Global Warming - Environmental Fraud
You've been hearing a lot in the news lately about global warming. Basically the message is this: Carbon Dioxide is a "Greenhouse Gas" and the earth is going to warm up and the ice caps are going to melt. Then the world is going to flood and what doesn't flood is going to be a desert. Sound familiar?
Having done some research into the matter, I'm here to tell you that global warming is a myth. I have looked at the scientific data on both sides of the question and it just isn't happening. I'm sure that I could argue the point with the pro warming crowd forever but I'll just point out a few highlights here and move on.
First of all, there already is a lot more carbon dioxide in the air now than there was a century ago. In theory (global warmers theory) the Earth should already be significantly warmer. Is it? No! It simply hasn't happened. So the ultimate test proves my point. The Reality Test.
Now the Global Warmers will say that theoretically due to random temperature probabilities that global warming is there and we are having an unknown cold spell that is masking it's effects. They point to the underlying theory that, yes indeed, carbon dioxide bends light differently than nitrogen and therefore traps more of the solar energy. And how can you argue with that?
Well they are right. But carbon dioxide also bends the light coming into the planet and redirects a larger portion out into space thus nullifying the effect of the trapped light. One could argue that carbon dioxide could create an ice age. In fact, let me make that argument. The earth is round. The greatest light reflection into space is at the poles. Thus, the poles are getting colder. This increases the white reflective ice cap and reflects more light out into space.
At the same time, the increase in trapped heat at the equator causes increased evaporation which increases the cloud cover. These white clouds reflect more light back out into space cooling the earth. The water evaporating itself cools the Earth too so we are going to have an ice age. Proves it right? Sounds good doesn't it? In fact I remember in the '60s that the coming ice age was the thing. Remember that? I do. And it's the very same people who predicted the ice age that are now predicting global warming.
But there's a hole in my ice age theory. What's the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the air? Did you guess carbon dioxide? Wrong! The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water! Bet you didn't know that. Since the primary greenhouse gas in the air is water, why are we not working on ways to keep water out of the air? SAVE THE PLANET! STOP EVAPORATION!
"Hey Marc, I'm confused! Are we having global warming or an ice age? Or are you saying that the temperature of the earth is self regulating?" Well we can argue theories all we want but lets get back to reality. One set of theories say it's going to get hotter, one says it is going to get colder. But has it gotten hotter or colder. No!
So why is the greenhouse conspiracy so popular? There are a lot of people making money off of global warming. Scientists are getting a lot of funding off of this. Environmentalism is the in thing these days. Everyone is getting in on it. And this give them something to get excited about. Makes an argument for conservation it does.
Industry loves it. They hate the environmentalists and they know that ultimately the environmentalists will look like fools. It will pit the bandwagon environmentalists against the scientific environmentalists and weaken the environmental movement and keep them distracted from real pollution issues. And the nuclear industry loves it because nuclear power doesn't give off carbon dioxide like coal, oil and natural gas do.
I watched the democratic candidates debate Sunday night on CNN and even though I have high respect for Bill Clinton, he obviously didn't excel in chemistry when he went to school. He said that what America needs is to fight global warming by burning clean natural gas. Someone needs to fill him in that when you burn natural gas you get carbon dioxide and water which are the greenhouse gasses that are supposedly creating the global warming problem.
"But Marc!", my friends say. "I thought you were an environmentalist. Have you lost your marbles?" Well, I hope not. But quite frankly, it's been a while since I could say for sure where my marbles are. I think they are in my desk drawer at work. I'm for a form of environmentalism that actually improves the environment. I measure environmental policy on whether or not it actually works.
So since I brought up the subject, what do I think we can do to save the planet? Well, I covered that in issue #1 of Thinking Magazine. The planet is infested with people. We have 5.5 billion people here that are raping our resources. The only solution is to get the global population down to a reasonable level. With a strong investment in global family planning we might perhaps reduce the population to 1 to 1.5 billion over the next 100 years. If we do this we will eliminate our planets major source of pollution, too many people.
Well the results are in and everyone is trying to figure out what to make of them. Since these elections are always full of surprises I'm in no position to predict the outcome. But I do have my favorites and I can extrapolate on current trends. Besides, politics is fun, especially when you're not running.
Even though I think Bush will win because he will get dirtier than the rest of them, my favorite candidate is Bill Clinton. The more I see of him the more impressed I am. I am particularly impressed with his position on the Vietnam War.
