From a well-known scientific institution based in Washington, DC:

"In 1941, astronomer [Milutin] Milankovitch proposed that regular variations in the Earth's orbit and axis may cause significant climate changes. Variations in distance from the Sun, and the tilt of the Earth's axis, affect distribution of the Sun's radiation on the Earth's surface. These astronomic variations are periodic and result in predictable changes in the amount of solar heat reaching critical regions of the Earth's climatic system. Although it does not explain the long-term cooling leading up to an ice age, this theory has received support from sea core studies showing short-term (10,000 to 100,000 years) ocean cooling cycles which conform roughly with those predicted by Milankovitch."

...

"Recent cycles of climatic change in the past 800 years are shown ... by analysis of isotopic changes in the upper part of the [sea] core. Recurrent 60- and 180-year cycles are evident. These cycles continue over even longer records for the past 2,000 years and agree closely with periods of sunspot activity. This suggests that recent short-term climatic changes may be related to cyclical changes in solar activity.

"Based on the regularity of climatic cycles, for the past 800 years, the projected curve for the next 75 years forecasts continued cooling through the 1980s, warming by 2015, and cooling again by 2030 through 2050."

Mr. Strack, a majority of scientists (which, to my understanding, is not "vast," and is largely made up of those dependent on government funding) stating (without conclusive evidence) that global warming (such as it is) is due principally to carbon dioxide production by human activity doesn't make it so. Need we review the countless times in the past when "vast" scientific consensus was proven wrong?

Kindly consider this "alternative" premise. Suppose you, as an investor, knew that GM's stock would go down all year long this year, and then go up all year long next year. Wouldn't you short GM's stock this year and then invest in it next year? Now suppose you, as a huckster politician, knew (by virtue of studies such as those referred to above) that global temperatures were going to go down for the next 30 years and then up for the following 30 years. Wouldn't you find some elaborate excuse to tax people for the temperature going down, and then, 30 years later, come up with some other equally bogus excuse to tax them for the temperature going up? When "global cooling" was the scare tactic of the day back in the late '70s and early '80s, our beloved government was pitching a tax plan for setting aside massive amounts of food assets to make up for the crop failures that a "vast majority" of scientists knew were sure to come. Today, now that we've moved into the warming phase of this natural cycle, our beloved government has come up with another tax scheme to take our money and do with it what they, in their proven wisdom, "know" is right.

We would do better to produce oil here in the United States and ship it to refineries situated here through energy-efficient pipelines than to waste energy -- and produce excess CO2 -- by shipping oil in tankers halfway around the world. But our government is preventing us from doing that.

We also would do better to take the money that scientists want us to spend on their studies and buy trees, plant them, and ultimately "sequester"* CO2 that way. But instead our government makes us spend money on ethanol production, which promotes clearing of treed land in favor of grains and grasses, and which reduces engine fuel efficiency by over 20 percent relative to gasoline; and, so far, has had little or no net effect (over its life-cycle) in reducing CO2 emissions (while increasing NOx emissions). We've been told that our salvation was in corn, but now -- no, wait... it's in sugar beets -- no, wait... biodiesel -- no, wait... switch grass -- no, wait... corn stover -- no, wait... waste biomass... no, wait...

Lutron Corporation has made lighting dimmers since 1961. By improving lighting efficiency and reducing lighting energy consumption, they estimate they have saved billions of kiloWatt-hours of energy (http://www.lutron.com/CMS400/default.aspx?app=energy). (As an electrical engineer, I believe their figures because I understand how they've done it.) They've also managed to help consumers (taxpayers) save money. These "win-win" benefits came from independent technical innovation and commercial product development. If the scientists who issued the subject proclamation were to devote their "vast" intelligence toward more efficient motors, lighting, and means of energy production, then not only would we have less carbon dioxide (not that that really matters), but they would get rich as well.

As it is, when it comes to global warming, our government and its attendant agencies and academies seem principally qualified to produce "vast" quantities of over-priced horse manure -- which, as we have been told, yields the greenhouse gas, methane. And methane, as you may not remember, was what the members of the "back to nature" movement of the '70s told us was the obvious choice for our country's energy needs back then. I'm looking forward to learning what people who know little or nothing about engineering and efficiency tell us we should do next, though I fear their subsequent proposals will amount to little more than reducing carbon emissions by means of exterminating carefully selected segments of the human population. Considering the history of centralized, collective governments elsewhere around the world, I expect that such proposals would be well-received by certain members of our Congress, and that there would also be a suitably "vast" number of scientists (much as there were in Nazi Germany) who would produce the appropriate studies to justify the enabling legislation to the well-intentioned but gullible, government-educated public.

* - what an utterly pretentious term!

Friday, June 13th, 2008 1:21 pm by P. Toll

• Print
• |
• Comment