It’s not easy living in the DC area. The place is a 60 square mile enclave bordered by reality, where the phrase “I voted for George Bush” gets you looked at like you have two heads, while being a gay vegan is considered perfectly normal. No, really!
You can imagine how irritating it gets when out trying to enjoy a beer and one of Al Gore’s cult followers begins proselytizing to the cause of Global Warming. But I’ve discovered that like the followers of any other religion, debating someone’s belief system is pointless. Pointing out how Climate Change is based more on belief than fact quickly sets them off, and they usually proceed to cite heavily flawed studies or quotes from an equally unreliable source. You could go back and forth all day, or you can end the conversation fairly quickly – simply state that you don’t debate religion, and if you’re to be expected to treat it like science, your green friend has to do so first. They can accomplish this by answering three simple questions:
1) Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time?
2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We’ve heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false?
3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares. Off of the top of my head here are a few from the last 40 years:
- Population would outgrow food supply causing mass starvation
- Oil reserves would be depleted by 1980
- Global Cooling
- Dioxin threatened us all (until it was discovered a pint of Ben & Jerry’s contains 3,000 times the “safe” level)
- Oil reserves would be depleted by 2000
- The hole in the ozone layer would continue to grow at an exponential rate
Since all of these crises turned out to be wrong, why is it that this time is different?
The followers of Al Gore don’t like having their views challenged, but if they want me to treat their beliefs like science they’re going to have to do it first. Not that these are necessary, but here are some bonus questions:
- Assuming we go completely green and rely only on renewable energy, how much will it cost? And how much of the countryside will have to be covered with windmills and solar panels?
- How come Iran is allowed to build nuclear power plants but we’re not?
- If we are truly in a crisis, why does the issue’s #1 advocate live in a hugely energy inefficient house while flying around the world in a private jet? Shouldn’t he live a more carbon neutral life like this great American?
- Given how incontrovertible he claims the evidence to be, why won’t Gore debate Bjorn Lomborg?
- Why did the nomenclature for this crisis have to change from Global Warming to CLimate Change?
To answer the obvious question, I haven’t made anyone see the light, and you probably won’t either. But at least your acquaintance will be irritated at you enough to shut up and let you enjoy your beer in peace.
And as Independence Day approaches, what could be more American than that?
Crossposted from Brother Bobs Blog
When the greening does not work and we are thrown into a depression or worse, who do we hold responsible? What will be their punishment for wasting trillions?
Excellent! Like the Giana Kool Aid drinkers the global warming, climate change, severe weather event, species extinction, frog mutation, anti fossil fuel, lemmings will follow the piper into the stone age. Then and maybe only then will they wake up starving, without shelter, wearing a loin cloth, pulling a large skid carrying a huge rock in some unknown direction, with the intent to build a monolith to their god algore. But I doubt they will ever learn.
Great post. Great post. I love your questions.
Love it! All good stuff. Living in the DC area myself I can sympathize with your plight. In line with your item #1, when confronted by greenies I just observe that the glaciers have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age and the earth is still not as warm as it was before that cooling period started, so what is their point?
This is a wonderful piece, Brother Bob.
I recall a conversation I had with a nephew who was fresh from university and heavy duty into environmentalism. He was relating how humans are destroying the planet while he sat there eating celery sticks with peanut butter and drinking a micro-brew ale. I couldn’t help pointing out that his celery naturally contains 10,000 times the EPA allowable limit on dioxin, the peanut butter has killed more Americans than global warming ever has (his cousin has to carry an epi-pen for a peanut allergy), and his fine micro-brew ale is all wonderfully bubbly because of carbon dioxide. I thought it great fun. Him, not so much.
I have been carrying one of these discussions on the forum
http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-5117890-3.html?assetTypeId=41&tag=contentMain;contentBody
…and actually had someone argue in response to the challenge of the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s
“The Clean Air Act removed aerosols from the atmosphere, which in addition to dimming the surface of the earth, creating global cooling, also reduced crop yields, killed numerous people with emphysema, and numerous trees with acid rain.
Governments acted rapidly to remove CFC’s from many products, and the ozone hole stopped growing, and has contracted somewhat. I’m surprised you can be so glib about something that came close to giving everyone on earth skin cancer.”
I had a lot of fun with that post.
Take the $$$ money $$$ out of global warming and most politicians, businesses, big corporations, and pseudo-scientists will QUICKLY lose interest.