Bill is nine years older than I am. I graduated in 1973 the year the war ended. Before that I had several years to think about the possibility of entering the war. Even at the young age of 13 I figured out the war was wrong. America was wrong and in spite of Ronald Reagan calling it a noble cause I think it's a war that we should be ashamed to have been in.
At the age of 17 I personally burned my draft card and had made the decision to resist the war and, if required, serve my country in prison. I'm quite proud of myself to this day for having burned my draft card because America was wrong and once one realizes that ones country is wrong the only moral thing to do was to break the law. I really look up to those who were willing to take a stand because it is those people who are the ones that turned this nation around and got us out of Vietnam.
And I agree with Bill Clinton when he makes the point that a government that claims to be a democracy should not be allowed to draft young men into service unless the Congress and the President are willing to declare war. For those of you who are too young to remember, Vietnam was never officially a war.
I also like Paul Tsongas. I think he would make a good vice president. He's honest and intelligent. I pick Clinton over him though because most things being equal, I think that Clinton has the "Fire" to win. I also think Clinton is a better politician and is more likely to get his way as president than Tsongas would.
So much for my opinion about who I like. What about Pat Buchanan? I think he's another David Duke without a history with the Klan. But he sure is helping the Democrats I think. Surely Pat realizes that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning in '92. So why is he doing it?
Well as you can tell, Pat doesn't like George Bush. He is attacking the president worse that any of the Democrats. Could he be doing this purely out of spite? Perhaps he's really got '96 on his mind and is trying to make a name for himself. But if this is it he sure isn't making friends in the mainstream Republican party. Any Republican on either side of the fence will tell you that Pat is a dividing force. Pat is to the Republicans what Jesse Jackson used to be to the Democrats, a liability.
What is Pat's primary message? "Send Bush a message." This translates loosely into "Vote against Bush". So what's going to happen when Pat loses the primary? How will the people vote whom Pat has convinced to vote against Bush? Will he turn around and endorse Bush? If he does, will it help him. After all the bad things that he's said I'm not sure that I would want his endorsement. But, will Pat endorse a Democrat? This could be a very interesting election.
A fellow genius, Phil Case made an interesting observation. If you were a Democrat and you wanted to make the best use of your efforts to ensure that a Democrat was going to get elected, which candidate should you work for? Pat Buchanan! I think that the best strategy for the Democrats right now would be to send 10% of their contributions to Pat because he is attacking Bush more effectively than any of them are. And in the final run, it will be Bush vs. Whoever.
The interesting thing about those who voted for Pat is trying to figure out what they are trying to tell us. It would seem that a number of voters were sending Bush "A Message". But what message. I wonder how many of those Republicans who voted against Bush are sufficiently pissed off to vote for a Democrat?
Another interesting fact is the corrected election figures which put Bush at 53% and Buchanan at 37%. When I add 53% plus 37% I get 90%. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this means that 10% of Republicans voted for other/write in candidates. What is the message here? Are these people who are registered Republicans who wanted to vote against Bush but couldn't stomach Buchanan? How many of them will vote for Clinton in November? One could view the election results as 53% for Bush and 47% not for Bush.
In this election the economy is everything. Americans vote with their stomachs. The one that wins will be the one who best figures that out. I think (hope) that the recession will bring out some issues this time. I'm hoping that the candidates are so desperate for votes that they resort to reason to win the election. Perhaps even real solutions. Wouldn't that be novel?
Now, to be fair to George Bush, the economy didn't go down the tubes because of him. Actually it was Reagan who destroyed the economy with his "Voo-Doo Economics", a phrase originally coined by George Bush in the 1980 Republican primaries to describe the Reagan trickle down theory. But Bush didn't do anything right to stop the slide and after 12 years I think the public is getting tired of being trickled down upon.
So does this make me a Democrat? Not at all. There are a lot of things I don't like about the Democrats. They tend to go for bigger government and raising taxes. They tend to be controlled by labor union money. I belong to a little known party called the PhaQueue Party. At least that's what I say when someone says, "You're really a Democrat (or a Republican) aren't you?" I just say "No, PhaQueue."
Why I Don't Like Bush
Basically I don't like Bush because I'm tired of getting lied to and I'm tired of getting ripped off. Remember "Read my Lips"? I knew back in '88 that he was going to raise taxes and he knew back in '88 that he was going to raise taxes. There seems to be a new standard emerging that you can lie to the voters and that it is OK to do so. It is not OK to lie to the voters. Back in '74 when Nixon was caught I thought I'd seen the bottom as to how low honesty in government can sink. But Reagan and Bush makes Tricky Dicky look like a Boy Scout in comparison.
