This is my second post of the day, but I feel compelled to comment on an article on the above subject that appears in the June 08 edition of Scientific American. As I have said in earlier posts I am a regular reader of SciAm and generally find it a very informative and accurate source of current scientific findings and trends. On the issue of global warming, unfortunately, the editors have drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid.
The subject article is a case in point. The fundamental flaw with the entire piece is that it is based on the a priori assumption that climate change or global warming is caused by human activity. Ergo humans have an ethical responsibility to do something about it.
The problem is of course that the presumption is most likely not true. In fact contrary to the often stated "fact" of a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming, in a recently released survey by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 31,072 scientists have signed a letter to the effect that there is no demonstrable linkage between man-made green house gases and global warming. Given that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) report, which fuels the presumption that human activity is to blame, was prepared by about 600 scientists (who were not, by the way, unanimous in the conclusions of that report), the evidence would support the notion that if there is a consensus it is the opposite of what Al Gore and company would have us believe.
Further there is compelling data in published work by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" demonstrating that historically global temperatures increase prior to increases in carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. The clear conclusion is that global temperature increases are a cause for the buildup of CO2 not the other way around.
Rather than fret about the impact our lifestyle may have on the legacy we may leave our children, we should instead focus on an international effort to effectively deal with the consequences of inevitable climate change.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Gas Prices and Our Congress
What a despicable display of ignorant bloviating. This is how best to describe the US House of Representatives hearings over gas prices. Rather than deal with real and meaningful actions that the government can take to actually increase supply of both crude oil and gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign sources, our elected leaders chose to trash the oil executives summarily subpoenaed to a public lashing.
What a joke. The government - in its federal, state and local varieties - has blocked the development of domestic sources offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and discouraged the building and expansion of new refineries to convert the crude oil into gasoline. As a result supplies are tight and as we all learned in economics 101 when demand outstrips supply prices increase to a point where either demand drops or supplies increase or both.
In an earlier blog I noted that in fact the demand side of this equation is working in the US with the sharply reduced demand for trucks and SUV's vs. the increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition more people are taking public transportation, curtailing vacation plans that require long drives and even looking for jobs closer to home or work-at-home opportunities to save on commuting costs. These are all good things and a natural consequence of market forces.
Rather than beat up the oil execs, our elected officials would better serve the people by developing a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes and encourages the development of all sources of energy (not just wind and solar which will help with home and business electricity supply but will do nothing to move your vehicle) including nuclear power as well as conservation.
We the people deserve better from our elected officials.
What a joke. The government - in its federal, state and local varieties - has blocked the development of domestic sources offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and discouraged the building and expansion of new refineries to convert the crude oil into gasoline. As a result supplies are tight and as we all learned in economics 101 when demand outstrips supply prices increase to a point where either demand drops or supplies increase or both.
In an earlier blog I noted that in fact the demand side of this equation is working in the US with the sharply reduced demand for trucks and SUV's vs. the increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition more people are taking public transportation, curtailing vacation plans that require long drives and even looking for jobs closer to home or work-at-home opportunities to save on commuting costs. These are all good things and a natural consequence of market forces.
Rather than beat up the oil execs, our elected officials would better serve the people by developing a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes and encourages the development of all sources of energy (not just wind and solar which will help with home and business electricity supply but will do nothing to move your vehicle) including nuclear power as well as conservation.
We the people deserve better from our elected officials.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Ice and Ocean Levels
OK - I can't stand it anymore. All this is absolute nonsense. In what I call the the "Al Gore effect" there seems to be a commonly held belief that if the Arctic ice melts all our shoreline property will be inundated by a rising ocean level. This is just more example of the junk science that the scientifically ignorant media loves to repeat.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Markets vs. Politicians
As the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline moves into the $3.50+ range, a remarkable chain of events is occurring. The first is lo and behold the demand for gasoline is decreasing thereby proving that in fact demand is price elastic. Isn't it remarkable the way markets work their magic.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
