What me worry?

I know some of this gets to be old hat, but unlike a large percentage of the populous I like the idea of a balanced budget (I'll give Clinton some credit here- he knew how to balance a budget- he even paid off a bit of the debt) but that seems oh so long ago. It sounds strange but there was a time where the government debated where they should put the money that was surplus. How far away we are from that. Further what happened? Bush drove me crazy with his excessive spending- much of it to fund a war nobody wants anything to do with now; but Mr. Obama spends like money appears the faster you spend it. In case you were curious:
So what does this mean? Well with interest rates where they are and spending like it is something has to give. Either more taxes (cap and trade is the first of these 'sneaky' taxes) or hyper inflation- which with this kind of deficit spending is possible. As soon as people stop buying our dollars look out....

Now I will put into practice what I think... we just agreed to buy a house

Quick Note

I don't like to always rehash the same ideas but I felt this lends some credence to what I mentioned the other week. Listening to the news this morning there is a bill in the Senate which will reduce carbon emissions by essentially capping output and making it possible to buy and sell carbon output. During a 2 minute spot on the morning news (radio) the phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' were bandied about like they were the same thing. That is very scary. If the very people proposing this vote do not understand the difference between global warming and climate change; the very bill is made laughable- or scary.

Ultimately (again) it will be citizens who pay for this- as this will increase costs of goods as more expensive measures are put in to curb the emissions. While this undoubtedly is better for the environment it is at what cost and what effect? Further is it the right time? With unemployment going over 10% is it really time to tax the people (indirectly) more? I would be inclined to say no.

A novel way to look at a rigged election

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html

Very interesting and clever article.


Solidarity worked in Poland, the Iranian situation is very unique; with such a young population they have the numbers if not the way yet to change their society. Yet the sight of all those people marching in protest was truly inspiring. Efforts which if I may say in the face of an oppressive and ruthless group are all the more commendable. My thoughts go with them and so too my praise.

Final thoughts

Contrary to what the first two blogs may have inferred about my personal stance, I think that global climate change, pollution, and conservation are extremely important. In my mind there is no question that our consistent burning of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are not good for the earth, and we should do what we can to limit it. The same with preserving our natural parks and wildlife. The questions that I wish to raise is that these doomsday scenarios and fear mongering about environment are jeopardizing the balances in other aspects of our lives, and are biasing our population to the point that soon we will have a populous that is unwilling to listen or question the issue of climate change.

Ethanol, once touted as the environmental solution to fuel/gasoline use in the world has instead increased corn prices to levels never seen. Food prices have risen as a results; corn for feed has gone up, farmers have forgone wheat fields to plant corn because of higher prices and bread prices have gone up. As a result millions in Africa have been extremely malnourished and starving because of ethanol production. A few years later dairy farmers are selling dairy cows for slaughter as milk prices with deflation have dropped but feed is still expensive and they can't afford low-production cows; even then it is predicted many farms won't make it through the year. The world food bank chief called it(ethanol) essentially the greatest disaster of the past 50 years.

The fact is that models are just models and therefore do not guarantee anything; they can be compared to current data and track backward but the starting points and parameters are all variables that can seriously change the projections. Satellite imagery of the globe from space has been used to measure temperature for the past 30 years or so has measured average global temperature has actually decreased .2 degrees C. Contrary to that data however is ground based measurements which say there was an increase of around 1.7. Again the debate goes two ways. And that is my point. Data can say whatever we want it to and therefore climate change needs to be a debate; not a one sided discussion. The same can be said for the 'irrefutable' link between CO2 emissions and global warming. The chart for the past 150 years shows both increases in CO2 and temperature rise averaged upward. Yet a lawyer would zoom in on the date to argue this point; a 20 year stretch where CO2 rose rapidly even (late 60's to early 80's) yet temperatures dropped significantly every year for that time period. So much so there was some panic that the earth was actually entering a mini-ice age!

