Global Warming from China & India

Looking through this Sunday's Parade magazine, I read an article titled What's Really Heating Up the Planet which states that carbon-dioxide released by coal mine fires in China and India could equal the total gasoline carbon-dioxide emissions by American drivers.  Why hasn't this been front-page news on the global warming front?

Looking into this subject further, I ran across an article published on July 13, 2007 by The New York Sun titled The Wrong Fire.  Some excerpts from this article include:

It is astounding that with all the expensive proposals to combat global warming no one is discussing reducing global carbon emissions by putting out mine fires. Although putting out fires in America would not have a significant effect, putting out fires in China and India would.

So as the former vice president, Al Gore, organizes Live Earth concerts, as Congress ponders raising fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and as Michigan's John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, proposes America's first carbon tax, uncontrolled Chinese coal mine fires are sending millions of tons of carbon into the air.

China loses between 100 and 200 million tons of coal a year — a significant fraction of its production of 2.26 billion tons — to mine fires, according to Holland's International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation. This results in carbon dioxide emissions in a range of between 560 and 1,120 million metric tons, equaling 50% to 100% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline.

It may well be less costly for us to put out the Chinese mine fires than to cut emissions at home.

Second to China is India, where mine fires burn between 3 and 10 million tons of coal annually, with emissions of 15 to 51 million metric tons. Emissions will only grow in the future as China and India expand production of coal to fuel their thriving economies.

Congress wants to impose billions of dollars of costs on consumers and American industries in order to reduce global warming. The energy bill making its way through Congress would substantially raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars and trucks, decimating the American automobile industry and increasing the unemployment rate in Michigan.

Another idea is cap-and-trade programs. Under these schemes, the government grants credits to favored industries, which then sell them to those who need to produce emissions. This system requires the correct allocation of credits and level of caps to be successful. In Europe, caps were set so high that emissions were not reduced significantly.

A carbon tax, proposed on July 8 by Mr. Dingell, is a more neutral way to reduce emissions. The tax would encourage Americans to reduce consumption of all fossil fuels — petroleum products, natural gas, coal and shale oil. Yet raising taxes is never popular, and few voters trust politicians to offset carbon taxes with reductions in income taxes.

Further, gases other than carbon contribute to global warming — so why stop at a carbon tax? Congress could copy New Zealand's new flatulence tax on sheep and cows, designed to reduce emissions of methane, another greenhouse gas. New Zealand's Treasury will collect $5 million a year.

Carbon offsets, often "feel-good" measures such as planting trees or cleaning the ocean, are an increasingly trendy way of reducing global carbon emissions. Vice President Gore, defending the size of his residence, said that he purchased carbon offsets, and Senator Clinton supports funding for new carbon sequestration technologies.

But the most efficient offset would be extinguishing international mine fires, and neither Mr. Gore nor Mrs. Clinton are proposing research for this.

Looking over the content in this article just reinforces everything that I have thought about our politicians addressing the issue of Global Warming.  Rather than addressing the problem, they would much rather subject the people of the United States with onerous taxes and burdens.  Meanwhile, while they are gathering power and money at our expense, what little heavy and medium industry we have left will be taxed and legislated out of existence.

What also bugs the hell out of me is that these same countries, China and India, are being given by the UN's Kyoto Protocol a pass on reducing their carbon emissions.  Instead, they are allowed to pollute as much as they want because they have "developing economies."  If the UN was serious about Global Warming, then China and India would be required to base their economies on green technology - that would show the decadent West how it's really supposed to be done.  All this does is just helps to support a contention that the UN is anti-America (or anti-West), and seeks to bring the wealthier nations down to the level of the poorer nations.

I think the last paragraph of the article sums it up nicely:

We don't yet know definitively, despite much assertion, whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or simply the product of lengthy climate cycles. But if we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, let's tackle the biggest culprits first — the mines burning out of control in China and India.

Senators and Representatives of the United States, please put the welfare of your country first, not the rest of the world.

Friday the 13th vs. Global Warming

Just when you thought it was safe to hide under the bed and cringe over the Algore prophesy of Global Warming doom, some facts come out. Of course, Al's not going to let a few facts get in his way of hawking carbon credits.

The American Thinker published an article a couple of days ago titled Global Warming and Solar Radiation. To summarize the article, Global Warming is not a man-made or caused phenomenon. Big surprise...

But then again, what else would you expect from someone who has great expectations of himself with an ego to match?  A not so complementary article is here, which beats mine to pieces...

