November, 2018, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of man made global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical post listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaim.

1) A recent research paper that was published in the scientific journal, Nature, proclaimed that the oceans were warming much faster than expected due to global warming and/or climate change. If true, this would have serious ramifications around the world, especially with countries with long coastlines along the oceans. The mainstream media went nuts with the news, proclaiming catastrophe in in its headlines covering the research, especially since the well respected magazine Nature had published the peer reviewed article.

One problem though, the research was wrong due to a math error:

• The study claimed that ocean temperatures had risen 60% faster than previously believed.
• But mathematician and well known climate change skeptic Nicholas Lewis found some math errors that proved this was not the case: “The findings of the . . . paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
• Research author Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, agreed that their math error was indeed true: “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
• Keely went on say in total honesty: “We really muffed the error margins.”

Error corrected, good thing. But three troubling thoughts come to mind:

• It does not appear that the mainstream media corrected their original stories once the error was found and admitted to. Which, if given what we have discussed over the past week or so, lack of journalism honesty and ethics, means that the mainstream media has contributed to muddying the waters when it comes to the science of climate to suit their preconceived and biased intentions and aims.
• Second, we will these two scientists the benefit of doubt on the error in their calculations. However, given the proven history of global warming advocates and scientists intentionally faking data and results to align with their preconceived notions, this type of relatively simple screw up does the raise the specter of bad and corrupt science for political and personal fame and glory.
• And finally, and related to the previous point, this was a peer reviewed article. Why did none of those peers find the error? Were they just sloppy also or did they want the wrong findings to stand and fit their biased and skewed view of climate? 

Shady dealings potentially all around.

2) Although global warming basically stopped increasing two decades ago, there was global warming prior to the last two decades. And while global warming advocates always claim that ANY global warming is really bad, we have often discussed the reality that global warming may actually make it better for humanity, not worse.

Consider a February 13, 2018 article from the Constitution website that discussed this topic from both perspectives:

• Former EPA head, Scott Pruitt, earlier this year posed the hypothesis that global warming might actually be good for humanity.
• Penn State global warming advocate Michael Mann accused Pruitt of being in “stages of denial” and American Meteorology Society’s Paul Higgins also checked in to berate Pruitt. 
• But Mann and Higgins represent only one side of the argument.
• Consider Robert Murphy, an economist with the free market Institute for Energy Research who has done a lot of research regarding climate-economic models: “It’s always problematic to try to add benefits and harms together since people are different, but in terms of standard economic modeling, Administrator Pruitt’s comments are not as unreasonable as some of his critics are claiming. There are plenty of obvious benefits to certain regions from warmer temperatures, such as better harvests and fewer elderly deaths in the winter.” 
• Murphy has concluded that, “It shows that the actual economic research on the human impacts of climate change are not as catastrophic as the alarmists would have you believe.”
• Another study by environmental economist Richard Tol forecasted that impacts of global warming would be a net benefit to humanity, at least in the shorter term horizon.
• Even longer term impacts, if global warming would start rising again, would not be all that bad: “ After 1.5 degrees [increase in warming], Tol found warming has “a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the twenty-first century,” but the costs would be “substantially greater in poorer, hotter, and lower-lying countries.””
• Specifically, Tol has stated: “There are of course positive aspects to climate change. The eastern US has just been through a brutal winter. Climate change will bring lower heating costs in winter, and cut cold-related death and disease. Plants grow faster and tolerate drought better if there is more carbon dioxide in the air.”
• Historical satellite data likely shows that the Earth has greened up over the past several decades, possibly because of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air from fossil fuel burning.
• Since carbon dioxide is an essential plant food, more carbon dioxide may suggest more plant food which may mean more plant growth.
• In fact, scientist Craig Idso of the CO2 Coalition has documented a load of studies and research that show the improved growth rates with higher levels of CO2 in the air: “And beyond this very real benefit to human health from increasing temperatures, the extra CO2 has helped to increase crop yields so as to improve food security.”
• Of course, the United Nations’ effort on climate change, the IPCC, disagrees with all of these positive research findings on higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air.
• But the IPCC also ignores the reality that crop yields have increased so much during the global warming hysteria that, “The world produces so much food now the World Peace Foundation declared the “elimination of calamitous famines.” Population has grown, but the death toll from famines has shrunk considerably in the last 50 years.”

So who is right, the global warming skeptics or the doubters? Tough to say but in my opinion there is far more science showing that global warming, which stopped two decades ago, has been more beneficial to humanity than hurtful. And given the reality that the forecasts of doom of global warming advocates over the past forty years or so have always been wrong, I believe the reality as pointed out by Dr. Tol: “The climate change we have witnessed over the last half century has been a net positive for humans.” 