So how quickly we forget and move on to the next panic. I would encourage everyone to read what they can from the far sides of both of the arguments; the truth will be somewhere in between. I for one will attempt to see Al Gore's movie; to see his arguments/beliefs, but doubt I will come away from it changed. The earth has been here a while, it will continue to be here a while, change is nature; that is evolution. To 'preserve' nature is against nature itself, we as humans cannot preserve (ie prevent change) we are only changing something else. Its an interesting train of thought.

What is Global Warming?

So I continue on my personal crusade to provide thought to people on the misconceptions of global warming, so what is it exactly?

It is a theory. Nothing more. It gained significant traction when James Hansen of the Goddard Space Center said before a senate committee that he believed that the beginning of human influence on the warming of the globe Hansen stated that "global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect." To support of his conclusions, Hansen declared that 1988 would be the warmest year on record, barring any "remarkable and improbable" cooling. As it happened to be a very warm winter before and a hot summer these conclusions were lapped up by the press and populous.

The common school of thought which you will hear if you ask "What is global warming?" is "the the world is warming due to Carbon Emissions in the atmosphere." Note the lack of any note that it is a theory, note also the blanket nature of this statement, certainly not in any way a tangible measuring stick, not scientific discussion on the theory itself (and its glaring deficiencies). When I thought about this fact it was a bit disturbing; science should be taken on fact and data; not blanket statements. Further yet if you follow it up with what is the most prevalent greenhouse gas? you will probably hear CO2. Which it is not. But that is only the first of the misconceptions.

In my opinion there is not nearly enough material out there that properly challenges or stimulates society enough the the complexities of global climate change. Because the fact is we know very little; and what we do know seems scarily misplaced in many ways. I'll leave these two tidbits; If global warming is considered a worldwide phenomenon, then all places on the globe should detect a rise in temperature; in fact there are places where temperature has risen over 200 years; less than 50 miles from places that show no temperature rise in 200 years. (Example here is NYC and West Point) Then is the warming due to the concrete jungle and population increasing warming the localized area rather than a global phenomenon? Second the favored fear tactic is that Antarctica is melting; the truth is the continent has been in a melting trend for 6000 years; in fact the larger part of Antarctica has actually shown a DECREASE in snow pack melt over the past 40 years. Again I think the public deserves to hear the full story.

What do you think?

The Blog Returns!

After a nice vacation in North Carolina, and another week away from the blog I feel all motivated to start spewing my nonsense again.

This weeks topic; the greatest lie ever told: aka 'Global Warming'
I read the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton during my vacation, and if you think you know what global warming is and know it to be categorically scientific fact and follow Al Gore in predicting that the world is coming to an end; well you just need to read this book. Read it now.

For me I had always assumed that global warming was real, I BELIEVED in it; its touted EVERYWHERE the media has embraced it as a truth and uses it so often it is commonplace. 'Scientists' I use the term lightly are pulled in to speak on the great terrors of global warming; I question them over the aftwerward in the book. Everyone, and thats me included I guess has an agenda. Look at what these people have based their research on- and then see if they find it. The only true and truly unbiased research is in Dave's favorite field; pharmacudicals and medical processes. Why? because these experiments are double blinds meaning the people actually administering the tests don't know what they are looking for. (Its really the only safe way of validating a drug or processes effectiveness, during a clinical trial) Fast forward- scientists touting global warming and doomsday scenarios are 'researching' themselves and basically know what outcome they want to support their thesis or theories. If their 'research' or theories look 'true' according to their 'data' they get a post on a TV news show and get to sell a book or go after a company for damages due to global warming on the environment. And our society grants them that power with open arms; because we are a society that loves to fear, and loves to profit from it.

In fact it is frightening that it somehow has become a universal truth 'everyone' from adults to children 'know' what global warming is. The sad truth is that I would think less than 1 in a thousand know anything substantial, and the so called 'facts' and 'graphs' and 'evidence' are so manufactured that its not even close to being grounds for anything; much less a global catastrophe.

During this week I will present some actual facts, and hopefully open a mind or two. This book changed my thinking to the degree I am almost angry about it. I really think it should be mandatory for people. Its not fair that we only see what the media wants us to.