Among the examples that come to mind is that Bush denies he was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal where they were not only trading guns for hostages, but they were using cocaine dealers to haul illegal weapons to Central America. Noriega was on the CIA payroll and was so involved with us that they won't be able to convict him if he get's a fair trial (which he won't).
Bush has continued to stack the Supreme Court with political cronies like Clarence Thomas who's only qualifications are that he is Black and he agrees with George Bush on abortion. This is the same Supreme Court that continues to erode our constitutional protection so as to move this country towards Communism. During the Reagan and Bush administration they started a trend to erode rights like search and seizure laws giving the government the power to come into your house without a warrant and seize and keep your property without a conviction.
During the Gulf War, Bush allowed defense contractors to sell arms to Iraq through Jordan with full knowledge of the White House. He also, for whatever unknown reason, decided to allow Saddam to remain in power, deliberately passing up opportunities to topple him.
Ever since the Soviet Union released Poland from control and allowed it to become a democracy it was obvious that we had an opportunity to turn the Soviet Union around. But instead of helping them convert we allowed the greatest peace maker in our century to fall from power and now we have 15 armed countries to deal with. We had the greatest opportunity in the history of the world and we walked away from it.
During the last 12 years the national debt has grown over 3 trillion dollars ($3,000,000,000,000). With 250 million people living in America that debt comes to $12,000 per person, or $48,000 per family of four. It is just like Reagan and Bush ripped off your credit card and charged $12,000 on it and left you stuck with the bill. Will we have to pay for it? Yes we will. They ripped off America and sold us off to foreign interests cheap. Ronald Reagan is now a paid lobbyist for the Japanese. They say that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but under Bush even the rich are getting poorer.
I think Dan Quayle is the dumbest politician I've ever seen and they idea that he is a heartbeat away from being the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet scares the piss out of me. There should be a law that to be president that your IQ has to be higher than your body temperature.
I'm not impressed with the fact that during the ongoing collapse of the Savings and Loan system that Bush arranges for his son to get off scot free when caught ripping off the public for millions of dollars through the failed Silverado Savings and Loan.
I got a questionnaire in the mail yesterday where my state representative Chuck Wooten asks the following question:
Spelling and Grammer
I've gotten a few letters from people who are offended because I call myself a genius type. They point to my spelling and grammar as proof that I'm just as stupid as they are. I view things differently and just because I occasionally spell a word differently than most people do, does that mean I spelled the word wrong?
The way I see it is the correct way to spell a word is to spell it the way it sounds. None of us actually do that though so we are all spelling words wrong. Now some people look at my spelling as the incorrect wrong spelling where their spelling is the correct wrong spelling. I am an individualist and I believe there is room for more variation so that one can use language to paint a broader picture and add ones own individual colour to the ideas being expressed.
It is my goal to take words and use them to create images in the readers mind or to construct abstract concepts. I feel I do an adequate job of this because, on the average, the reader has an easier time of understanding my thoughts than that of the average writer. So I measure a writing in respect to it's ability to convey the thoughts of the author to the reader rather than if it fits a traditional spelling style.
I was educated in the "School of Hard Knocks" and spelling and grammar were not required courses there like they are in college. For me to use what is called "Proper English" might not accurately reflect my culture or my background and would limit the flavor of my expression. When I went to school I learned about proper and improper fractions in math class. And I learned that an improper fraction was every bit as much a number as a proper fraction. So one could make the argument that an improper word is as much a word as a proper word. And that English teachers are just less tolerant than Math teachers are.
Working for Assholes
It's interesting sometimes being an employer. One wants to believe that ones employees are working in the best interests of the company. Occasionally the time comes where an employer has to be accomplished in the art of being an asshole in order to maintain a productive work environment and give someone the axe.
Even though I as an employer would like to have a friendly relationship with all employees there are times when one realizes that if the company is to survive that one has to make decisions that others are just not going to like. But that's what it takes to survive in the business world.
If I were to fail to be an asshole when it is necessary then eventually I would find myself out of business and I'd be working for the kind of asshole that I aspire to be. And when it comes down to choosing to either be an asshole or work for an asshole, I think I'd rather be one.
So if any of you out there are working for some asshole, consider yourself lucky. Your business is a lot more likely to make it through a recession than if you have a boss that is nice and doesn't require productivity. Tell your boss that you are thankful that he/she is an asshole and how much you appreciate it.