And that is why I am a global warming skeptic and a believer in science.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

June, 2016, Part 1, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and a Believer In Science: One Part Fact, Another Part Insanity

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.”This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control of our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical posts listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims:

1) Let’s start off this month’s discussion on being a global warming doubter and a believer in science with a nice summary of facts and realities by Steven Capozzola, writing for Breitbart on May 28, 2016. We have already discussed many of these realities in the past: the strong correlation between global warming and solar activity,the reality that Earth’s temperatures stopped rising almost twenty years ago, the potential identified by some scientist for a new ice age in the next decade or so, etc. 

One interesting scientific fact that I was not aware is the reality that “ As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases.... Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function.”In other words, there is not a straight line relationship between CO2 and temperatures, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does result in a consistent warming increase. This may explain why EVERY global warming forecast based on CO2 increases has been embarrassingly wrong over time.

Other interesting facts and studies that are obviously not Al Gore-endorsed from the article are listed below:

You don’t believe in global warming?

Yes, I do. The earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

You don’t believe in climate change?

Yes, I do. The earth’s climate has changed several times, just in the past 1,000 years.

CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.

Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from roughly 0.028% of the earth’s atmosphere in the late 1800s to the current 0.040%. However, solar output has also increased significantly in that time. If the correlation between solar variability and the climate swings of the past few thousand years is any indication, this rise in solar activity offers a valid explanation for the overall increase in temperatures seen over the past century.

Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.

Yes they do. In fact, Russian scientists studying solar variability now worry that declining solar activity could lead to globally cooler temperatures by 2030.

But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas, and one that casts doubt on its ability to function as the sole agent of climate change. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in minuscule quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum band of infrared radiation. Essentially, CO2 rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can. Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially reaching a saturation point throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

Scientists say that CO2 is warming the earth.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it helps to maintain warmth in the atmosphere. But as noted above, CO2’s heat-trapping function is essentially saturated by the current level of 0.04%. Furthermore, climate models actually project that most of the presumed “man-made” warming will come from an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The principal idea of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) is that the small amount of additional warming contributed by CO2 (before it becomes saturated) will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere (and is responsible for roughly 80% of the “greenhouse effect”), this water vapor will create “positive feedback” for further warming. Unfortunately, the AGW theory essentially disregards the cooling feedback caused by clouds (since atmospheric water vapor inevitably transitions to cloud cover.) Clouds provide net cooling by reflecting solar radiation back into space, shading ground surfaces, and producing rain (which not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs atmospheric CO2.)

But 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

What’s most amusing is that, truthfully, no one really knows how many scientists there are in the world. Or what they all think about global warming. Or how many of them work in relevant scientific disciplines. However, the “97% consensus” is a flawed statement. Only 32.6% of the papers examined in the infamous John Cook study actually stated a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming. However, 97% of those said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.” And so what we have is a misleading statement that has become misrepresented and cited as fact. (Interestingly, there is a website called The Petition Project that lists more than 30,000 scientists who have publicly declared their disagreement with the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.)

2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter.

The warm temperatures experienced in 2015-2016 are the direct result of a strong El Nino.

El Nino is caused by global warming.

El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It happens when prevailing winds start to fade after several years of progressively “piling up” water in the western Pacific Ocean. This surplus, warm water washes back over the eastern Pacific, releasing tremendous amounts of heat. 2015’s spike in temperatures was due to El Nino. It would be dishonest and inaccurate to claim that 2015’s increase in surface temperatures was simply due to man-made warming. And even climate “alarmists” admit that El Nino is not a manifestation of man-made warming.

The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the earth is getting hotter and hotter.

Satellite measurements from both UAH-Huntsville and RSS clearly show a “pause” in global temperatures (i.e. a net flat lining of temperatures) over the past 15-20 years. As the current El Nino fades, it’s reasonable to expect a resumption of recent global temperatures. More significantly, the “pause” has been the subject of numerous debates and research papers. Climate alarmists don’t deny that it has happened, and instead offer varying explanations. Even Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, says that the pause occurred and was not foreseeable.

NOAA says there’s no “pause” in global warming.

There is legitimate concern as to the accuracy and reliability of recent temperature measurements being reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA.) Last year, NOAA reported adjustments to global temperature records that suddenly “erased” the pause. I.e. Earlier decades were revised to be “cooler,” while recent years were suddenly marked as “warmer” by factoring in measurements that included seawater temperature readings from the engine manifolds of ocean-going vessels. Various academic papers have debunked NOAA’s “new” temperature findings, but NOAA’s revised measurements continue to be used to make claims such as “warmest year ever.” The questionable methods utilized by NOAA to assemble its “pause buster” study are now the subject of a Congressional investigation.

