man-made global warming raises its ugly head once more
Are human beings rational? When a lie is repeated often enough it becomes accepted as truth, and is no longer given serious scrutiny.
Today, we hear President Obama’s press secretary, Carney, telling us that there is much we can do to prepare for the deleterious effects of climate change. There is definitely an expanded role for the US government, and indeed for international bodies such as the United Nations (the World Bank, the IMF, etc.). We cannot, in good conscience, let this go unchallenged.
As you all know the assertion is repeated again and again that the earth’s atmosphere is warming and this is causing climate change. Mankind, by burning so-called fossil fuels, is responsible for this. (We say “so-called fossil fuels” as we believe petroleum (oil) to be abiogenic in origin as we discussed in one of our earliest essays in June, 2012. Coal, on the other hand, does appear to be from fossilized ancient plant/tree life.) Carbon dioxide (CO2), produced when burning various fuels, is a so-called green house gas. Shame on you, dear readers, as you are emitting this terrible gas with every exhalation from your lungs. (Plants and trees need CO2 to grow and survive; these basically act to recycle the CO2 from the atmosphere and give back molecular oxygen (O2) to our atmosphere. This is basic 3rd grade elementary school science.) What we are rarely told is that water vapor is a much more potent green house gas in the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, without water vapor in the atmosphere, the earth would be too cold for most life we see around us. You would not like to live in a permanent ice age, would you? No holidays at the beach, and no young girls sporting bikinis.
Others have taken on the proponents of so-called manmade global warming. (The exclusion of data from Russia (a large chunk of real estate!) from the data used in computer models, the frauds committed by that university in England (East Anglia, was it?), the disagreement between comprehensive satellite temperature data and ground based measurement points located near concrete cities are all ignored by people such as Al Gore and his like.) For me, this has been debunked as I believe that man (and woman) is not responsible for more than a small fraction of the warming. The sun’s cycles and the natural cycles of the earth are responsible. No sane person will assert that we humans can do anything about what goes on in the sun.
I do not wish to repeat their arguments here, but rather want to address 2 related issues. 1. Elitist power and control over our lives. 2. How to meet our energy needs and maintain our standard of living in an environmentally responsible manner. We’ll address the 2nd issue first and at greater length.
Nuclear power has been touted by some as a safe source of electric power generation that does not contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Sadly, nuclear power is not only incredibly expensive when you factor in all(!) the relevant costs (including reactor decommissioning costs, some of which are borne by taxpayers, and the long-term storage of the “waste” (a still unresolved issue in the US today) which is basically the fission by-products left at the end of the reactors’ lives and which decay rapidly and thus are very dangerous for the first several decades) – but nuclear power is not safe, not safe at all. We wrote on this last autumn: Nuclear power is inherently dangerous and allows for no human error(s).
Even though I worked for 10 years (1986 – 1996) for one of the largest electric power utility companies in the US that had (and still has) a large 2 unit nuclear complex in operation, I am now against the commercial use of nuclear power. Splitting uranium atoms just to boil water into high pressure steam to turn electric turbines is not sane. (To be clear here, the water that circulates through the reactor is not turned into the steam that turns the turbines – it is basically a 2 step process. Clean, non-irradiated water is heated to a boil from contacting the walls of the pipes that circulate the thermally hot reactor water.)
A little history is relevant here.
While an undergraduate at university, the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania had a partial meltdown in March, 1979. Years later in the 1980s, it came to light that the destruction of the crippled reactor’s core was significantly worse than the citizenry was led to believe at the time of the “accident”.
In April, 1986, Chernobyl in the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic experienced the worst “accident” in nuclear power history (to that time). Readers in Europe ought to remember this as much of the radioactive fall-out came down on Scandinavia and Poland.
March, 2011. In a very seismically active region of the world, Japan experiences a mega earthquake of 9.0 on the Richter scale (being a logarithmic scale, a 9.0 is 10 times as powerful as an 8.0 quake, and 100 times as powerful as a 7.0 temblor). A major tsunami results that knocks out the vital cooling necessary to prevent serious reactor damage. (Even when the fuel rods are pulled out and nuclear fission stops, reactors must be cooled for long periods of time because of the significant decay heat produced by the decaying isotopes of iodine, cesium and strontium.) The government of Japan, and the Tokyo Electric Power company still (now 3 years on) have not stopped the continuing leakage of radiation into the environment (which includes the Pacific Ocean).
