The Left says we need to combat Manmade Global Warming even if the Theory of Global Warming is Wrong

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 21st, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats say manmade global warming is real.  That the science is settled.  And anyone who denies this is a fool.  So the danger of manmade global warming is real and time is of the essence.  To save the planet.  Destroy the economy.  And our way of life (see Examiner Editorial: Governments resolved to stop global warming even if it doesn’t exist posted 4/21/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

PJ Media’s Tom Harris recently noted that global warming advocates ought to heed that warning. Harris’ observation followed release of the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC cried that fossil fuel energy use around the world must be reduced by as much as 70 percent by 2050 to avoid the apocalyptic “death, injury and disrupted livelihoods” caused by man-made atmospheric warming.

“This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87 percent of world primary energy consumption,” Harris said. It will also require quadrupling the amount of energy generated from renewable and nuclear sources, plus widespread adoption of carbon capture and storage technology that doesn’t even exist yet.

So, to fight global warming will require the kind of spending it took to win World War II.  The cost of energy would soar and leave people with little left to spend on their families.  Crippling our economy.  While leaving us with far less reliable electric power.   Making brownouts and blackouts commonplace.  Changing our lives greatly.  And what will we get in return?  Not a whole heck of a lot.

But the IPCC is crying wolf, according to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a voluntary international assembly of scientists and scholars brought together by the Heartland Institute, an American think tank. The NIPCC’s goal is to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming” independent of the political and economic interests that inevitably drive the analyses of governmental entities like the UN’s IPCC.

The NIPCC’s bottom line is that atmospheric warming comes and goes over time, with average temperatures actually declining over the past 17 years. As a result and contrary to those crying wolf on global warming, the earth’s ice cover “is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.” In fact, warmer temperatures and increased carbon content in the atmosphere can be beneficial to human beings, animals and plant life, “causing a great greening of the Earth,” according to the N-GIPCC.

Yes, warm is better.  After all, no one bitched when global warming caused the glaciers to recede and end the ice ages.  Because where the glaciers receded life took to that once frozen wasteland.  And when the glaciers from the greatest ice age (ending about 635 million years ago) receded after nearly covering the planet in ice man wasn’t even using fire yet.  In fact, the greater apes man evolved from didn’t arrive until about 15 million years ago.  After the great glaciers receded back from the equator.  So when the planet warmed and pushed back those glaciers it sure wasn’t man doing it.  Which means if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in manmade global warming.  Because the planet warms and cools.  And has been doing so far longer than man has been around.

Tim Wirth, the former congressman and present vice chairman of the U.N. Foundation, said “even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” No matter that jobs, growth and comfort will be lost. Keep that in mind next time President Obama claims Americans must spend billions of tax dollars on “green” energy because global warming is “real.”

So these great costs are necessary even if they are wrong and manmade global warming is not settled science.  Because crippling our economy and causing power brownouts and blackouts are a good thing.  Why?  One reason.  It empowers government.  To further intrude in how we live our lives.  Which is the only thing battling manmade global warming does.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Even a Climate Scientist finds the Alarmist IPCC Report too Alarmist

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2014

Week in Review

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report.  And based on that report we’re all doomed.  Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, rain storms, blizzards, etc.  In other words, weather.  Weather the IPCC apparently believes is unusual.  Caused by manmade global warming.  Of course one wonders what they would say caused the glaciers to recede back from the equator to the poles long before man was even around to cause warming.  Or why ice at the poles now is normal when they were once ice-free.  Man wasn’t around polluting the planet back then.  But you know what was around back then?  The sun.  Sunspot activity could have been causing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation back then as it is now.  But one thing is for sure.  Man couldn’t have melted the polar ice caps completely.  For we’d have to discover fire before that could have happened.

An IPCC insider pulled his name from this report as he did not like the alarmist nature of it.  And the fact that they were very selective with their climate modeling (see IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report by Alec Torres posted 4/3/2014 on National Review).

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going…”

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming…

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions…

The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.

Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.

First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.