The “sky-is-falling” has been a scare tactic even before the “global cooling” of the 1970’s. That right! Back then it was, “we’re going to freeze our bums off”. Remember the ozone hole? How about the oil and food shortage scares? Oh yes, and what about Mount St. Helens. Talk about spewing literally thousands of tons of ash and gases into our atmosphere. And today, clean and clear as a whistle.
To put things into perspective consider this:
1. From the space station, you cannot even see man-kind. Walking around you can see ants on the ground. Furthermore, the area that is pure clean atmosphere increases as the altitude increases.
2. Congress should concentrate on passing more significant, meaningful legislation — such as The Bovine Flatus Reduction Act, or The Limitations On Expiration (Exhaling) Too Frequently Act. Or, The Get Al Gore To Put-Up Or Shut-Up Act (also known as The Goramus Gargantuan Carbinus Sasquachus Reduction Act). Al Gore’s monthly utilities bill is well over $2000.00!
More?
Report: “EPA Buried Study Showing ‘Global Warming’ Not Critical”.
See http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=3266.
Mind you, you do not have to be a rapist or molester to recognize one. And, the 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin is an objective analysis on the issue of global warming.
Adrian, the administration did more than try to bury an internal EPA report that says GW is unproven. More signicantly, the Obama administration tried to force mainstream media CBS News from broadcasting the story. Obama is turning on the hand that feeds him.
Sorry for the length, but a much better way to shut them down….
CO2 and climate change… the PHYSICS do not work.
First, the theory of Greenhouse Gases.
All energy comes to, and leaves the Earth as Radiation.
Radiation comes from the Sun, in a specific spectrum (including light), and is then either Reflected back to space, absorbed by the Atmosphere, or absorbed by the earth’s surface.
Energy is also Radiated by all matter (called Black Body Radiation) in specific wavelengths dependent primarily on the Temperature of the mass.
Matter also will absorb radiation, but different molecules absorb different frequencies of radiation energy… known as the absorption spectrum. This energy will raise the energy state of the molecule, which it will then either reradiate (as blackbody radiation), or loose energy through conduction.
The theory behind a greenhouse gas is that the Gas will absorb incoming radiation from the sun, and through conduction, heat the rest of the air around it. It will also absorb IR radiation radiated by the Earth itself (black body radiation again), and use conduction to spread it to the rest of the atmosphere.
So, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES, it is, but only up to a point.
CO2 ONLY absorbs IR energy in well known, and clearly defined frequencies, which comprise about 8% of the IR Spectrum. This IR can come from the Sun, the Blackbody radiation of the Earth, or the Blackbody Radiation of the atmosphere itself.
The problem is that ALL of the IR radiation in the Earth’s biosphere, within those frequency ranges IS ALREADY BEING ABSORBED!
http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html
The above chart is a visual representation of the Energy absorption spectrums of the atmosphere, and the %’s of those spectrums being absorbed. If you look at the CO2 absorption frequencies, you will see that they are already at 100% absorption…
or, to put it simply, there is no more energy to absorb, thus there can be no Temperature increase by adding more CO2!
So, in conclusion, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES! But its already reached its maximum Greenhouse effect, adding more will not do anything.
Therefore, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything except bankrupt us.
I’ve realized for the first time in my life, I’m starting to get a clue as to how it feels to be a “staunch atheist.” I just don’t know how these greenies get by the “church and separation commandment” by IMPOSING their “religion” on all of us.
I’m a lot of things, but one thing I’m not is mean spirited. However… I hate to admit I’m now finding some kind of sick joy in using real bags in California grocery stores. When I’m asked if I ‘need’ a bag, as in asking how dare you say yes when mother earth suffers so, I say “Yep, sure do; haven’t mastered juggling yet”, I’m looked at as if I’m buying cigarettes for a 6 year old. While I’ve always been a conscious protector of the earth and natural resources, I not only refuse to be quilted into this sick twisted religion of the green gods, I’m finding I’m almost enjoying becoming the Bill Maher of it.
If it weren’t so over the top, I’d be happy to play nice, but I just can’t anymore. If Cap and Trade becomes law, good by industrial civilization. Economist George Reisman was on top of this years ago, but sadly, common sense wasn’t and still isn’t part of the agenda of the power elites.
Consider the consequences that await the future of America all over an avaricious deceitful, get rich quick scheme that much of America bought hook, line, and sinker.
Shortly before Michael Crichton died last year, during one of his last interviews, he was asked what he felt the greatest threat to mankind/America was. His answer, “Reality.”