This and That

Not really having the time to blog now that the weather has warmed up and yard work has commenced, let’s instead take a look at some of the headlines from this increasingly strange world of ours…

Virginia Governor May Close Loophole

Virginia's governor said Tuesday he may be able to close the loophole that allowed a mentally ill Virginia Tech student to acquire the guns he used to kill 32 classmates and faculty last week.

While I think that this needs to be done for the public safety, I also think that this is going to meet some opposition. Why, you ask? Just think of the outcry if mental health records are now going to be part of a public record. Instead of a safety issue, it will become a privacy issue.

Iran Arrests 300 ‘Insufficiently Veiled’ Women

Break out the burkas!! Iran is now cracking down on women (and men) that the mullahs consider to be under-dressed (or perhaps, out of uniform). Police are enforcing the regulations. It’s amazing to me that the National Organization of Women have not commented on these types of actions against and/or repressions of women’s rights (at least to my knowledge).

Al-Qaida Group Claims Killing of 9 GIs in Iraq

Anyone who thinks that Al-Qaida is gone should realize that they are merely biding their time to strike again.

The Case for a Global Carbon Tax

The (Bush) administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO₂ emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO₂ mandated by the accords.

Finally, someone has pointed out that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accords was rejected was because of China and India. While cutting down CO₂ emissions would be a good thing for everyone (not just because of “Global Warming”), the author correctly points out that these CO₂ emissions come from coal, which by itself has a whole host of environmental problems. What the author gets wrong is that the US is supposed to get China and India to not build coal-fired power plants. And that will be difficult because China and India are trying to build their economies the fastest (and cheapest) way possible. The author’s idea is to implement a global carbon tax to reign in these countries. I wonder if Al is listening…

Kim Basinger Hires Security for Daughter

After hearing the daughter’s father (none other than Alec Baldwin) rant on a voice mail, who can blame her? Oh yeah, Rosie defended Alec’s rant – go figure? One angry person defending another… And speaking about Rosie…

Rosie Leaving the View

To which I ask – What took so long?

I’ll be working on a long post, so it might be a week or two before the next post. This one is a continuation of Energy Independence, which was posted over a year ago. It’s a subject worth revisiting considering the events and topics of the past year (Global Warming, the Middle East, Environmentalism, Energy, and so on).

The Prius Polluter?

According to Central Connecticut State University's The Recorder Online, the Toyota Prius causes more pollution than a Hummer.  Most of this is due to the materials used in its construction.  Also, it takes more energy to create and run one of these vehicles than a conventional car.

What is not addressed in the article is the question:  What do you do with the Prius batteries once they wear out?  Batteries can only be charged and recharged so many times, and the chemicals used in them will degrade over time.  And some of the chemicals used are pretty nasty.  And let's not forget the amount of energy that will be required to recycle the batteries as well.

I have my own ideas on what an economically-friendly personal transportation system could be in the future, and the technologies are being developed or are already here.  But that's a post for a later time.

In the meantime, remember that the hype on eco-friendly cars, global warming, and carbon-credits is not what it is cracked up to be.  More than ever, I believe that there are political agendas being addressed instead of real problems.

What's Next?

Global Warming?  You must be kidding?  We were greeted with 2" of snow this morning after having record highs this past week.  More snow to come with the temperatures to match.  Hey Al, you sick twisted moron!  That's snow out there, not a heat wave melting the tires off of my truck!!

Next on the list is that Kirk Kerkorian is bidding on Chrysler.  A surprise to say the least.  What's even more interesting is that he would give the Unions, employees, and the management the chance to own part of the company.  Good move on his part - if you own part of the company you work for, you tend to have that personal stake & pride in what you do.  No word on if the Board is seriously considering this offer (which is better for the employees than an investment firm buying the company).  But we will still have to wait on pins and needles for the outcome of this version of "Deal or No Deal."

But is there any justice either?  Ford is paying their CEO $28 Million for four months of work.  Considering that the company lost 12.7 billion in 2006 and workers are getting less than a $1000 bonus, I think this is a little bit excessive.  Of course, tell that to all of the employees let go from the company who got the shaft instead. 

On a happier note, the British sailors are home.  What the aftershocks will be after this latest incident with the Iranians is anyone's guess.

Finally, the Masters are being played in Augusta this weekend.  I plan on watching the final round (too much other stuff to watch everything).

Politics and (Junk) Science

Mention Global Warming and a rather heated debate usually erupts about whether or not humans are causing it. Of course, various studies would be cited to support or not support this opinion (and yes, I’m calling it an opinion, not a scientific fact). But before you start flaming me to a toasty golden brown, kindly consider the rest of this post.