This is the problem with climate ‘science’.  It is not very scientific.  Science is the competition between theories.  And the never-ending attempt to disprove previously held theories.  This is what makes good science.  For theories that hold up to every attempt at disproving them leave fewer and fewer theories that could possibly explain the data and experimental results.  But when you exclude those opposing theorists from the process the ‘science’ is decidedly one-sided.  And the ‘scientists’ are more cheerleader than scientist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Melting Ice may return the Life back to Greenland that the Glaciers Killed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The earth’s climate is not a constant.  It changes.  And has been changing over the 4.54 billion years the planet’s been here.  Going from one extreme to another over hundreds of thousands of years.  Periods of time so great nothing living has ever experienced these changes.  For example, no one ever lived to see the polar regions free of ice and glaciers extending down from the polar ice caps to near the equator.  The time between these two climate extremes was far too great for any living thing to observe.  But that’s how climate changes.  Over vast amounts of time.  We may experience hot days and cold days.  Hot summers and cold winters.  But we just won’t experience climate change.  We are likely to die in the climate we were born in.  As it has been throughout time.

The last great climatic change of the planet was the Little Ice Age from approximately 1350 to 1850.  That’s a period of 500 years.  Or 250 years of cooling and 250 years of warming.  Approximately.  And unless you remained alive for some 3 or 4 generations of your family tree you didn’t experience any climate change.  You just accepted the climate you were living in as being normal.  And got on with life.  Which makes all these climate doomsayers seem silly and needlessly frightened.  For they will be long dead and buried before there is any real climate change.  Yet they wring their hands with worry whenever something happens in a very short period of time.  As if that small change in that minute period of time means anything.  Like melting glaciers in Greenland (see Study: Ice Sheet Destabilizing, Threatening Greater Sea-Level Rise by Alan Neuhauser posted 3/16/2014 on US News and World Report).

A new region of a massive ice sheet in Greenland has become unstable, threatening to raise global sea levels beyond previous estimates, an international team of scientists has found.

The ice sheet, known simply as the Greenland Ice Sheet, is a roughly 660,000-square mile swath of ice that covers 80 percent of the country. The second-largest ice sheet in the world behind the Antarctic Ice Sheet, it’s especially vulnerable to global warming, yet its northeast portion had remained largely unaffected by rising temperatures…

From April 2003 to April 2012, the northeast portion lost about 10 billion tons of ice per year, according to GPS data. It’s a finding that researcher Shfaqat Abbas Khan called “very surprising…”

Researchers believe that melting of the ice sheet has been one of the largest factors in sea-level rise, contributing 0.5 millimeters to the total of 3.2 millimeters of sea rise per year.

Once upon a time ice didn’t cover 80% of Greenland and the land in Greenland was actually green.  There was life.  Warm weather.  And warm soil.  Where things grew.  Allowing other things to live.  Then the cold weather came.  A period of global cooling.  An ice age.  And killed it all.  But now it may be spring in Greenland once again.  Allowing life to propagate in new soil revealed beneath receding glaciers.  Perhaps even providing farmland.  And more opportunity for Greenlanders.  Of course the current generation of Greenlanders will never see this.  But their great-great-great-great-grandchildren might.  And they’ll probably like it.  Because we really know how everyone feels about ice and snow.  Based on the destination of everyone going on winter or spring break at least.  They go where it’s warm.  Because warm is better.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Earth has been Warmer and Cooler before Man created his First Carbon Emission

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

The left likes to attack religion.  Pointing out how those in power created all religions.  To control the people.  And to increase their power.  They note that these religions are not based in scientific fact.  But on faith.  And silly superstitions.  Not intelligent thought.  Which is why the left attacks religion.  To free people from these silly superstitions.  So they can control the people with their own silly superstitions and faith (see I Spent 28 Hours on a Bus. I Loved It. by Eric Holthaus posted 2/4/2014 on Slate).

For the first time, 195 nations backed a consensus statement saying that humanity is “extremely likely” (greater than 95 percent confidence) to be the dominant cause. That’s about the same confidence doctors have that smoking causes cancer…

That means we have no choice but to change our collective path right now.

There is no such thing as consensus in science.  We don’t take votes in science.  We use the scientific method.  And here’s how Merriam-Webster defines the scientific method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Do you see anything about taking votes and forming a consensus?  No.  Because it’s not science when you take votes and form a consensus.  When empirical data and experimentation uphold a hypothesis what does that mean?  It means we haven’t disproved that hypothesis yet.  It doesn’t mean that hypothesis is a scientific fact.  It just means someone hasn’t come around to disprove it yet.