You mean punching them in the face until they shut up isn’t the way? Bob, you are no fun. 😉
Compliments on a great article!
For what is it worth – here’s my layman thoughts…
I believe the Earth has gone through various extremes temperatures in it’s 4 and half billion year history. Over the last 600 million years there have been several extinction events where large numbers of species have gone extinct – some of which climate change played apart. And it was unlikely this was caused by the dinosaurs etc burning fossil fuels;) No doubt an extinction event will happen again naturally sometime in the next 50 million years. However the point is – what is the ideal temperature for humans to live and thrive – and are we contributing to climate change (above and beyond the natural causes)- therefore speeding up the likelihood of such an extinction event to come much earlier or/and have to deal with consequences like more unprectible weather which causes floods, droughts, rising sea and migration issues.
Part of the theory is that it causes more unpredictable and extreme weather. That ocean currents etc will shift – so you could have the situation where the earth ON AVERAGE gets warmer but if the gulf-stream is effected and changes course it will make the UK colder. Not sure who has claimed that growing glaciers prove global warming. The events that will prove global warming false – is if over the next decade average global temperatures are noticeably less than those seen in the last 20 years. What events will prove to you that global warming is happening?
Of course but you can say that with anything. That neither disapproves or proves global warming. There are plenty of people who hype and give out bs as if they were Chicken Little but there are also people who have their head in the sand and refuse to see any warnings.
btw – I still use carrier bags at supermarkets and I drive a car.
Actually it’s not CO2 but solar output that is the key. Temps have been declining and sunspot activity is at an all time low. Solor output might be down for quite some time.
If you compare the historical CO2 and historical solar output charts against the historical global temperature charts you’ll see that the solar ouput chart matches the temperature chart (while COS does not).
CO2 is trace element in atmosphere and is controlled by vious factors from plantlife, geotheramal, oceans and human input.
I find it amusing that it was global cooling in the 70’s, then global warming and now global climate change…..seems like they are moving the goalposts.
@Timothy
Can you show me a chart where they match from the mid 70s to today?
It is my understanding from reading a multitude of scientific articles from various sources that there IS global warming. That’s not so much up for debate. But the real question is whether or not humans and pollution are responsible for it, or whether it is actually part of natural, cyclical climate change.
>>Therefore, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything except bankrupt us.<<
We’ve already had gasoline at over $4 per gallon. No serious person can deny that it’s likely to be over $5 per gallon within 10 years and will relentlessly trend upwards. Draw a graph of the price of gasoline since 1980. What’s the trend line?
Much of the world has a large lead over the USA with respect to alternative energy. In order to compete in the coming era of the end of cheap energy, we need to be far sighted; we need to be a leader and not a follower.
I went to Trader Joe’s last week and forgot my cloth bag. They wanted to give me paper bags; I said, no thanks, I can just gather the stuff up in my arms and carry them out to dump in my trunk. So I did.
Why? Because I just like doing stuff like that. But I don’t look down my nose at people who demand double paper bags; everyone has her or his own private sense of virtues.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Show me any “trend line” in any industry that goes down over a 10 year period. Hint… it’s called “inflation” and is applicable over history.
duh wuh…
Under Obama and the Dem Congressional spending… ala MASSIVE inflation on the horizon… $5 would be a bargain. And that is part of the plan for “Obama’s America”.
Yet it is totally unnecessary and entirely avoidable.
That price may allow “Mr. GM” to manufacture the cars he wants, and seize complete government control of the energy biz, but the economic repercussions of it all will “come home to roost”.
Got a clue how much revenue the feds lose off reduced use of gasoline, Larry? How do you suggest, when Americans are laid off/unemployed, they pay higher costs overall because of the flow thru costs?
Is Economics 101 optional, as is American History???
‘fused, and glad to be old.
Yo… Old Trooper… I’ll come to Montana and shovel s*#t! Sounds like an honest and delightful lifestyle. Certainly superior to absorbing the daily s*#t of the prozac induced American denizen.
Oh… wait! I’m sure that CRAP is anxious to get off the govt payroll and take up your offer….
@MataHarley
Let’s look at inflation adjusted oil prices…
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil_Inflation.gif
So the big spike in the 70s is primarily due to the oil crisis caused by the OPEC cartel pushing up oil prices by having less production.