But the oceans are becoming acidic.

The oceans remain comfortably alkaline, as they have for millions of years. As noted above, atmospheric CO2 levels have typically ranged far higher throughout the earth’s history, yet the oceans never became acidic. In fact, if they had, submarine fossil layers would have readily dissolved. Claims of the ocean “becoming acidic” are actually a misrepresentation of variations in the ocean’s pH scale. Seawater has typically measured roughly 8.18 on the pH scale. Recent, pH levels of 8.10 have been noted, which would mean slightly less alkaline oceans. But it’s misleading to say that the oceans are “becoming acidic,” particularly when ocean pH often varies greatly, based on season and location.

But the glaciers are melting.

Even NASA has stated that Antarctica’s ice cover is growing, not shrinking.

But there are more hurricanes and more tornadoes.

The U.S. has reached a record 127 months without a major hurricane. The U.S. is also at its lowest 3-year tornado total since 1950.

But we need to cut dangerous carbon pollution.

The “carbon pollution” you hear so much about is carbon dioxide, also known as CO2. It’s what all animals (including humans) breathe out, and what plants absorb. In fact, rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have led to a progressive “greening” of global plant life in recent decades. Because atmospheric CO2 is at such historically low levels, the world’s plants and oceanic phytoplankton are currently rejoicing in this slightly more abundant supply of nourishment.

All of these assertions in the original article come with links to studies and scientists that assert them. Those links can be found at the original article at:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/28/rebutting-climate-alarmism-simple-facts/

2) Okay, after this first, rational point about looking at potential man made global warming by examining all of the available scientific data and history, let’s jump to California where the political class in that state is about to make it illegal to dare to use ALL of the available data and science to reach a personal opinion about global warming. Failure to not abide by their viewpoint is about to be made a crime in that state.

Yes, having a different opinion of the government is now about to become a crime and in the process, destroy the First Amendment of the Constitution. Michael Bastasch, writing for the Daily Caller: “California lawmakers are preparing to vote on legislation that would allow state prosecutors to go after businesses and organizations promoting skepticism of man-made global warming.

The bill, called the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, has cleared two state Senate committees and is on its way to broader consideration by legislators Thursday.

“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change.” The bill, introduced by Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, makes questioning global warming a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Act, and it would retroactively extend the statute of limitations on being prosecuted for climate hearsay from four years to 30 years.”

As I read this, it looks like you can be prosecuted in California for not toeing Al Gore’s line not only in the future but also retroactively back as much as 30 years. What insanity is this? This is Big Brother, 1984, and dictatorship 101 all in one. 

Every major global warming forecast has been utterly wrong over the past decades and still these nut cases in California are ignoring that reality and want to impose, and prosecute, what could be a mythical theory on any non-believers. Maybe we need to send the previous discussion on global warming reality from above to the politicians in the state government in California. But that might make me a criminal in their eyes so let’s let it slide. 

That will do it for today’s discussion. One part sanity, based on facts and reality, one part insanity based on suppression of the First Amendment. More tomorrow.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

November, 2013 I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science Update, Part 4: Where Are We Today?

We have spent the past few days discussing how it is perfectly logical and reasonable to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. We have shown numerous examples of scientific research, analysis, and findings that show the potential for a high likelihood that global warming, or the rebranded “climate change“ concept, effort is either a hoax, a mistake, or non-existent.

Now, we have made the statement throughout our exploration of those scientific efforts refuting global warming that maybe there actually is global warming or climate change occurring as a result of humanity’s actions. There is so much analysis and research supporting both sides of the equation that if you take a step back, it is difficult to truly believe what is going on. 

We did vehemently and often object to the Al Gores of the world who rant at and insult those of us who are global warming doubters but believers in science. Calling people ignorant, environmental Nazis, homophobes, racists, and a whole slew of other insults does nothing to get folks to come together for an adult conversation on the potential issue. 

These people have slung around the insults without considering facts and realities. First, the vast, vast majority of global warming forecast models over the years have grossly overestimated the likely impact of global warming. Thus, if your models are wrong, then the underlining assumptions supporting those models must be wrong. And if those assumptions are based on the thesis that global warming truly exists, then your thesis is wrong.

Second, the earth’s overall temperature has stopped warming and has been remarkably stable and unchanged over the past 15 years or so. Global warming advocates and models would have not believed this reality 15 years ago. In fact, as we have reported, ice expanses at both poles have started expanding again, hardly compatible with a warming earth.