We don’t know what killed off the dinosaurs yet.  We have many hypotheses.  A massive meteorite hit the earth.  A period of volatile volcanic activity.  Continental drift cooled the planet.  Dinosaur flatulence warmed the planet.  Aliens killed them.  Or took them away.  There are many theories.  But no one knows for sure what happened.  And scientists haven’t taken a vote to settle the matter once and for all.  They are still working to figure that out.  Because that’s the scientific method.  Whereas the theory of global warming (let’s call it what it was before their warming predictions were proven wrong and they opted to use climate change) is the only ‘science’ the left wants us to accept as settled science.  Without any further inquiry.  And they even belittle anyone who believes in the scientific method as climate change deniers.  Because we don’t pray at the altar of global warming.  Turning our world over to those who want to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Climate was around a lot longer than dinosaurs.  Yet while we can only make educated hypotheses on what happened to the dinosaurs we can supposedly understand fully something that predates the dinosaurs.  Which is preposterous to say the least.  In the Seventies they were warning us about global cooling.  Then in the Nineties they were warning us about global warming.  Without ever saying that they were wrong when they said the planet was cooling.  Or why we should believe them now when they were wrong before.  And not just a little wrong.  They were the most wrong possible.  Changing from one extreme (cooling) to the other extreme (warming).

Climate doesn’t only predate the dinosaurs.  It also predates man.  And there was a lot of climate activity going on long before man created his first carbon emission.  Once upon a time there were no polar icecaps.  Then at another time glaciers reached down from the polar regions to near the equator.  These extremes happened long before the internal combustion engine.  Or the coal-fired power plant.  In fact, these things happened when there were no manmade carbon emissions.  So what caused these climate extremes that were much more extreme than the climate of today?  Whatever it was we do know one thing.  Man did not cause them.  Just as he is not causing global warming today.  For it may come a shock to liberals but man is not bigger than climate.  Climate is bigger than man.  And it can bring on another ice age and kill us in droves.

If you live in a northern clime look out your window at that snow and ice covering the ground.  Now ask yourself this.  How much food do you think our farmers could grow if their fields were covered with snow and ice all year round?  Or if the temperatures never rose enough to warm the wet soil enough to allow seeds to germinate?  None. That’s how much.  We can irrigate land during a summer drought.  But there will be nothing we can do to warm and dry the soil enough to grow food.  Which means the climate doomsayers were right in the Seventies.  Global cooling is the greater threat.  Not warming.  And anyone worried about manmade global warming should ask the climate ‘scientists’ to explain how the polar icecaps could melt, glaciers could extend down from the polar regions to the equator and then recede back to the polar regions without any manmade global warming around to cause this climate change.  And if they can explain how with a straight face than perhaps we should listen to them.  But not until then.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2013

History 101

(Originally published October 18th, 2011)

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Scientists’ predict Climate Crisis after Studying 19 Years of the 4.5 Billion Year Climate Record

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old?  And climate ‘scientists’ can look at a 19-year snapshot of data and know everything that is going on with climate?  That 19-year snapshot represents only 0.00000042% of the earth’s total climate picture.  That’s a small percentage.  Very small.  Much, much smaller than 1%.  Statistically speaking it’s meaningless.  Yet by this 19-year snapshot today’s climate ‘scientists’ know all when it comes to climate (see Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds by Matt Smith posted 11/29/2012 on CNN).

Two decades of satellite readings back up what dramatic pictures have suggested in recent years: The mile-thick ice sheets that cover Greenland and most of Antarctica are melting at a faster rate in a warming world…

The net loss of billions of tons of ice a year added about 11 millimeters — seven-sixteenths of an inch — to global average sea levels between 1992 and 2011, about 20% of the increase during that time, those researchers reported…

Long-term climate change fueled by a buildup of atmospheric carbon emissions is a controversial notion politically, but it’s one accepted as fact by most scientists. Previous estimates of how much the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed to the current 3 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels have varied widely, and the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left the question open.