However in recent years oil price has gone without OPEC putting on a similar squeeze.
http://www.bargaineering.com/images/in_posts/oil-production-vs-oil-prices.gif
So as demand goes up and supply goes down – prices will go up – above and beyond inflation.
http://www.brushtail.com.au/assets/july_04_on/oil_and_gas_2004.jpg
So the smart thing to do would be to move away from such a reliance on oil…whether you believe climate change is happening or not.
naw… really?? Mercy, Gaffa… did you feel the need to expound on something so obvious and simplistic as the supply-demand argument, then shoot yourself in the foot with it, compounding it with:
Ding… incorrect answer. When supply is up, the price per barrel goes down… so the answer is not to “move away” from oil, but to utilize and develop the other sources and locations of oil. *Preferably* not located in our enemies’ backyards.
Of course it’s good to have a mix of alternative energies. But fact remains, the cheapest, most stable, and most diverse in ranges of use (i.e. manufacture of plastics, clothes, etc) is *oil*. The “move away” from oil is all about money and control…. not the planet, and not the retrievable supply.
And let’s correct something for you. As the oil demand goes down, the price still goes up because OPEC cuts production to maintain a certain level. But there’s two factors you ignore….
First: price per barrel and inflation all revolve around the value of the dollar…. which is currently still swirling the toilet bowl before it gets flushed when Obama signs the loan papers from China.
Second: Oil supply and being at the mercy of OPEC is curable by honing our own supplies. But we really don’t have a “shortage” of oil. We have a shortage of the ability to refine the oil.
Don’t you think Larry, if we were REALLY serious about being a leader we would be on the nuclear energy band wagon? You can’t get more “clean and cheap.” And I say that as a “survivor” of Three Mile Island at the time of the near meltdown while being on duty at the Hershey Medical Center. It was my very first job, but I still clearly remember how (almost) the entire staff of the medical center who were scheduled reported to work. I’m more than willing to live against those odds again. For goodness sakes even France is more than ok with nuclear energy.
Funny you mentioned Trader Joes. That’s THE store I was writing about. Great store, but they are WAY too “imposing” on the green stuff. Yesterday I stopped in a small town in Western Pennsylvania at a Starbucks, and for the first time at a SB’s, noticed a sign indicating that “cup holders” were now by “request” only. Since I had a long drive and didn’t particularly want to scald myself with their overpriced and bitter coffee (hey I needed the caffeine), I requested one. The look could have killed; I had “sinned” greatly.
All said, I do appreciate that you aren’t holding people like me to “judgment.” I predict the “overreaching” will get so over the top, people will start keeping their porch lights on in protest, or something, maybe even “triple bagging.” YIKES!
Hey a-gaff, the cap and trade bill will actually make us MORE dependant on foreign countries for our energy needs. It’s like quitting heroin for crack.
Absolutely – in the same vein you patronised Larry with inflation.
The era of cheap and relatively easy to get at oil is disappearing. People may debate exactly when the peak of oil was – whether it is yet to come or whether we have passed it – but oil is a finite resource and all indications are that we are talking decades unlike say coal which is apparently centuries. So by all means keep finding new methods to metaphorically scrape the barrel looking for those last scraps of oil but it won’t stop the inevitable. And where you find those new sources oil will itself be more likely to more expensive to extract.
Yes maybe today – but let’s start thinking about tomorrow a bit more and start planning for the change over, the infrastructure etc so the cost will be minimised.
I didn’t ignore OPEC – it’s a cartel which still fits in with supply and demand model. They control the supply. But even their supply will run dry – so some of those countries are thinking beyond oil.
Sure add that factor in the mix doesn’t change the situation of oil. The dollar may fluctuate, the price of oil may fluctuate but with the price of oil – the general trend – taking inflation and currency into account is still going to go noticably up in the next two-three decades. Just look at the rise of China and India. They are having more and more cars requiring more and more oil. You don’t need to be a prophet to see the crunch coming.
Sure open up Alaska buy some more time and maybe have the Canadians extract more oil in Alberta. Still can’t delay the inevitable. The find in the North Sea was a boost for UK in the late 70s but see how that dwindled.
And I’m not saying stop using oil tomorrow but put a decent plan in place to phase it down at the time phasing up a replacement energy source for our cars etc. Whether that be electric or any other source. Seems fusion is still proving to be too tricky. And when producing electricity I’m not against nuclear power unlike the greens. Sure let’s make more use of renewable energy but I can’t see that be sufficient in the medium term to satisfy western needs. If you use nuclear and renewable energy then you won’t be dependent on the middle East or other such areas.