On the book review program on C-Span today one of the presenters was Rick Shenkman author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" subtitled "Facing the truth about the American voter."
Mr. Shenkman is a historian who comments on the appalling lack of basic knowledge that most Americans have about their country or the world for that matter. He contends that this lack of knowledge allows most voters to be easily manipulated by politicians and their Madison Avenue campaign apparatus. He quotes some astounding statistics regarding how few Americans can name the three branches of government, know that there are 100 senators, and even after five years of war can find Iraq on a map of the world. He also points out that in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even though it was never stated reason for the Iraq war by the administration, fully 50% of American voters still think Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Yours truly is not surprised by these findings and recall that it was many years ago that some wag opined that as a politician one can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the average voter. Even Jay Leno has picked up on this with great comedic effect with his man on the street interviews.
My own view is that the American people are not stupid. It is clear, however, that most of them are blissfully ignorant and almost intentionally uninformed. One may ask how can this be in an age of media overload, instant communications and 24/7 news channels. I believe the problem is that most people have complete lack of curiosity about anything that doesn't directly affect them personally and immediately.
Building on a point in an earlier post, you see the seeds of this phenomenon in the active resistance to excellence in our public school systems. Unfortunately for most kids today it is cool to be ignorant, and ignorant teens grow into ignorant voters.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Inevitability of Global Warming
In my last post I made reference to a recent book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. This book should be required reading for all politicians, educators and journalists. (The good news is it is on the New York Times best sellers list.)
Singer and Avery provide overwhelming, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that:
1. We are at the beginning of a natural 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) global warming cycle that began about 1850.
2. That the globe was warmer during the days of the Roman empire and during the medieval warming period from 900 -1300 AD than it is today. (Note - long before the industrial revolution and human generated CO2.)
3. To the extent that man-made CO2 emissions may cause a minor (i.e. .005 degree C/per century) increase in average global temperatures this is overwhelmed by the natural solar driven causes of global warming.
4. All of the scary scenarios pushed by the global warming activists including rapidly rising sea levels, extraordinary species extinctions, famines and droughts on an unprecedented scale, more violent weather and climate related human deaths are totally without merit and in fact can be proven to be in contradiction to our experience during previous natural warming periods.
5. Historically global temperatures increase in advance of atmospheric CO2 increases demonstrating that increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result and not a cause of increased global temperatures.
6. The Global Circulation Models and the now fully discredited Mann temperature data (aka the hockey stick graph) used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and super scaremonger Al Gore are totally without any scientific merit and in fact were purposely manipulated to fabricate an anthropogenic global warming frenzy.
7. The human race has much more to fear from the next inevitable cooling period than it does from the current natural warming period.
Singer and Avery also suggest that those who promote the human-caused theory are motivated by either by research grants (the university researchers and "scientists") or a way to hijack the environmental movement to promote a leftist (i.e. hate the relative "rich") agenda designed to control and deminish the living standards and restrict individual choices particularly in first world nations like the US and Western Europe.
Unlike the irrefutable data that the authors present on the facts about inevitable (and slow) global warming, motivations are hard to prove and risky to posit. However one can not help but see in the rhetoric and policies put forth by the anthropogenic warming alarmist crowd a ring of high credibility in the authors' ideas.
Finally Singer and Avery persuasively put a stake to the heart of the whole ill conceived and doomed-to-fail Kyoto protocol treaty that thankfully will die a natural death in 2012.
You must read this book!
Singer and Avery provide overwhelming, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that:
1. We are at the beginning of a natural 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) global warming cycle that began about 1850.
2. That the globe was warmer during the days of the Roman empire and during the medieval warming period from 900 -1300 AD than it is today. (Note - long before the industrial revolution and human generated CO2.)
3. To the extent that man-made CO2 emissions may cause a minor (i.e. .005 degree C/per century) increase in average global temperatures this is overwhelmed by the natural solar driven causes of global warming.
4. All of the scary scenarios pushed by the global warming activists including rapidly rising sea levels, extraordinary species extinctions, famines and droughts on an unprecedented scale, more violent weather and climate related human deaths are totally without merit and in fact can be proven to be in contradiction to our experience during previous natural warming periods.
5. Historically global temperatures increase in advance of atmospheric CO2 increases demonstrating that increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result and not a cause of increased global temperatures.
6. The Global Circulation Models and the now fully discredited Mann temperature data (aka the hockey stick graph) used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and super scaremonger Al Gore are totally without any scientific merit and in fact were purposely manipulated to fabricate an anthropogenic global warming frenzy.
7. The human race has much more to fear from the next inevitable cooling period than it does from the current natural warming period.
Singer and Avery also suggest that those who promote the human-caused theory are motivated by either by research grants (the university researchers and "scientists") or a way to hijack the environmental movement to promote a leftist (i.e. hate the relative "rich") agenda designed to control and deminish the living standards and restrict individual choices particularly in first world nations like the US and Western Europe.
Unlike the irrefutable data that the authors present on the facts about inevitable (and slow) global warming, motivations are hard to prove and risky to posit. However one can not help but see in the rhetoric and policies put forth by the anthropogenic warming alarmist crowd a ring of high credibility in the authors' ideas.
Finally Singer and Avery persuasively put a stake to the heart of the whole ill conceived and doomed-to-fail Kyoto protocol treaty that thankfully will die a natural death in 2012.
You must read this book!
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Ethics of Climate Change
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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Ethanol and the Big Green Lie
Why is it that in spite of overwhelming evidence that ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is not the solution to either the carbon emission or the energy independence issue do we still hear politicians promoting its use and car makers promoting their flex fuel vehicles. On a life cycle basis the production and use of ethanol for transportation produces more greenhouse gases than oil.
From an energy independence perspective in spite of what we are led to believe in the media about dependence on middle eastern oil, almost all of the imported oil that the US uses comes from Canada, Mexico and (unfortunately) Venezuela. Only a small part comes from the middle east and the rest from Russia and Nigeria.
Plus the use of land and crops for ethanol production rather than food has raised the prices of almost everything in the food chain.
Sorry Iowa corn farmers but this lunacy has to stop!
The best solution to the transportation problem is to transition as rapidly as possible to an all electric powered fleet of vehicles that are recharged by electricity generated by hundreds of new nuclear plants. That is the only logical and practical way to truly address both problems.
From an energy independence perspective in spite of what we are led to believe in the media about dependence on middle eastern oil, almost all of the imported oil that the US uses comes from Canada, Mexico and (unfortunately) Venezuela. Only a small part comes from the middle east and the rest from Russia and Nigeria.
Plus the use of land and crops for ethanol production rather than food has raised the prices of almost everything in the food chain.
Sorry Iowa corn farmers but this lunacy has to stop!
The best solution to the transportation problem is to transition as rapidly as possible to an all electric powered fleet of vehicles that are recharged by electricity generated by hundreds of new nuclear plants. That is the only logical and practical way to truly address both problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
