increasing recycling, but I'm not buying all this self-righteous gush about halting global weather changes by doing driving a hybrid. Hogwash.
You just watch. This rush to lynch poor carbon will result in a flurry of "new" products touting their "low-carbon" this or "carbon-neutral" that. Of course, Low Carbon Super Ultra Regular Bleach will be the exact same product it was before it was "low-carbon", but that won't matter. Flocks of well-meaning, but woefully uniformed people will plunk down buckets of dollars for all these scam products thinking that they're making a difference. It won't make one whit of difference.
You're certainly free to buy Carbon-Lite toaster pastries or Low-Carbon Latte, but if you think you're somehow saving the world through pious consumerism, you're not. You're just making some hucksters rich.
11.27.2007
Who promised steady temperatures?
---by Micheal
I can't turn on a radio or a TV these days without being harangued about global warming. Scientists on both sides of the issue argue back and forth. That's not unusual. Scientists are always doing that. What sends up scam-warning flags for ME is all the non-scientist hype trying to stampede me into paying for just about anything the scammers can think of.
Remember back in 1998 and 99? The world was doomed because of Y2K. Everybody and his uncle told us to throw our money at the problem. Only massive spending would stave off the collapse of civilization. Buy a generator. Buy gold coins. Buy guns. Fund this. Fund that. Quick, they said. Spend spend spend. Only YOU parting with your cash will save the world!
Remember all that hype? This global warming hype has very much the same sound to it.
My latest scam flag went up when listening the (Democrat) mayor of Austin Texas lecturing people about global warming. As an ersatz Al Gore, he does power point presentations. During it, he says, "It's not supposed to be 120 degrees in Fargo North Dakota."
Huh? Who mandated what temperatures towns are "supposed" to have? Even the scientists who argue about global warming agree that the earth has been warmer and cooler in its past. Why do people so automatically assume that whatever temperatures a city had in 1940 are what it's "supposed" to have -- forever? The world was warmer than it is now, during the Medieval Warm Period. I'll bet that spot along the Red River, which would someday become Fargo, had lots of days over 120 degrees.
Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, caught a load of flack last May when he questioned this unspoken orthodoxy of global stasis. "I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right there today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Who said Fargo is "not supposed" to have a summer day reach 120 degrees? Why is the 100 degree day the ideal? Fargoians might not like 120, but who granted them (or anyone) the right to whatever climate they prefer? This allusion to some phantom standard which NO ONE actually made, is a major scam flag.
Anyone who is rushing you to spend money so that this place or that can be guaranteed a changeless climate is scamming you. Watch your wallet.
I can't turn on a radio or a TV these days without being harangued about global warming. Scientists on both sides of the issue argue back and forth. That's not unusual. Scientists are always doing that. What sends up scam-warning flags for ME is all the non-scientist hype trying to stampede me into paying for just about anything the scammers can think of.
Remember back in 1998 and 99? The world was doomed because of Y2K. Everybody and his uncle told us to throw our money at the problem. Only massive spending would stave off the collapse of civilization. Buy a generator. Buy gold coins. Buy guns. Fund this. Fund that. Quick, they said. Spend spend spend. Only YOU parting with your cash will save the world!
Remember all that hype? This global warming hype has very much the same sound to it.
My latest scam flag went up when listening the (Democrat) mayor of Austin Texas lecturing people about global warming. As an ersatz Al Gore, he does power point presentations. During it, he says, "It's not supposed to be 120 degrees in Fargo North Dakota."
Huh? Who mandated what temperatures towns are "supposed" to have? Even the scientists who argue about global warming agree that the earth has been warmer and cooler in its past. Why do people so automatically assume that whatever temperatures a city had in 1940 are what it's "supposed" to have -- forever? The world was warmer than it is now, during the Medieval Warm Period. I'll bet that spot along the Red River, which would someday become Fargo, had lots of days over 120 degrees.
Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, caught a load of flack last May when he questioned this unspoken orthodoxy of global stasis. "I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right there today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Who said Fargo is "not supposed" to have a summer day reach 120 degrees? Why is the 100 degree day the ideal? Fargoians might not like 120, but who granted them (or anyone) the right to whatever climate they prefer? This allusion to some phantom standard which NO ONE actually made, is a major scam flag.
Anyone who is rushing you to spend money so that this place or that can be guaranteed a changeless climate is scamming you. Watch your wallet.
10.01.2007
The Carbon Hustle
-- by Micheal
I know I've been a little preoccupied lately, so I've not followed the Carbon story very closely. There's been firewood to get split and stacked for winter, and the last of the tomatoes to get in before frost. For whichever reason, I've not been following the Carbon Causes Global Warming story as closely as others have been. This might actually be a good thing, though. Sometimes it helps to come in half way through the show. Doing so avoids clouds of back story confusion. I'll give you an example.Years ago, I annoyed my mother in law by walking up behind her while she was watching one of her favorite Soaps. Not knowing any better, I proceeded to identify the characters (by type). "Oh, she's the floosie, she's the perpetual victim, he's the shallow-minded cheater," etc. She argued that I only saw 10 minutes of the show. How could I possibly know anything? She's been watching it for years, knowing all the characters' back stories, etc.
Was I wrong, I asked? She didn't want to admit it, but had to confess that my assessments were right. All her years of watching had only clouded her judgement. "Poor little Jessica" was abused as a child, or never really recovered from so-and-so's suicide, blah blah blah. Whatever. She was mean-spirited busybody. I could see that in a matter of minutes. All that back story stuff was just a distraction.
I feel the same with this Carbon story. I look up from my firewood stacking and it seems everyone around me (mostly Democratic candidates) are hawking the idea that Carbon emissions are the 11th plague which is going to ruin the world. What strikes me odd, is what people are pushing as the solution: Sell Carbon Credits.
Any time spending money is a proposed solution to a problem, I'm instantly suspicious. At bit of looking into it doesn't help. Big carbon producers can "buy" a lesser polluter's cleanness? How in blazes does this help? The greater polluter didn't pollute less. He just paid money. The pollution remained the same. Talk about vaporware. Now the lack of carbon has become a commodity that can be bought and sold. Factories buying the nothing which another factory did not make? Factories "selling" their nothings as if they were a commodity? Doesn't this strike anyone as bizarre? This sounds exactly like farm subsidies, which I've been told is a bad thing.
The other thing that strikes me a little odd, is that everyone is harping on Carbon. Why? A little online research tells me that 72% of greenhouse gas emissions are carbondioxide (mostly from power plants), with 18% being methane -- almost all of that from the agricultural sector. (i.e. Cows) Since methane is 20 to 60 times as powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbondioxide, that means that methane outweighs carbon something like 7 to 1. Why are we fussing over carbon so much? Why isn't everyone bellyaching about Methane Credits? Why is there no Democratic candidate pounding the podium for burpless cows?
Why? Because there's no money in cow bellies. You can't negotiate with a cow to burp less so you can drive your SUV the same as you always have. No. The money is in the hands of wealthy industrialists. They generate carbon. So? go after the money.
This whole Carbon emissions thing is starting to smell like one giant hustle. An elaborate scam to transfer money from wealthy industrialists to less wealthy ones. The world (warmer or not) goes on unaffected. Maybe my many years of listening to politicians and demagogues has made me cynical. But as soon as they start talking about spending money (usually MY money) to solve their problem d'jour, I instantly don't believe them. It smells like a hustle to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)