Many of us have been raised with the notion that scientists, by & large, are benevolent people, working for the betterment of mankind. Mention the word “scientist” and what is the mental image that you get? More often than not, you will conjure up a person in a spotless white lab coat mixing chemicals in a test tube or peering through a microscope. The exception to this rule is usually the wide-eyed “mad scientist” that is portrayed in the late-night horror shows, but even then, these misguided scientists generally have a goal in mind – the betterment of mankind according to their warped vision.

More recent movies and portrayals still show scientists in this light, but with an increased sense of reality. I can recall a couple of movie scenes of where the scientists are concerned with the continuation of their work because of the lack of available funding.

We should all realize that scientific studies take money, sometimes lots of it. This funding comes from both private and public sources, the last being your tax dollars being routed through research grants. Continued funding from either source is dependant on results or the promises of the desired results. Note the last statement – “desired results.” After all, who wants to fund any research if it doesn’t produce what you want?

Here’s where the politics begins to enter into the scientific field. What researcher wants to have his pet project run out of money & get canceled? None, I would wager. And the desperation runs higher if the researcher has spent years working on the project. So the research scientist now resorts to politics to keep the funding flowing. And this will sometimes put the scientist in a rather compromised position – how to present the data to insure continued funding? There’s an old saying that states –

Figures don’t lie, but Liars figure.

And that’s exactly what happens. The data is manipulated in such a way that supports the sponsor’s opinions and views. This is when science becomes junk science, and the scientist is nothing more than a parasitic shill.

We have been conditioned that scientists and researchers are ethical people, concerned only with the Joe Friday version (just the facts, ma’am) of what the research can prove. Unfortunately, where large sums of money are concerned along with a life’s worth of work that just will not be the case. This is where I have a problem with the arguments for humans causing Global Warming.

I stated in an earlier post:

…computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect. I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now…

If Global Warming were truly caused by human activity, then every scientific community around the world would be in total agreement with the data and raising the alarm. The fact is, they’re not, and they are having pretty ugly arguments over it too.

Global Warming is an unproven theory based on computer modeling. Computer modeling is only as good as the data used in the model and the sophistication of the program to manipulate that data in as realistic manner through algorithms (mathematical formulas). And there isn’t a person or persons alive that can write such a sophisticated program to allow for each and every variation of the Earth’s climate. If that were the case, then why can’t your weatherman tell you what the weather is going to be in exactly one month from now?

Just for grins & giggles, what variations could affect this model? Well, let’s see….

• Solar flare activity
• Volcanic eruptions
• Large meteor impacts with the atmosphere and/or ground (can you say “extinction”? I knew you could…)
• Any other “acts of God” you could imagine

Now the program could take into account the above, but the varying degrees of random activity of each of the above in combinations with each other will introduce wide variations in the results. We could predict anything from no effect to the end of the world as we know it. Having programmed a fair amount in my career and performed simulations with multiple variables in specific applications, I know the above to be true.

So here’s where I have a problem with blindly accepting the results of these models that humans are the cause of or are contributing to Global Warming. On one hand, these computer models cannot possibly take into account every single variable and predict with any certainty the climate of the earth over the next couple of weeks much less in ten years time. On the other hand, we have research scientists who have made a career in predicting the climate trends and have already reversed themselves once in my lifetime. This all adds up to one big steaming pile of manure.

I’m not alone in this assessment. One of the websites that I have listed to the right is the Global Warming Hysteria Blog. Then there’s the sixth-grade class that debated this subject after performing some research and concluded that (hat tip to jimmyb). And finally, there are the numerous news reports of scientists and climatologists disputing the findings of the Global Warming researchers (and getting death threats besides). Don’t believe me? Then do your own research and educate yourself.

So why is such a fuss being raised over a theory? The short answer is politics and power. Environmentalists are a powerful lobby in Washington, and will seize upon anything possible to promote their agenda.

Don’t get me wrong – we need to be environmentally responsible. It is our planet, and we shouldn’t trash it up. But some of the agendas this group promotes would cost extreme amounts of money for very little (if any) return. Global Warming is one of those.

However, between a couple of Hollywood movies dealing with global weather catastrophes and a powerful politician supporting these views, the old adage of “saying something long enough and often enough to become fact” is becoming true. This is nothing more than propaganda at its very best. And just like all the other successful propaganda and marketing schemes used in the past, this one is sucking in people (and entire countries). After all, scare tactics work very, very well.

