Climate Change? Or Environmentally Dangerous Farce?

For most people, warning bells should go off when they find a 17 year old at the head of the climate change movement. Do we not remember how well the Children's Crusade went? Research has shown that children are easily influenced by outside sources--much more so than adults. If you take people from childhood to adulthood and ask them to rate the riskiness of something (let's say climate change), and after they rate it you tell them that a bunch of adults rated it much higher even though the adults did not really rate it higher, then you let the person rate the risk again, older teenagers change their original views significantly, even more so than younger teenagers.

Readings from thermometers that have been averaged confirm that temperatures on the earth have risen since the first global network of temperature readings was established in 1850. That is a fact taken in its entirety, however, there are a few problems with this fact, such as the source years for the "average." One would expect this is an average of every year from 1850 until today, but it is not. It is usually a subset range instead of the full range. In other words, the numbers have been hand selected to give these results. To make matters worse, climate change advocates do not stop there with that fact. Instead, they start to make a bunch of claims that are not scientifically supported.

Unsupported claim #1: Humans caused this change. There are fossils of tropical plants under ice flows. That is a fact. If tropical trees existed in arctic Norway, the climate has changed drastically with or without human interaction. In fact, if humans effect the climate, they apparently made it much colder in Norway that what it was initially. Some non-human reasons for climate change: continental plate movement which is not constant throughout time, the fact the sun is getting larger, the number of solar flares. 

Unsupported claim #2: Since we have been recording temperatures since 1850 we have a long-term accurate record of temperatures showing that the climate is warming up. The first problem with this claim is that every scientist knows the more data points you have the more accurate your data. In 1850, there were relatively few data points to collect the global temperature of the earth. Livingstone had not even made it all the way across Africa nor had the entire continental coastline of America been charted. No there are about 30,000 points of data. At the same time, we have the second problem--thermometer accuracy. In the 1880s,weather thermometers were all mercury thermometers and the ones used were usually accurate to about +/-0.1 degree Celsius. Digital weather thermometers today are only accurate to about +/-1 degree Celsius. That is right--the temperature has supposedly changed about 1 degree Celsius since the 1900s and the weather thermometers today are only accurate (and require constant calibration to maintain their accuracy) to +/- 1 degree Celsius. The fact that mercury thermometers were being phased out right about the same time that global temperatures began to spike has not struck anyone as odd.


Unsupported claim #3: Methane/CO2 are causing climate change and increasing the Earth's temperatures.

Venus atmosphere (solar system poster child for global warming/climate change):

CO2 96.5%

Methane (undetectable)

Avg daily temperature: 872 °F

Mars atmosphere (“normal” planet):

CO2 94.9%

Methane (undetectable)

Avg daily temperature: -81 °F

Earth atmosphere:

CO2 0.04%

Methane 0.00017%

Average daily temperature: 58.62 °F

You may wonder why this hype about climate change is dangerous for the environment. For one, it takes the spotlight off true environmentally damaging activities done by corporations. These corporations can continue to pollute and still be labeled green because they have paid for carbon credits to eliminate the fictitious "carbon footprint" they are leaving. Instead, blame for the biggest evil on earth (i.e. "climate change") is placed on individual people and governments. Political action revolves around pushing for corporations to pay these fake "carbon credit" companies to continue their activities and for everyone to reduce our carbon emissions. Plants invariably resolve any excess carbon in the atmosphere. If you smoke in a green house, the smoke will effectively be dealt with by the plants.Instead of focusing on this silliness, we should focus on real pollution. I don't care how much carbon a factory is releasing; I care about how much the EMFs from power lines are polluting my environment. I care about dioxins and other cancer causing agents in my air, water, food, and household products. I care about an increase in sulfur in the air (something that climate change advocates want more of because they apparently feel anything they do no matter how damaging to the earth and its environment is better than doing nothing).

The climate will change. There is plenty of real scientific evidence showing us this. It is time people stopped focusing on one thing they cannot stop from happening and start focusing on pollution that happens and can be prevented from happening each day.

Keystone Pipeline safe for a little while

This morning, the Senate voted not to do the Keystone Pipeline.

Remarkably, President Obama seems to have switched party sides (Kerry is the one who is pushing for the pipeline) and the president hints that he would have vetoed it. He also said earlier that if it wouldn't significantly impact the environment, the he would approve it. Well, although the State Department investigation was performed by people employed by the oil company in charge of the pipeline, it did find that there would be no significant impact. Of course, then they removed the bios of the people involved in the investigation from their website "for privacy reasons."

Why should we see this as good news on two fronts? First, lets talk about all the jobs this would supposedly create. Right now, oil prices are low. OPEC refuses to stop pumping, and we in the West are only increasing our production. Adding more oil into the mix will make prices them lower. Already, some oil companies have been taking losses. How long before they begin cutting jobs? In addition, the part of the Keystone that is already in place will get less oil to process as its redirected to Louisiana. That means jobs will be lost in the MidWest (Illinois unemployment rate 6.6%) and gained in Louisiana (unemployment 6.0%).

Then there is the environmental impact. Now, I don't think carbon emissions cause global warming. But, I do see the dangers of an oil pipeline that runs across a fault line, one of the world's largest natural aquifers, and several large rivers. Not to mention the national parks and wildlife preserves. I also respect the rights of states to forbid the pipeline from crossing their boarders.