Third, respected scientists, including many at the top research center in the world, the CERN Institute, have proven via their methods that global warming, if it is occurring, is part of natural cycle and mankind’s activities have nothing to do with. 

But rather than considering ALL aspects of global warming science, all that the name calling from the advocates of global warming has accomplished is to harden each side’s positions and opinions of the other side, leaving no room for discussion and compromise to mutual understanding. And without mutual understanding, no action is taken and the potential for problems gets larger and larger. 

But let the name calling stop today, Today and tomorrow we will set up a process to address both sides and come out for the better regardless of whether global warming is a reality or not. Today, we will look at the energy landscape and the reality of energy and carbon footprints going forward in time. Unless we understand the reality of where we are, we cannot develop a plan of where we want to go.

Tomorrow, we will lay out specific steps, processes, and challenges that need to be overcome on the scientific, research, and political fronts, starting with the reality of where we end up today. If those steps are successfully implemented, we will clean up our air and environment, reduce energy costs, and reduce our carbon footprint independent of whether global warming is fact or fiction. 

We would want to these things even if global warming was never dreamed up. If global warming is indeed a reality, than our plan would be the proper way to attack it.

So, let’s start with the reality of today when it comes to fossil fuels and carbon footprints, things that a global warming advocate hates:

1) The fastest growing economy in the world over the past decade has probably been China’s. It’s economy has grown at some of the highest year over year rates in the history of the world. It has helped create a growing Chinese middle class and upper class who want the latest in technology whether it be in electricity using home products, automobiles, and other energy hungry endeavors.

As a result, China has needed to greatly increase its ability to produce energy for its growing consumer and business demand. And the quickest and easiest way to do that was to start burning a lot more coal and a lot more petroleum products. 

It has started to develop massive coal fields in its western regions to feed the growing demand for electricity in its large eastern cities. It is cutting deals with countries all over the world to get access to local fossil fuel natural resources. It now burns about the 60% of all coal in the world (source: Business Week).

Thus, any global warming plan has to include China’s cooperation. Without it, anything any other nation does, including the United States, will be overwhelmed by the growing carbon footprint of the Chinese economy.

2) I am sure Al Gore and his ilk would love to have every human getting their energy needs fulfilled by clean, renewable energy sources, particularly those new technologies that he has invested in. But according to an article in the November, 2013 issue of Reason magazine, that is not going to happen anytime soon:

• The Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently released its analysis and forecast on what the global energy footprint is likely to look like in the future. 
• Their forecast predicts that by 2041, mankind will be using 56% more energy annually than it does today. 
• A whopping 80% of it will come from burning fossil fuels. Yes, almost three decades from now, oil, coal, etc. will still be the dominate fuel sources for humanity, a global warming advocate’s worst nightmare. 
• The use of petroleum and liquid fuels will increase 32%. 
• The use of natural gas will increase 64%. 
• The use of coal will increase 44%. 
• Total energy use from renewables will increase from 11% to 15%. 
• Energy created carbon dioxide emissions will rise 46%. 

Thus, there is probably no end in sight for the use of high carbon laden fuels. This is the likely reality based on expert opinions.

3) This future reality does not mean we should give up trying to reduce our carbon footprint and cleaning up the air. We have reported in the past few posts how the U.S. has greatly reduced its carbon footprint over the past few years, attaining double digit reductions in carbon emission. A more recent update of this success comes from a September 6, 2013 Business Week article that reported the U.S. has reduced its annual carbon dioxide emissions by 12% in just the past five years.

4) The Week magazine’s November 14, 2013 issue ran an article that showed the horrible levels of urban air pollution in large Chinese cities and the fact that seven out of the top ten most polluted cities in the world are in China. These pollution conditions are obviously harmful and often fatal for the citizens of those cities. How bad is it, according to the article:

• China depends on high carbon footprint coal for 70% of its power needs. 
• Chinese government decrees to reduce pollution call for only a 2% reduction in coal usage. 
• While very few Chinese citizens owned a motorized vehicle twenty years ago, today there are 120 million cars and 120 million other motor vehicles on the road. 
• Air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature Chinese citizen deaths in 2010. 
• Chinese lung cancer rates are up 465% in the past thirty years. 
• In some cities, Chinese scientists estimate that the average citizen will see their life span reduced by 5.5 years on average. 

Regardless of whether or not global warming exists, people should not have to live like this. Taking action to reduce carbon pollution makes for a healthier humanity and if global warming is a true issue, these actions will also be address global warming by cleaning up the air.