The upshot is that you and I will be pressured, forced, or otherwise mandated to bow to the Goracle’s version of environmentally friendly. And some of these choices are not, in the long run, environmentally friendly nor energy-efficient. But more on that in a later post…

Sorry, folks, but I think our scientists and researchers need to stay out of the politics and stay in the lab. They should also stick to reporting facts as facts, and not spin it around to suit whatever is the buzzword for the day.

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore

Unless you have been living under a rock, Al Gore is now the High Grandmaster for the Prevention of Global Warming. Although his movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award for a documentary (?), I call into question his real motives for jumping on this bandwagon. But first of all, let me clarify my position on the subjects of the environment and global warming.

We all should do our part for not trashing up or poisoning our world. I make sure that the cars are in good repair so they don’t belch blue smoke all over the place & get decent mileage. I don’t pour used motor oil on the ground, but make sure that it is properly disposed of. My trash is bagged accordingly, and that all recyclables are put in the recycle bin. I use the minimum of fertilizer on my lawn, and the same could be said of pest control methods that are used around the house (two cats help here). In general, my household generates as little waste as possible, and compared to several families around me, we generate the least (we would throw away less if it wasn’t for that damn junk mail…).

I do believe that the Earth is indeed warming up, and that it is part of a natural cycle. If this were not a natural cycle, then we would still be in an Ice Age with sheets of 50’ thick ice covering where I now live. I also believe that humans, for the most part, have a minimal impact on generating the so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, volcano eruptions will spew out thousands of tons of ashes and gases into the atmosphere at a level many times that of what the human population would be able to emit in the same amount of time (links here, here, and here).  If you believe that humans can control or have an effect on what Nature does do, then humans would have been able to control & predict the weather and all sorts of natural disasters such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes.

At this point in time, computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect (i.e., junk science). I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age that was coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now. This reversal calls into doubt the motives of these scientists as well, but that’s not the point of this post.

The real subject of this post is Al Gore. Can he be trusted? What are his motives? What is he really doing in the name of Global Warming? I think I may have him figured out, and of course, I have a little bit of help from my friends and the Internet. So let’s dig into this self-proclaimed savior of the Earth.

The first time I became aware of Al Gore was when he was selected and later elected to be the Vice-President opposite of Bill Clinton (just like the majority of you). With Hillary running most of the show with her health care and other initiatives, Al’s role in the Clinton Administration was minimal to say the least. But later actions and words, especially during his run for the Presidency and now during his campaign against Global Warming, showed the character of the man. Some prime examples that come to mind are:

During a photo shoot to promote environmental responsibility for water conservation, Al was photographed paddling around in a canoe, presumably to show that if everyone conserved water, everyone could enjoy the benefits of conservation. What was not widely reported was that there was a drought in the area, and that over 30,000 gallons of water was released into the stream to raise the water level 6 inches. The stream was too low, too many rocks were showing, and the canoe was bottoming out.  Not very photogenic...

During his campaign for President, Al made the claim that he invented the Internet. No, not quite, Al. Al voted on funding to expand what was then a crude communications network that was used between universities, research facilities, and the military. That expansion became the Internet that we all now use without a second thought. Fund, yes, invent, no.

During the class-action suits against the tobacco companies, Al came out and stated that tobacco was an evil curse. He carried on for several weeks until it was found out that part of the Gore fortune was made from the raising and selling tobacco leaf. He quieted down after that.

Recently, Al’s involvement in buying “carbon-offset credits” to offset the pollution from his private jet from a company that he owns in total or in part (haven’t established that yet) has been reported & commented on by various news outlets. Additionally, the energy inefficiency of the various homes that he owns throughout the country was also reported. This does not look good for a person that repeatedly states that he is for the environment and not for himself.

In understanding Al Gore, you must first understand that he is a politician through and through. He will state almost anything to garner attention, support, and accolades from the public. He is a career politician, and a shameless self-promoter, ready to favorably position himself on whatever issue that is in the public eye.

Another thing that you must understand about Al is that he is a hypocrite. It is that “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality that is revealed in the examples above. It is this elitism that is most disturbing about this man.

Finally, I believe that Al is a Liberal with a Socialist agenda. Consider this from the post Globalization:

Way back when Al Gore and Ross Perot were having a discussion (debate) on NAFTA, Al was trying to make the case for NAFTA by using the example of Valmont Electric moving their operations from Danville, Illinois to Mexico. He stated that Mexico’s standard of living would eventually rise to meet that of the United States, and businesses like Valmont would stop moving to Mexico.