Nuclear power is not a rational choice for meeting our energy needs in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
So-called cold fusion (nuclear fusion, not fission) is decades, at least, away from becoming commercially and economically viable. It is still at the experimental stage in a few advanced physics labs scattered around the world. This is also the situation with large-scale economically viable (meaning no major government subsidies) solar energy – it is decades away. Wind turbines are unreliable as the wind is unreliable and are killing millions of birds each and every year. Hydro-electric generation does not add green house gases to the atmosphere so a person might think that this option would be acceptable to global warmers. Not so, as major dams do alter the environment significantly. In this we agree as we have seen for ourselves Lake Mead and Lake Powell in the desert southwest US. These manmade lakes formed behind Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam respectively and did substantially change the local environments over many hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles. As well, dams are very expensive to build now.
So, what can we do for the next few decades (basically for the rest of our lives and much of our children’s lives)?
Being realistic and pragmatic about our choices brings us to those resources we have in abundance within the US and yet are choosing not to make use of. As we do not buy into the manmade global warming scam, we say the US ought to develop more of its truly vast natural gas resources both in the lower 48 states and in Alaska. Clean coal is in abundance in the Powder River Basin of eastern Wyoming. We already have many coal-fired electric power plants. Regrettably, Obama and his extremist EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) have shuttered many coal plants and idled thousands of coal miners. Coal miners, working families that you are, Obama does not care for working Americans. Five years into his presidency, we now know that Obama does not care for middle class working families. His policies prove this.
Let’s not oppose the environmentally responsible development of our own resources. We can boost the growth of our economy and create good jobs at the same time that we would bring down the cost of energy for all Americans (and actually help to lower the cost of energy for the rest of the world as we in the US would be increasing its supply). To the eco-fanatics, who oppose all development, I ask have you ever considered that conservation and stewardship are old concepts and have worked in the past?!
opportunistic, misguided elitists
Does it make sense to insist that the US reduce its emissions of CO2 when the largest emitters of CO2, China and India, have repeatedly told the world that they will not do so?!
This manmade global warming scam (or fraud, if you prefer) is being used by the big government control freaks and liberal elitists to justify being even more intrusive into our lives. If the people of Europe put up with this nonsense, that is their choice. Americans ought not follow the lead of a largely socialist Europe. (Although we note in passing that some Europeans are beginning to say enough is enough of this nonsense.) If the elitists have their way expect your costs of energy to rise significantly in the coming years. This means both gasoline for your car or truck and your home and business utility bills. As well, these costs will be passed on by others to you. Consumers (individuals and families) will suffer big time. This is immoral. These elitists do not care that they are basing their demands on a fraud.
There is one other thing people really ought to be aware of. These elitists, so very concerned with the welfare of humanity and the well-being of the planet, do not really care about the individuals they harm. They view human beings as the problem. Reduce the numbers of human beings and thus the problems in the world are reduced. They at times will even refer to human beings as “weeds” or akin to cancerous tumors to the earth. These same climate alarmists and eco-fanatics often support and advocate population control programs throughout the world. And, they readily endorse coercive population control as goes on in China and in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. There is a component of racism at play here. Most of these elitists are white. In their view, it is better if there are less infants of color born throughout the world. This is reflected in the aid given to less developed countries in Africa. What complaints do we hear from the local doctors in these countries? They complain of not having simple antibiotics and vaccines for childhood diseases. They also tell of incredibly large shipments (to them from aid agencies) of contraceptives. The message is clear: the elitists do not care for those brown and black children already here and do not want very many born in the future.
My view is that each country’s citizens can address the issue of population and family planning for themselves, and ought not be victimized by rich, white elites in Europe and in North America.
Beware of the vile hypocrisy among these elitist control freaks!
We have written on environmental topics before. This is a helpful essay (with helpful links).
Thanks for reading.
Copyright 2014 – larrysmusings.com