While the 19-year average worked out to about 20% of the rise of the oceans, “for recent years it goes up to about 30 or 40%,” said Michiel van den Broeke, a professor of polar meteorology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The rest comes from thermal expansion — warmer water takes up more space.

So in other words, 80% of the rise in sea levels has nothing to do with melting ice sheets.  Yet they predict doom and gloom that global warming will melt these glaciers and raise sea levels and wash away all of our coastal communities.  So global warming may be melting the ice sheets.  But not much.  Surely not as much as they melted after the ice ages.  When some glaciers retreated from nearly the equator back towards the poles.  And that happened before manmade activities began releasing carbon into the atmosphere.  Meaning that ice sheets melted far more before any manmade global warming.  But when your data sample looks only at 0.00000042% of the climate record you’re likely to miss significant things like this.

They concluded that Greenland and two of the three ice sheets that cover Antarctica have lost an estimated 237 billion metric tons, give or take a few billion, in the past 19 years. The ice sheet that covers eastern Antarctica grew, but only by about 14 billion tons — not nearly enough to offset the losses from the layer that covers the western portion of the continent and the Antarctic Peninsula.

They call it global warming.  Not warming in small pockets of geographic areas.  For if the warming was only in small pockets there would be no global warming.  No coming cataclysmic global climate disaster.  And nothing to worry about.  But if global warming is truly global then the warming would be uniform.  Global.  And surely equal throughout a small geographic region like Antarctica.

Okay, so they put the fear of God in us that the world will end if we don’t act within the next 5 minutes.  Okay.  So tell us, how much time do we have?

Don’t panic: At the current rate, it would take between 3,000 and 7,000 years for those regions to become ice-free, said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington…

In July, researchers watched as a stretch of unusually warm temperatures melted nearly the entire surface of the Greenland ice sheet…

“Any model that someone would use to predict sea level rise is only really as good as the data that goes into it,” Shepherd said. “And the fact that our data is twice or three times as reliable as the most recent overarching assessment has to give some weight to improving the value of those model predictions in the future…”

“Right now, all of that is very complicated stuff, and we’re not at the point where all of that is integrated into the models we have now,” Schmidt said.

Really?  They look at a 19-year snapshot and can predict 7,000 years out?  Even though it’s complicated stuff?  I suppose that would be easy once you assume in your model that everything in the world will continue as they have during that 19-year snapshot.  Of course that would make it hard to explain how the glaciers retreated from near the equator all the way back to the poles a few times following the ice ages.  Ah, they probably just consider that a statistical anomaly.  Despite there being 5 major ice ages so far.  That lasted in the tens of millions of years.  Some even lasted in the hundreds of millions of years.  And according to the climate ‘scientists’ another one was right around the corner from the Seventies.  Before, of course, they changed their minds and started warning us about global warming.  Which was a lot more fun.  Because you couldn’t enact a lot of environmental regulations on business to stop the cooling.  But you can make an argument for environmental regulations to stop the warming.  Which is why they’re sticking to the warming.  Because it’s a lot more fun.

Interestingly, between these ice ages the earth may have been ice free.  Meaning that the ice sheets they’re wringing their hands over may not have existed during other interglacial periods.  Again, those ice-free times were BEFORE any manmade greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere.

It’s bad science that only looks at a 19-year snapshot of data.  Especially when other scientists have found a cyclical warming and cooling of sea surface temperatures every 20-30 years.  Something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Perhaps this is why they looked at 19 years of data.  To keep their models predicting what they want to find.  Not what actually may be happening.  And something like the PDO could really throw a wrench in things.  Which is why much climate science is not science.  It’s politically motivated.  Where ‘scientists’ are funded by governments.  And these scientists conclude what these governments want them to conclude.  So they will keep funding them.  For after all, if they found there was no manmade global warming what would these scientists do for a paycheck?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia turns away from Nuclear Power because of Fukushima and Irrational Fear and Scaremongering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2012

Week in Review

In the war to save the world from global warming one of the first campaigns was the battle against coal.  The backbone of baseload power.  One of the most reliable means to generate electric power.  Fed by a large domestic supply of coal.  You could always count on power being there in your homes with our coal-fired power plants feeding the electric grid.  But coal had to go.  Because they were melting the Arctic ice cap.  And raising ocean levels.  Not quite like they did during the Ice Ages when glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere.  Until global warming pushed them back a couple of thousand miles or so.  At a time when only Mother Nature released the carbon boogeyman into the atmosphere.  But we ignore this historical climate record.  And only pay attention to temperature changes that suit the global warming agenda.  Because the real goal of the war to save the world from global warming is to expand government control into the private sector economy.