5) But consider the potential positive economic upside for the U.S. from a carbon perspective, from an analysis in the September 6, 2013 issue of The Week magazine, keeping in mind that our domestic economy has stunk for at least the past six years and shows no sign of getting better:

• New technology has allowed the United States to greatly increase the amount of crude oil that can be obtained within our own borders. 
• This technology usage has resulted in high paying new jobs, substantially reducing the unemployment rate in several now oil rich states, e.g. 3% in North Dakota and 5% in Oklahoma. 
• While the U.S. imported upwards of 60% of its oil in 2005, it now only imports 40% of its needs. 
• It is estimated that at the current rate, by 2035, the U.S. might be energy independent of the rest of the world. 
• This would greatly reduce the need for us to butt into the affairs of other countries, militarily and diplomatically, particularly those in the Middle East. 
• The energy technology boom as it relates to natural gas and oil could result in one million new manufacturing jobs in the next ten years. 

Okay, before getting to a solution tomorrow, what do we know about today in the world:

• China’s economy is growing rapidly and will require larger and larger amounts of energy sources, amounts that will require the use of carbon intensive energy sources, including coal, for years to come. 
• China is choking on the pollution that its economic growth and energy usage growth has caused. 
• The U.S. has already substantially reduced its carbon footprint over the past five years without government mandates or bureaucracies. 
• Energy industry experts predict that carbon based energy sources will still constitute the majority of raw material used to generate energy in the next several decades, renewables not withstanding. 
• New energy technology usage in the U.S. is one of the very few industries segments that have shown positive economic and employment growth over the past few years. 

From these five realities, we will propose a simple yet elegant solution to the energy, pollution, and…global warming issue regardless of whether or not global warming is fact or fiction.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

The Taxing Carbon Fallacy - Part 2

Yesterday we touched on the first aspect of the fallacy of Obama's cap and trade program for carbon emissions and how dangerous and costly such a large program would be on America, based on some highly debatable assumptions about global warming. Today, we extend the argument of stupidity of this program by looking at some facts, not a strong point of the current political class:

• According to an article by Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakara on April 16, 2007, China and India will build about eight hundred new coal-based and carbon spewing electric generation plants by 2012. Mr. Zakara wrote that these incremental plants will burn nine hundred million tons of coal every year and dump 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. If all of the countries who signed the Kyoto Accord had fully implemented their commitments (which they have not done), their actions would have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 483 million tons, less than 20% of what just these new Indian and Chinese power plants will generate.
• According to an article in The Week Magazine on June 19, 2009, the IMF estimates by year 2050 there will be 3 billion cars on the road around the world compared to 700 million today. The Tata Group, India's largest corporation, has introduced an inexpensive ($2,500) subcompact car, the Nano, to take advantage of this growth in automobile ownership. The Nano will allow untold millions of people in the emerging middle classes of China and India to possess a car for the first time in their life. According to the Briefing section in The Week magazine's February 27, 2009 edition, the Nano's catalytic converters will only scrub 80 percent of its pollutants and will do absolutely nothing to reduce/eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. The article quotes figures from the Asian Development Bank that estimated that India's carbon dioxide emissions would increase from 219 million tons per year to 1.5 billion tons per year by 2035, largely as a result of these type of Nano vehicles.
• According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world's population will grow from 6 billion people in 1999 to over 7 billion in 2011. The US Census bureaus extends these population estimates, saying that the world's population will grow 50% from 6 billion in 199 to 9 billion in 2043. The vast majority of this growth will come from developing countries, led by growth in China and India. In other words, there will be a lot more people looking for a set of wheels in the coming decades.
• At a recent international economic summit, most of the developing world rejected Obama's call for coordinated efforts to reduce emissions, saying that it was their turn for cheap energy and economic growth.

Bottom line is that regardless of what Obama and the political class do relative to cap and trade, emission reduction, taxing usage by American consumers and businesses, etc., it will likely have exactly no discernible impact on the environment, given the simple population, economic, and industrialization trends in the rest of the world. Thus, if global warming is indeed a reality, America acting alone will 1) not be able to overcome the increased emissions from around the world, 2) will unnecessarily penalize American businesses with burdensome fines, taxes and regulations, hurting American competitiveness and increasing unemployment and 3) the increased taxes Americans will pay under cap and trade will reduce any kind of economic recovery and growth. Does not sound like a winning formula to me. Untold pain on America but no halt to global warming.

Simple solution: develop and pass a reasonable and fair cap and trade program and PUT IT ON THE SHELF until the rest of the world agrees to similar constraints, i.e. use it as a club/enticement to get the rest of the world on board. Forcing Americans to reduce their energy usage while the rest of the world continues on their energy and carbon dioxide spree is just plan stupid and illogical.

Tomorrow: Part Three