Without Liberty or Justice but With Anarchy for All

The Ferguson Missouri issues just show how happy America is to embrace anarchy. The man who was shot was a thief and beat the policeman who shot him up so badly that the policeman had to go to the hospital after killing the thug in self-defense. The thug, Michael Brown, robbed a store to feed his cigar habit, shoved around the store owner, and then went into the street and disrupted traffic. This man hated authority, had no problem attacking authority, and in the end died because authority finally stood up to him.

What do the people do - they scream it is racist. A policeman shoots a thug and its racist?!?! Police officers release video showing this man is a thug and THEY ARE CONDEMNED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR IT!!!! People in the city break curfew and shoot at police BUT ITS THE FAULT OF THE POLICE BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST??? Well, here is what I have to say to the governor - I don't like him or his policies. I think he is an anarchist. In other words I think he is supporting a form of government that is treasonous to my government. He needs to step down.

You see, the people of Ferguson are not "black" people rising up against the "white" oppressor. The people in Ferguson are rising up against ALL AUTHORITY. They are standing in the streets saying - you aren't the boss of me and you can't make me do anything! That's the real battle cry behind "Hands up don't shoot." It is not "I have my hands up so don't shoot me." Instead it is, "Get your hands up so you can't shoot me - then I can do whatever I want to you."

This is the biggest tragedy that our President has created. You see, there are a lot of great leaders out there past and present who happened to have a little more pigment in their skin: Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Medgar Evers.

Emmett Till, from Chicago, went to Mississippi for vacation. Like any 14-year old, he bragged to his cousins about how he had "white" girlfriends. They dared him to talk with a white, female tending a shop. For accepting that dare and attempting completing it, he was dragged from his bed his bedroom later that night, beaten senseless, shot wrapped to a cotton mill fan with barbed wire, and thrown in the river. THAT is racism. Emmett Till did nothing - he did not steal something, he did not try to beat anyone up, he did not stand in the middle of the road blocking traffic just because he could, in fact, he probably didn't put so much as a scratch on his attackers. He probably whistled at a woman and that was it.

Let me tell you, I don't like it when men whistle at me, I tend to give them dirty looks for it, and I certainly feel they deserve that punishment. However, if a young teen whistled at me, I think I would smile and roll my eyes. I personally don't think men should whistle at women, and I don't like it - BUT I would never advocate a LAW against whistling at women. Dirty looks are about the extent of the punishment they deserve for such crassness. 

Two eyewitnesses identified the men who killed Emmett. The jury deliberated for 1 hour and proclaimed them innocent, stating it took so long because they went out for a soda. THAT is racism. The two murders admitted in a national magazine that they had killed Till as a warning to others that they needed to stay out of Mississippi - THAT is racism.

Don't think Ferguson is about racism. It's about anarchy and allowing everyone to do everything they want to do. Anarchy is NOT freedom. Anarchy is when bullies get to do what they want because no one is strong enough to oppose them. That is the only comparison that can be made between Ferguson and the pre-Civil Rights era of the South: The people of Ferguson are acting just like the "white" people in the South because they feel they are above the law.

Do the math

So, our "overall" inflation rate is 2% - higher than expected and actually increasing sharply every month here in the US. Food and energy, which have no voice in the "official" inflation rate increased 2.5% and 3.3% respectively - all these prices are based on a year 2013 - 2014 ending in May.

Considering that payrolls (what people are making) only increased by 1.9% over this same period, it doesn't take an idiot to see there is a problem. People are losing their buying power. As one economist predicted, unemployment rates are dropping because companies are paying less for their workers comparatively. They are not even paying them the same amount, they are actually paying less. Perhaps this is why the poor people are getting poorer and the rich people have actually increased their wealth over the past several years.

I will say that since Congress hasn't voted itself a pay raise since 2009, it is close to putting itself on par with inflation. In 2009 it made 174,000 and that is the amount of inflation from 1914 until 2014. Yes, they were a little ahead of the rate then. However, they did propose pay raises that would have kept them well ahead and making 186,000 if they hadn't down voted them.

My husband hasn't had a raise in years and he doesn't get a vote on it. In fact, this year he had a $1200 decrease in salary because his boss decided to stop giving the May bonuses that replaced salary increases. Instead of making 2% more to keep up with inflation, this year we will be making 4% less. Too bad we can't take 4% away from Congress salaries - then perhaps our economic problem would get truly fixed.

Maybe now scientists will look into what I have said is the true cause of "global warming" for years.

Carbon cannot be the cause of global warming. Sorry. If you look at Venus (which is significantly hotter than it "should" be) and compare it to Mars (which is where is should be temperature wise), you will see that both have the same amount of carbon in their atmosphere. If carbon caused global warming, both planets would be overheated. (Incidentally, both planets have way more carbon than earth could every hope to have in its atmosphere.)

Now, Venus does have large amounts of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, so I am open to believing that that contributes to global warming. Scientists are divided on the matter, but sulfur dioxide does cause acid rain. Not a good thing on any level.

This brings me to Jennifer's theory on global warming. Air conditioning. Yep. It's really a simple matter of physics. We want cooler indoor temperatures, so we artificially cool the inside of our homes with air conditioning. However, the heat from our homes has to go somewhere. We put it outside. Think about your refrigerator. It cools a small area but releases heat into your home. Then your air conditioner redistributes that heat outside. I have no idea if this is a neutral exchange (the amount of cold is proportionate to the amount of heat) or if we gain heat during the process, but either way it increases the outside temperature.

However, although people are more than willing to ruin our food supply to make ethanol and supposedly lower carbon emissions (it doesn't as I pointed out in a previous post), we are probably not willing to give up the A/C...