Australia wants to show the world that they take global warming serious.  They enacted a carbon tax.  To help fund their investment into renewable energy sources.  Which has increased the cost of electric power.  And if the carbon tax and higher utility prices weren’t enough they also are talking about raising their GST.  Of course the GST has nothing to do with climate change.  But it just goes to show that Australia is trying hard to raise tax revenue.  Which is perhaps the driving force behind their carbon tax.  Revenue.  On top of this there is a growing opposition to the only source of power generation that can duplicate what coal-fired power plants can do but without the pollution (see Meltdown fears crush case for nuclear power – Brisbane Times posted 11/11/2012 on Canberra Hub).

THE Fukushima nuclear accident has quashed consideration of nuclear power in Australia, with the government’s energy white paper arguing there is no compelling economic case for it and insufficient community acceptance…

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has said it should remain ”a live debate”. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said before he re-entered politics: ”I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously … [it] should certainly play a role in Australia’s future mix of energy sources.”

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has said it should be considered ”in the mix” and Senator Barnaby Joyce has said: ”If we are fair dinkum [i.e., truthful] about reducing carbon emissions … then uranium is where it’s going to be…”

Labor argues nuclear power is not economically necessary in Australia, since the carbon tax and the renewable energy target are already shifting power generation to renewables.

There are some fundamental truths about power generation.  Coal, natural gas, and petroleum provide reliable and abundant electric power while being safe but they pollute.  Nuclear power provides reliable electric power without any pollution but can be dangerous.  Though for the half century or so we’ve been using nuclear power the number of accidents that have claimed human lives is statistically insignificant.

There have been about 68 people killed in nuclear power accidents   If you count the future cancer deaths from the  Chernobyl accident you can raise that to about 4,000.  Fukushima in Japan claimed no lives other than one apparent heart attack someone had carrying heavy things in the aftermath of the accident.  It was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl.  But if it, too, claimed 4,000 lives in future cancer deaths that brings the total death toll from nuclear power to approximately 8,000 deaths for the half century or so we’ve been using it.  Sounds like a lot.  But you know what nuclear power is safer than?  Driving your car.  In 2010 the number of motor vehicle deaths was just over 32,000.  Again, that’s for one year.  Making nuclear power far safer than getting into your car.

The opposition to nuclear power is based on fear.  And politics.  Not the facts.  Yes, nuclear power accidents are scary.  But there are very few nuclear power accidents.  For a statistically insignificant risk of a nuclear catastrophe we’re giving up the only baseload power source than can do what coal can do.  Give us abundant and reliable electric power.  But without the pollution.  However, they oppose nuclear power.  Not because of facts but because of irrational fear and scaremongering.  And if we know they’re doing this for nuclear power can we not conclude that they’re doing the same thing in the war to save the world from global warming?  Especially considering how many thousands of miles glaciers moved long before man released any carbon into the atmosphere?  Yes.  We can believe they base their war to save the world from global warming on nothing but irrational fear and scaremongering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The US assures the UN that they Still Plan on Ruining their Economy to Fight Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2012

Week in Review

The UN is still trying to impose a carbon trading scheme on the world.  To fight global warming.  Perhaps by 2015.  To make people pay them (or their governments that fund the UN) for burning carbon.  To create an egalitarian world.  With them sitting at the top.  More equal than others (see U.S. affirms support for U.N. climate goal after criticism by Alister Doyle posted 8/8/2012 on Reuters).

Almost 200 nations, including the United States, have agreed to limit rising temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times to avoid dangerous changes such as floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

The EU Commission, small island states and environmental activists urged the world to stick to the target on Tuesday, fearing that Washington was withdrawing support. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degree C…

Many scientists say the 2 degrees target is getting out of reach because of rising emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose 3.1 percent in 2011 to a record high. The decade ending in 2010 was the warmest since records began in the mid-19th century, U.N. data show.