Only a Socialist would want everyone to be equal in wealth, even if it is across an international border and to the detriment of your own country. Equal, of course, unless you are one of the elites calling the shots…

So what is his motive for becoming the High-Priest of Global Warming? In essence – power. He is still smarting from losing the election to Bush, and wants to stay in the public spotlight. The Democratic Party hung out the “do not apply” sign to Al after he lost the election, and this is a way of trying to get the sign taken down & back in the race for the President. But if he doesn’t get another shot at the Presidency, he can certainly get richer by speeches on Global Warming and buying carbon-offset credits from himself (of which I would almost bet that he uses as a tax-write-off). If he can swat a few noses along the way and exert power over those people who didn’t support him, then so much the better.

No, Al isn’t the wild-eyed environmentalist wacko preaching from the altar of Global Warming that some people portray him as. He is a smart & conniving man that has an agenda. And that agenda, which is to gain as much power and wealth as he can, will ruin this country and countless lives unless he is exposed for what he is – a shameless, greedy political hack. Only then will his quest for power be negated.

And no, I don’t trust him. Not one teeny bit…

Common Ground With Liberals?

This topic has been rattling around in my brain for a couple of weeks, and I finally had time to write it up.

In many respects, I can understand the Liberal mindset on issues. They have the same concerns that I have, even though I do not agree with their methods on how to accomplish the stated goal. For example...

The stated Liberal concern for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is their safety. I too am concerned for the men and women of our armed services, and do not want them to be killed or wounded. Our reasoning on how that may best be accomplished and whether Iraq is a lost cause or not differ (and I have written numerous posts on this subject), but we do agree that the sons & daughters of Americans need to be protected.

Let's next take a look at the educational system. Liberals want our children to be protected from bullying and harm. At the same time, our children need to be endowed with high self-esteem. While I agree with the need for zero tolerance for violence policies and our children needing high self-esteem, we differ on the methods. Where I believe that responsibility for actions and accomplishment lead to high self-esteem and social responsibility, the Liberals want to give unearned praise as the way for establishing this feeling and social attitude (I know, because I've seen it firsthand in my son's school). But again, we do agree that our sons & daughters should have the best school experience possible in as safe an environment as we can give them.

One of the most important topics that we agree on is our children's safety. Expanding on the above, we want our children to be safe no matter where they may be – in school, at the mall, driving a car, at a party, etc. As such, sometimes ridiculous policies are placed in the schools for their safety. One such example is the removal of pop machines from school property. I would much rather that the children take responsibility for their actions rather than the Liberal tactic of making excuses for their actions and removing the pop machines. While I do think that removing the machines was a good thing, it's the principle of the matter. But regardless of this Liberal victim mentality, we agree that the health and well being of our children is important.

We also agree that children need to be raised in a responsible manner. After all, a prominent Liberal wrote a book on how it takes a village to raise a child. I personally think it takes two committed and loving parents (man & wife) to do the job correctly. But again, raising children is important – after all, they are our flesh and blood.

Last is the issue of Global Warming. Liberals, by & large, state that man is creating the Global Warming situation. I do agree that the data shows that the Earth is on a warming trend, but I do not agree that it is man-made or if mankind is influencing this trend. Depending on which “expert” and model is being looked at, mankind’s activities are having no effect, some effect, or a huge impact upon the Earth’s weather. Some years ago, the scientists were concerned that the Earth was cooling down, and that a new ice age was just around the corner. Now these same scientists are concerned that the Earth will turn into the next Venus. But regardless of how you look at the data and which side of the issue you are, the main concern is that we both want to leave an Earth for our children and grandchildren to live in and enjoy.

I think that I've established some common ground on how important children are to both Liberals and Conservatives. They need to be nurtured and protected from the ills of the world until they are ready to take their place in it. They are to be given the best possible chance to succeed in life, to be happy and productive in whatever career they may choose. Which leads me to one question:

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do you support, in any of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?

Must Be Global Warming....

I lost a post that I was working on.  Poof!! Evaporated like a puddle in the middle of the desert.  And it was a good one too...

The wife (Mrs. Common Sense) wrecked her car.  Actually, someone did it for her - the moron was driving too fast and instead of slowing down to avoid an accident, took the front end off her car.  She is OK, mad, depressed, POed, frustrated...you get the picture.  Also her cell phone was a casualty of the accident, so it had to be replaced.

Since Global Warming is being blamed for so much, I think I can safely blame it for losing the post, my wife's accident, and not being able to post for a while between the two events...

Blasted eco-nuts...