Anyone else see the fatal flaw in this plan?  It assumes man alone controls global temperatures.  Which we don’t.  We had the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.  It wasn’t glaciers reaching halfway down North America but cool, wet growing seasons reduced harvests.  And caused some famine.  And this was before we burned gasoline in our cars.  And coal in our steam engines during the Industrial Revolution.  Man didn’t cause these global changes.  Man just suffered through them.

And speaking of the Ice Ages, what about the Ice Ages?  Just what made the glaciers advance then recede?  These even preceded man’s use of fire.  So it clearly was something else cooling and warming the planet.  Unless we were a far gassier people back then.  (If so lucky for them there were no open flames.)

The planet warms and cools.  It did so before man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance.  And after man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance.  If the temperature moves a degree in one direction or the other there is absolutely no way to know if that was just a natural change (like through 99.9% of the planet’s existence – including those ice ages) or if it was caused by man (whose been around approximately 0.1% of the planet’s existence).

This isn’t science.  This is politics.  A way for the anti-Capitalists to turn back the hands of time.  And make life truly unpleasant for the masses.  As they produce an egalitarian world.  Where everyone suffers equally.  Except those sitting at the top ensuring the world is fair and just.  As they determine what fair and just to be.  The UN.  The world’s overlords.  Once they control the world’s economies, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Japanese and the Chinese have more Powerful Computers than the U.S.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 5th, 2012

Week in Review

This is rather sad.  The country that developed computers into the powerful tools they are today is no longer dominating the field.  Sad.  For when we passed on the torch of manufacturing giant to others we still were the brains behind the things being manufactured.  Research and development.  Invention and innovation.  Engineering and the entrepreneurial spirit.  That great human capital that made the United States the lone superpower today has always continued to excel in America.  Could it be that the fundamental structure of the United States has changed so much that we have diminished this shining light of human capital?   Perhaps (see Ten million billion and counting posted 1/31/2012 on The Economist).

Every November and June, an independent organisation re-evaluates the 500 most powerful known machines in the world and ranks them at Top500.org. In recent years China and Japan nabbed most of the top five spots in a field where America once hogged the top ten…

This year, however, America is limbering up for a comeback. Three of its national labs are being spruced up. Argonne National Laboratory’s IBM Blue Gene/Q supercomputer, christened Mira, will go online at Dr Papka’s outfit sometime in the second half of 2012…

Much of the crunching will be scientific in nature. Mira’s processing muscle will enable researchers to model exploding stars, turbulent airflow over aircraft wings and wind-turbine blades, or new materials to make better batteries, among others.

Interestingly, among the scientific uses of Mira listed one is conspicuous by its absence.  Climate modeling.  To better understand global warming.  And to understand whether the sun has a greater effect on climate (as most real scientists believe).  Or if man is the dominate driving factor (as all global warming ‘scientists’ funded by governments with a vested interest in proving that man is the driving factor so they can regulate and tax emissions and fill government coffers with more money they can spend believe).  Was this excluded because they have already settled this ‘science’ as government wanted it settled?  Or is this ‘science’ not worthy of time on such a valuable computing resource?  Or is the whole field so inconsequential that it just didn’t occur to the author to include it in a list?

Interesting because we do all of those other things already.  This more powerful computer will only let us do those things better.  And as complex as climate is you’d think they’d want to model that better.  Unless they’re worried about what better modeling would tell them.  That the earth is an incredible self-correcting ecosystem regardless of what happens on it.  Whether it be volcanoes spewing so much ash into the atmosphere that it lowers global temperatures.  Or the powerful effects of solar activity that have advanced and receded the glaciers long before man made any carbon on the planet.  Glaciers that have moved farther than they did at any time since man began spewing carbon into the atmosphere.

Perhaps this growth of government ever deeper into our economy, taxing and regulating technological achievement, has stifled our human capital.  As governments pours funding and resources into pseudoscience to combat something that doesn’t even exist.  Man-made global warming.  Perhaps this is the reason that the U.S. doesn’t dominate the top ten of the most powerful machines anymore.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 18th, 2011

History 101

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries