State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

WHY THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS: Guest Post

The following gives the history of the global warming movement and explains why the scientists overwhelmingly believe that human CO2 does not play a significant role.

History:

In the 1970’s there was a period of global cooling which led the media to a frenzy of reporting a coming ice age.  A considerable body of knowledge existed on climate change and the phenomena which have caused it to occur. Examples are such phenomena as changes in the earth’s orbit, the orientation of the earth axis of rotation, variation in cosmic ray flux, and changes in the ocean currents.  For decades the Greenhouse Effect on the earth’s temperature had been known.  Therefore, during the 1970’s, a Swedish scientist proposed that humans increase their output of CO2 in order to increase the Greenhouse Effect so as to increase the 1970’s global cooling.

During the 1970’s cooling, Britain suffered because their supply of fuel was disrupted, (a) by the Middle East fuel oil embargo, and (b) by British coal miners’ strikes.

In about 1979 global cooling changed to global warming.  Prime Minister Thatcher wanted Britain to shift from coal to nuclear power as France had done. Therefore, she established a committee to report whether an additional argument for a shift to nuclear power was to reduce the output from burning hydrocarbons and thereby reduce the global warming then occurring.  The committee didn’t directly address the other various theories of the cause of climate change.   It studied the effects of human-related CO2 emissions on the earth’s average surface temperature, and the consequences to humans of the hypothesized continuing warming.

Thatcher’s committee released a report in the mid-1980’s finding that the rising CO2 content of the atmosphere since 1980 did correlate with the increase in global temperature.  Without proof it postulated cause-and-effect.  It predicted, without proof, a continuing temperature rise that would be disastrous to mankind.  The media gave lurid reports of the predicted catastrophes.  Environmentalists seized reducing CO2 output as a means to protect the earth.  Cold war activist organizations shifted their efforts to anti-global warming.  Many saw economic opportunity.  Then-Senator Al Gore had learned about global warming in college classes in the 1960’s.  As a Senate Committee Chair, he became a staunch supporter of the human-CO2 hypothesis.

The UN then appointed its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) with the mission of protecting the earth from climate change.  The panel was made up of political appointees (scientists and non-scientists) appointed by UN-member nations.  The panel established technical groups with an appointed IPCC member-scientist heading each.  The lead politically-appointed scientists recruited volunteer scientists of established reputations to address explicit technical issues.   They were to do this by a literature search – not by independent investigations.  One small cohort of climatologists evaluated findings on the “IPCC Hypothesis:  human CO2 makes a significant contribution to global warming.”  This cohort was not  concerned with evaluating other potential causes of global warming.  The remaining scientists were to address the various effects which would result from the assumed, continuing, long-term increase in future global temperature.

The technical groups, as I understand it,  were to submit individual group reports of human-related CO2 emissions, to a separate, elite, editing group composed of IPCC’s political appointees (scientists and non-scientists).   That editing group was to prepare a “Summary Report for Decision Makers.”  In doing so, these editors were free to change the scientists’ findings without further input from the scientists on the changes the editors made.  The Summary Report would be released to “decision-makers” and to the public.  Then the groups’ reports would be melded into a single “IPCC Assessment Report,” which also would be available to the public.  The Assessment Report…” would conform to the editor’s Summary Report.

The stage was set for a malfunctioning process.

There have been four such pairs of these two kinds of reports (assessment and summary) issued to date.

Genesis:

The fiction of scientists’ consensus on global warming gained began with the publication of the “First IPCC Summary Report for Decision Makers” in about 1992.  It matured with the Second Report, issued in 1996 and listing some 2,500 “contributors.”  Scientists in the IPCC group expert in the Greenhouse Effect, were a very small fraction of the 2,500 “contributors.  They reported in 1996 that, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date to anthropogenic [i.e., human] causes.” It was an unequivocal statement.

The politically-appointed editing group changed that scientists’ finding to say, “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.”

Thus, the politicians reversed the scientists’ findings.  The subsequent full IPCC 1996 Assessment report was prepared throughout to agree with the reversal.  There was dismay among many climatologists, worldwide.  A number of scientists who had participated asked that their names be removed from the reports’ contributors list.  The IPCC denied these requests, saying, “You contributed. You just didn’t agree.”  It did comply with an eminent French scientist who sued the IPCC in a French civilian court.

Asked why the change was made, the lead editor said it was due to “pressure” from U.N. member nations.  One activity pressing was the U.S. Department of State.  It was during Clinton/Gore Administration and V.P. Gore is said to have been involved.

All of the foregoing in this attachment is based mostly on, “A Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism…,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/09/06.  See particularly pages 21-22.

Because of the raging controversy following the 1996 report, a social sciences professor at UC, San Diego, read the abstracts of some 900 articles on global warming in the literature and reported that three-fourths of the authors supported the IPCC-Gore human CO2 hypothesis.  A European scientist involved in the global warming program reviewed the same 900 articles plus a few more.  In contrast, he reported that only 10 papers “fully supported” that hypothesis and only 34% “somewhat supported it.”  His report was not published when first submitted for publication in a journal, and the media did not learn of it at the outset.    

“Scientific Consensus” and “Settled Science:

Having read the IPCC’s “Second Summary Report for Policymakers” and the paper by the UCSD professor, media personnel believed that it was a broadly accepted scientific conclusion: i.e., “Settled Science.” [“Consensus opinions” is the media’s inaccurate view on how scientific decisions are made.]

Sequentially, the generally used scientific method it is to make an “hypothesis,” validate it to establish a “theory,” have a dialog to establish a generally-accepted theory, and ultimately to establish a “law.”  The dialog is among scientific peers who try to replicate the original experimental findings or to refute those findings with replicated experimental findings. That dialogue continues until the significant issues underlying the theory have been settled with unrefuted evidence.   After some time span of no significant further dialog and of continuing reinforcement, the theory becomes a “law.”  (There are other scientific methods, but none of the other methods were completed on the IPCC Hypothesis, either.)

The IPCC Hypothesis is still an hypothesis.  There are no scientific data demonstrating its truth.

In science, correlation does not of itself prove cause-and-effect.  I.e., a third variable could be causing the other two variables to change value.   Further, as a basic concept, it is not the opinions of a majority of scientists or anyone else who determine the validity of a theory.  Validity is determined by the demonstrated facts pertinent to the issue.  Up to a century or two before Columbus, everyone “knew” the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Believing that the IPCC’s second “Summary Report for Policymaker” established a valid theory, the mainstream media has suppressed news which did not support the IPCC Hypothesis.  For example, sixteen months ago I received a response to a draft OpEd submitted for publication.  The rejection said in part, words to the effect, “Our editorial board has decided the global warming issue is settled and there’s no point in prolonging the issue.  We would welcome papers on what to do about it.” [Recently, that media activity apparently negated that decision.]

Scientific dialogue on the IPCC Hypothesis still continues, but the mainstream media still ignores it.  Given the media’s biased reporting, most of the American public and its politicians were taught to believe it’s “settled science,” but the percentages of true believers among our citizens continues to decrease.   Of those scientists in the field who initially supported the hypothesis, many or most no longer do. On the other hand, no publicized “denier” scientists have become supporters

Support for the IPCC Hypothesis:

(a) Private Enterprise:  Industrial purveyors of “green” power sources stand to make billions on equipment, all of which would furnish power at greater expense than current sources.  GE, the corporation which would profit more than any others, reportedly has spent three times as much lobbying Congress as all the oil and coal corporations combined.  Ethanol and other biofuel industries have solid federal political support.  (For drawbacks of green power sources, see below).

(b)  Foreign Nations/United Nations.  An obvious solution to the non-problem defined by the hypothesis is to reduce the industrial CO2 output into the atmosphere.   Since we, the developed nations, are major emitters of CO2  and allegedly can “afford” the added expense of reducing that output, we are expected to make major reductions.  However, the Kyoto Accord exempted all developing nations, including China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia, from the requirement – even though they together place prodigious and rapidly-growing amounts of CO2 effluent.  Nations with appreciable nuclear power sources produce appreciably smaller CO2 – but environmentalists and others in America proscribe more American nuclear plants.  The effects of drastic CO2 emission curtailment on the USA’s economy and environment would be large, but the USA’s reduction would have only a minor effect on the world’s atmospheric CO2 load.  An overwhelming majority of UN nations support its hypothesis and will benefit at the expense of the developed nations grown affluent by the foresight, earnest attention, and hard work of its citizens.

(c)  American Government.  Many key politicians in our national and state governments vote in conformance with, (1) polls of their generally-misinformed voters, and (2) the vested-interests of their financial contributors.  Equally important, the government deficit funding supports industrial, commercial, and agricultural interests, which generates current government tax income.

(d)  Environmentalist:  There are valid concerns about trace emissions from burned hydrocarbon fuel.  For example our cars’ catalytic converters have devices to reduce this pollution and have mostly eliminated smog.  Further reduction is desirable:  we need to stop polluting the planet.  However, the combustion fuel pollutants do NOT include CO2.      Atmospheric CO2 itself is NOT only is NOT a pollutant; as described below, it is beneficial to both animals and plants.

Opposition to the IPCC Hypothesis.

(a) In the early 1990s, concerned climatologists (and the organizations they formed) challenged the technical claims being made by the human-CO2-effects proponents. These organizations evolved into the pro bono “Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Control (NIPCC).”  Headed by icons in the climatology field, the NIPCC has published two major reports and held two major, widely-attended, three-day, international conferences in New York City.  [Please Google, “NIPCC.”]  The mainstream media failed to report these NIPCC news items, while publicizing the UN-sponsored global warming meetings – meetings in which, NIPCC-member papers were denied presentation for seemingly political reasons.

(b) The media also failed to report the numerous surveys of professionals in the field who dispute the IPCC Hypothesis – such as the Global Warming Petition Project of 31,500 signees.   Active opposition is needed to counter the biased education of the voters, but only the conservative talk radio and the Fox News Network are reporting the countervailing facts.

(c)  In addition to the problems with the Second IPCC Assessment Report given above, the Third and Fourth IPCC Assessment Reports have had similar egregious technical faults.  For example, the Third Assessment Report emphasized the “hockey stick graph” which wrongly portrays global temperature history and events before 1970 and since 1998.  IPCC scientists unsuccessfully opposed its inclusion in the report, and the American Academy of Science later judged to be “of little utility.”  Subsequently, the hockey stick graph disappeared from scientific discourse.

(d) All of the IPCC Reports are based on the assumption that human-related CO2 caused the global warming between 1980 and 1996.  That assumption is based on the alleged correlation of the increases in atmospheric CO2 and in average annual global temperature during those years.  However, Gore and others plotted the two curves going back eons of time with one curve separated on the graph some distance above the other.  If the two curves are plotted so that they overlap, it is clear that the temperature changes first and then one or two hundred years later the air’s CO2 content changes.  Because of that time relationship, changes in the atmospheric CO2 does not cause the temperature change.  It’s vice versa.  This time lapse is because the ocean is the earth’s largest storehouse of (dissolved) CO2; and an increasing water temperature decreases the ocean’s solubility constant for dissolved gases.  Because water warmed by the sun, ocean currents, etc., is lighter than cold water, it takes many years of roiling the ocean water for the heat to be transferred to the full volume of oceans so as to obtain the full release of dissolved CO2.

(e) Increasing CO2 will benefit plants.  Doubling (2X) atmospheric CO2 will increase foodstuff production worldwide about 24%.  It will increase all plant growth rates [e.g. pine trees, about 40%].  In the ranges of interest in the IPCC Hypothesis, warming doesn’t hurt plants.

(f) Increased food and renewable resources benefits humans.   Historically, the high points of civilization have occurred during periods of global warmth.   The threshold at which CO2 becomes physiologically harmful is at atmospheric concentration about 25X that at present.  Note that Gore’s agog was concerned about an (improbable) increase to 2X by the next century.  Global warming benefits humans

(g) The CBO estimated that passing Cap and Trade will cost the average household an extra $875 in electricity costs in the year 2020, not the $175 estimated by the Administration.  Further, this $875 will greatly increase in subsequent years when the additional reductions in carbon emissions are required.  In addition to the increased costs of citizens’ home power consumption, Cap and Trade will significantly increase the cost of citizen’s food, clothing, shelter, and services, and any other activities requiring the use of power – like travel and golf course maintenance.

(h) Change of corn harvest from food to ethanol has already decreased the supply of corn as food for the earth’s population; causing starvation in poor countries.  Corn for ethanol production requires vast arable land areas.

(I) Wind power substituted for coal will increase power costs 75%.  It will take four hundred (400) square miles of land and thousands of miles of power lines to produce enough energy to power a typical city with wind power. Offshore windmill installations will be an ecological disaster to marine life and migrating birds; and it will be very more expensive than land-based windmills.

(j) Solar (thermal) power will require large land areas and will cost 570% more than coal.   Solar (photoelectric) will require large land areas and will cost 887% more than coal.

(k) In time we will exhaust present supplies of economical fossil fuels.  Before that happens we can phase in nuclear power.  The waste storage of all the wastes from nuclear power plants of the world to date will take only the volume of one commercial building; and space to take America’s waste exists in prepared underground chambers underneath the Nevada Test Site.  The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl occurred with   unsafe, unstable designs that are no longer used.  Our Navy has been nuclear-powered commencing in the 1950’s without human damage, and since perhaps since the 1960’s France has produced most of its power from the atom.  It’s the environmentalists’ unreasonable dread of a nuclear power plant explosion or of a vast spill of nuclear wastes that dropped America from world leadership in the nuclear power field – not the ability to construct a safe industry.

(l) Development of nuclear fusion power sources was halted in parallel with that of stopping nuclear fission power plant construction.  There is a nearly inexhaustible source of deuterium in the world’s oceans, but the unattained task is to contain the fusion reaction.

(m) Considering all the IPCC assessment reports to date, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that human-related CO2 has an observable effect on the earth’s annual average surface temperature.  There is ample evidence that it does not.  For example, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to the present, the earth stopped warming in 1998, commenced cooling soon after 2000, and is still cooling. The rate of cooling between 2006 and 2007 was the greatest rate of change for either heating or cooling since such measurements have been recorded.

(n) Further, There are many other indications that the cause of the 1980-1998 temperature rise is not increasing atmospheric CO2.  (1) If the IPCC hypothesis were valid, than per thermodynamics the troposphere temperature should be rising.  It isn’t.  (2) At least in America, and probably in other developed nations, the thermometers measuring surface temperature are in urban areas; and in these areas there is a “heat island” effect compared to surrounding areas.   Urban growth itself raises the difference in temperature between urban areas and the much larger adjacent rural areas.   (3) Many temperature-measuring instruments in America have been identified as being in faulty locations such as adjacent to air conditioner heat exhausts.  Thus, the US NOAA-measured temperatures have been found to have been significantly increased by such faults.  (4) All the computer programs used to predict future temperatures have used the assumption of a positive feedback effect from low-level clouds caused by condensation of rising moist air rising from heated earth’s surfaces.  However, the predicted human CO2 effect is exaggerated.  It recently has been shown that the low-cloud feedback is not positive – it’s negative.

(o) Assume, for purposes of discussion, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causing a larger Greenhouse Effect is the basic cause of the 1980-1998 global temperature increase.  What percentage of that increase is due to human-related CO2 emissions?  First, water vapor comprises more than 50% of the Greenhouse gases and contributes 96% of the Greenhouse Effect.  Atmospheric CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere and contributes less than 4% to the Greenhouse Effect.  Second, over 50% of the CO2 emitted into the earth’s atmosphere is emitted by volcanoes (on land and underwater).  During global warming, next is the CO2 from the ocean.  Other sources in decreasing importance come animals’ emissions (excluding humans), then bacterial emissions, then humans with a very small percentage.   Because the human CO2 effect on Greenhouse warming is a >4% times a very small percent, human-related CO2 emissions contribute less than 0.1% of an increase in the earth’s Greenhouse Effect.

Doubling human emissions from less than 0.1% to less than 0.2% would cause an immeasurably small change in the overall Greenhouse effect.

Conclusion.

The data show that human-related CO2 has an insignificant effect on the Greenhouse Effect’s ability to raise global surface average annual temperature.  Even if it did, CO2 is beneficial, not harmful, to humans, animals, and plants.  The “global warming religion” is not based on “science.”  It is based on other human motivations.

 

 

Benjamin H. Colmery, PhD is an honor graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.  He holds two masters degrees (Ohio State, physics, and UCLA, Eng. Mgt.) and a PhD (Wharton, Management).

 

Advertisements

April 27, 2013 Posted by | News | , , , | 13 Comments

Basics of Heat Transfer: Understanding the Physics of Global Warming

The temperature on Earth is a heat transfer problem.  This post will outline the basics physics involved.  First of all you have to determine the sources of heat for Earth.  The main source of heat for the Earth is the Sun (S).  Much smaller sources of heating on Earth are the thermal heat from geothermal sources and stellar radiation.  Geothermal energy has been decreasing over the life of the Earth and presently is likely too small to have any significant effect on temperatures.  Stellar radiation probably varies over huge cycles as the Solar System orbits the Milky Way, but is still small compared to the Sun.

The next question is whether S varies as a function of time.  The answer is yes.  For instance, sun spots cause variations in S.  Unfortunately, our physics does not allow us to model S(t).  At best we only have a vague idea based on historical evidence and what we know about other similar stars.  However, no one with certainty can say that the Sun’s output will not change radically the next year.  We have data on the Sun’s output that at best goes back with any accuracy 800 years.  Eight hundred years is not statistically significant compared to the 5 billion years of Earth and statistical modeling would still just be a guess.  We know similar stars eventually expand to several times the Sun’s present size and its output changes radically.  In addition, the amount of Solar radiation reaching Earth varies based on the variation in Earth’s orbit Milankovitch cycles.  These can be predicted and show a strong connection with Ice Ages, although all the mechanisms are not known.

Some of the solar radiation that hits Earth’s atmosphere is absorbed and some is reflected.  In addition, the Earth radiates some of its energy into space.  The amount of solar radiation that is reflected varies over time based on the different spectrum of light hitting the Earth and based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and clouds.  These variations are not well known and cannot be accurately modeled.  The amount of solar radiation that is absorbed necessarily varies also.  Things that affect the amount of absorption include clouds, greenhouse gases, absorption by the surface of the Earth and changes in Earth’s magnetic field.  Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor makes up up 95% of the greenhouse gas effect – almost all water vapor in the atmosphere occurs naturally.  CO2 represents about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect gases.  However, only 0.117% of this is man-made.  All man-made greenhouse gases consist of only 2.8% of the total.  The whole theory of AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming) is based on this single factor.

Our model does not include the radiation of heat from the Earth, let’s call it E.  All bodies radiate heat.  Roughly the amount of heat radiated from Earth will be equal to the surface area of the atmosphere.  However, the surface area of the Earth will vary based on the temperature and solar wind.  PV=nRT.  As the temperature rises the Volume and Pressure will increase.  No one can accurately model this radiative cooling.  In addition, there will be cooling because of the loss of matter.

So far we have the energy part of the equation.  In order to convert this into a temperature on Earth we have to the specific heat of air, land – including the different geographic regions, and water.  While it would be possible to determine some sort of average with some accuracy, this will not suffice because the air and water will move based on localized heating.  This will cause variations in the surface temperature and the atmospheric temperatures, which would be difficult to relate back to the model and vice versa.  No one can provide a good model for this term.

So what we have is an equation for the temperature on Earth T(t) which is the product of the Energy absorbed times the specific heat.  The energy absorbed is a function of the energy hitting Earth, which includes the S – Sun output, stellar radiation and geothermal energy.  We do not have an accurate model of the Sun’s output.  We do not know if it will suddenly increase or decrease.  The best we know is what has happened in the recent past.  We do not know or have good model for the amount of energy that is absorbed.  We do not know or have good model of the amount of energy emitted from Earth and we do not have a good handle on the specific heat or how to relate it to observed temperatures.  Despite all this ignorance, we are to believe that the effect of man-made greenhouse can be accurately predicted.  This is not science, it is guessing.  To pretend we can predict average global temperatures within a tenth of a degree is absurd – it is debatable whether we can measure them with that sort of accuracy.)

 

Failures of AGW models:

1) They do not explain Ice Ages or subsequent warming periods.  (I welcome comments, but if you support AGW you must provide a model that shows why ice ages occur or it will be deleted – I am not going to waste my time going down rabbit holes.)

2) CO2 levels generally rise after the Earth has warmed not vice versa.  The likely reason for this is that the oceans hold enormous amounts of dissolved CO2.  When the temperature of the oceans increase they release CO2.

3) No rational explanation is given for why AGW models focus on CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while ignoring the problems in their model.

4) The last 15 years have proven that AGW models are just plain wrong – but the excuse is we need more time.  However, they were selective in their time periods in the first place.  There was significant cooling in from 1965 to 1980, but they ignored this data and called anyone who pointed this out part of the Flat Earth Society.

5) There was significant warming from 1900-1940, but this is not correlated to increases in man-made CO2 and AGW models do not explain this.

6) The Japanese (IBUKU) satellite show that Industrial Countries actually are net carbon sinks.

7) The shows that AGW is a religion, it is not a science.

 

Supporters of AGW Lie, fudge data, or just make up data.

1) The 1st UN IPCC summary lied about what the scientists on the panel had said.

2) They lied about the temperature data in Climate Gate ignoring the Little Ice Age.

3) They claim that the number of polar bears is decreasing, this is just not true.

4) They claim the oceans are rising – this is not true.

5) They claim that the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at an alarming rate – this is not true

6) They claim that the number of major weather events has increased – the evidence shows the exact opposite.

This list is almost endless, but I will stop here.

 

Supporters of AGW exaggerate the problems of a warmer Earth and ignore the Benefits

1) During the 5 billion years Earth has been around it has been in an Ice Age the majority of the time.  Only during the recent warming periods have human civilizations thrived.

2) The North Pole could melt completely and the Earth’s Oceans would not be one millimeter higher.

3) A warmer Earth will produce more crops and reduce weather related deaths.

 

Supporters of AGW hate Humans

AGW supporters are the same environmentalists that will tell you there are too many people on Earth.  Their solution to every problem is fewer human beings.  There have been several very inexpensive solutions proposed on how to deal with Global Warming if it were true.  The environmentalists were not interested in technological solutions, because are anti-technology, anti-human and EVIL.

November 17, 2012 Posted by | -Economics | , , , | 43 Comments

How the Environmental Movement is Killing Innovation and Destroying Our Environment

Environmentalists are often portrayed by the Media as lovable, good natured people; people  who only want to save some adorable furry creature.  Environmentalist groups target new technologies claiming that they are dangerous or unproven.  The policies they advocate are anti-innovation and have destroyed advances in medicine, food production, power generation, vaccines, and more.  These policies have resulted in the deaths of more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Moa combined.  These deaths are not the result of good intentioned policies gone wrong;  these policies are the purposeful goal of environmental groups.  Environmentalists have consistently proven that they are willing to lie in order to achieve their objectives.  Being “Green” is worse than being a Nazi, worse than being a Marxist;  but  these policies do work hand in hand with these statists philosophies.

I will briefly outline three environmentalist policy areas where environmentalists have lied about science. and  even more important than lying, these policies have killed millions of people.

DDT

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson resulted in the banning of DDT.

Deaths Caused by DDT Ban

In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used.   Banning DDT has resulted in about 100 million deaths, many of whom were pregnant women and children.  By comparison: Hitler killed about 6-7 million, Stalin killed around 10-14million, and Mao killed between 60-68 million.

FYI: The ban on DDT is why the US is currently having infestations of bed bugs; most people born after 1940 thought these were eradicated like polio.

Lies about DDT

Carson claimed DDT thinned the eggshells of birds.  This was based on 1956 study by Dr. James DeWitt, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry.  However, DeWitt’s study actually showed that 50 percent more eggs hatched alive from the birds subjected to DDT than the non-DDT group.  Other claims suggested that raptor populations declined because of the use of DDT; however, raptor populations were failing before the introduction of DDT.   In fact, the Audubon’s Eagle counts from 1941 to 1961 actually increased when DDT was mostly widely used.  All the latest evidence shows,  Carson’s claims were nothing but outrageous lies.

Goal of Banning DDT was to Kill People

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

 Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”

 

Nuclear Power

Anti-Nuclear power activists claimed that nuclear power generation would result in the deaths of thousands of people.  This movement was able to kill off the nuclear power industry in the United States after the Three Mile Island accident in which no one was killed and the average person within ten miles of the accident received the equivalent on one chest xray of radiation.

Deaths Caused by Nuclear Power Ban

The main alternative to nuclear power plants in the World ,to date ,have been coal fired plants.  For each person killed by nuclear power generation (including deaths due to Chernoybal), 4,000 die from coal. The previous data is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.   The number of people killed per year in the US because of this change is at least 10,000.  These deaths are mainly due to particulate pollution(nuclear power has no particulate pollution). This figure also includes an increase in the number of mining deaths, and increases in the number of deaths due to the extra transportation required to move coal compared to transporting uranium.  In the United States alone: this  environmental program has resulted in at least 300,000 deaths.  Why has this not made headlines??! While the rest of the world has not followed the U.S.’s lead completely, the anti-nuclear movement has definitely retarded the development of nuclear power plants around the world.  As a result, a reasonable estimate of the deaths worldwide because of the environmental policies is at least 600,000.

Nuclear power plants represent a huge reduction in air and water pollution.  Real reductions in pollution are the result of advancing technologies, not regulator schemes such as the EPA has adopted.  In fact, regulatory agencies can be credited with increasing pollution levels compared to what it would be without their influence.

The largest one time event fatality toll from energy production was in 1975.  30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding.  An estimated 230,000 people died. The fatalities and property destruction from this single event in hydropower far exceeds the number of deaths from all other energy sources.   Of course, hydroelectric power is one of the environmentalists’ favorite source of power.

Lies about Nuclear Power

The number one lie is about nuclear power is that an accident could result in the death of thousands of people.  Another boogey man of the environmentalists is that the half lives of byproducts from nuclear power lasts tens of thousands of years.  What if the half life were infinite?  Wouldn’t that be worse?  If the half life were infinite,  the element would be stable.  Longer half lives mean that there is less radiation.  Nuclear power plants accelerate the natural radioactive decay of uranium, so leftover fuel rods are less radioactive than the mined material.

Nuclear power plants are too expensive to make economic sense.  This is another lie perpetuated by environmental groups.

Nuclear power is not intrinsically expensive. What drove nuclear plant costs up were environmentalist delays (caused by anti-nuclear “interveners” and the high interest financing rates—both perpetrated by those who wanted to kill nuclear power, and who now complain that nuclear costs too much. Shown here, in dollars per kilowatt are the rising costs of financing, environmentalist delays, and construction materials increases for nuclear (N) and the rising costs for comparable coal-fired plants (C) with sulfur removal.

Source: Electric Power Research Institute

Goal of Banning Nuclear power was to Kill People?

There does not appear to be any environmental wacko comments to this effect;  certainly  it hasbeen the result and since the environmentalism movement believes there are too many people-well,  it seems this was likely part of their goal in killing off nuclear power.

Global Warming

Man made global warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the latest hoax being thrust upon us by Environmentalists, who I have already shown,have a very poor track record.

Deaths Caused by Global Warming Hoax

The United States is spending about $10 billion a year on Global Warming research.   I think it is safe to say that at least $100 billion has been spent worldwide on Global Warming over the last decade.  It costs about $20 to provide infrastructure for clean water for one person.  According to WHO, 30,000 deaths occur every week from unsafe water and unhygienic living conditions.  Most of these deaths are children under five years old.  That is over 600,000 deaths per year because of poor water infrastructure.  If the $10 billion being wasted on Global Warming research were instead applied to water infrastructure, this could save 50 million lives.  Why can’t we say that the Global Warming Hoax has cost the lives of at 6 million people.?

How AGW Advocates Have Lied

“The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.”

It is well known that the main driver of the temperature on Earth are the variations in the amount of solar energy the Earth receives.  “Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.”

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor – over 95%, but you never hear about this from AGW advocates.

Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.”

Below, IPCC Experts comment on the IPCC, which is the group at the UN that has been saying a consensus of scientist s “believe” in Global Warming.

Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Goal of AGW

The goal of AGW is to kill capitalism and as a result kill millions of people.  Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace explained.

 (Environmentalism today is) more about globalism and anti-capitalism than it is about science or ecology….

The Environmental Movement is Anti-Human – Pure Evil

 “Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”

Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.

“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”

— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special. 

 

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

 Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”

June 11, 2012 Posted by | Innovation | , , , , , , | 15 Comments

The Birth of Plenty: Predictions

This book, The Birth of Plenty Predictions: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created, purports to explain the conditions necessary for a nation to escape the Malthusian Trap.  The author, William Bernstein, states that four conditions are necessary: 1) property rights (including intellectual property rights), 2) the scientific method, 3) efficient capital markets, and 4) transportation and communication infrastructure.  The first part of the book explains why each component is necessary.  The second part of the book applies this structure to the historical evidence associated with various countries to show that all four components are necessary.  The third part of the book attempts to make predictions based on the thesis.  This is an excellent book.  It is easy to read, full of interesting historical facts, and is well reasoned for the most part.

Unfortunately, the author attempts to defend the welfare state as created by Roosevelt in the USand the mixed economy of Great Britain.  This clearly departs from his thesis.  First of all, the welfare state under FDR was an attack against property rights.  Despite the author’s claim that regulation of capital markets is necessary for them to be efficient, all econometric studies show that they are at best ineffective and most likely damaging.  This means that the regulations FDR created to regulate the financial markets caused the capital markets in the USto be less efficient.  Sarbanes Oxley is present-day example of the damage caused by absurd regulation of capital markets.  The New Deal was not based on scientific method, it was based on emotion and the desire for political power.  (For more information see FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression).   So at least three of the four criteria were undermined by FDR and the “New Deal”, (AKA the bend over and take it deal).  The author’s defense of the New Deal is based on sociological studies that show income disparity between the wealthy and the poor causes social unrest.  These studies are clearly flawed.  Income disparity can occur because of political favoritism (crony capitalism) or because of the opportunities created in a free economy.  These studies do not differentiate between these two very different situations.  As a result the studies cited by the author are contradictory and therefore do not support his thesis.

How do the four factors apply to the UStoday?  Property rights have been under assault in the US., see Kelo v. City of New London .  Patent rights have been weakened since 2000, see Intellectual Property Socialism.  The scientific method has been under attack by both the political right and left, see creationism and global warming – climate gate.  Our capital markets have been significantly compromised by Sarbanes Oxley and now the Frank Dodd financial reform act.  For more information see Sarbanes Oxley the Medicine is Worse than the Disease.   The US transportation and communication infrastructure is slowly deteriorating because funds are appropriated in larger percentages to social welfare programs. The US is regressing in all of the four categories that Bernstein defines as necessary for sustained economic growth.  It is no wonder that the US is on the verge of bankruptcy.

April 20, 2011 Posted by | -Economics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Atlas Shrugged –Movie Review

I just saw the movie Atlas Shrugged, based on Ayn Rand’s book with the same title.  The movie has divided the book into three parts and this was the first of the three parts.  I thought the movie did a very good job and stayed true to the book.  I purposely did not re-read the book before I saw the movie.  Like almost any movie, the book is better than movie.  The way the characters looked in the readers’ mind are never the way they look in the movie.  My wife thought the acting was just okay, but it did not detract from value of the movie.  The theater I saw the movie in was about 75% full (mid day) and there was a hearty round of applause at the end.  As you would expect, some of the speeches and characters will immediately strike you as being based on people in today’s news.  For instance, Wesley Mouch looks like and talks like a Barney Frank.  The speeches about “shared sacrifice” sound like our communist president’s (Obama) speech on the budget, April, 14, 2011. Rand’s rational selfishness and the absurdity of altruism are as clearly delineated,  as in the book.  The movie ends with a very dramatic scene, providing a good ending point, and whetting the appetite for Part II.

One thing that struck me was how the State Science Institute’s propaganda against Rearden Metal is almost exactly like the Global Warming debate today.  While the Luddite attitude toward genetically modified food might seem like a better analogy, it does not have the same political dynamics – at least not yet.  The scientist, Dr. Robert Stadler, justifies his unscientific position (lying) because it is necessary in order for the State Science Institute to continue to receive government funding.  I remember that when I read this passage in the book 25 or so years ago, I was reluctant to accept that science could be perverted by politics.  However, the last 25 years have provided me with numerous examples where so called “science” is really propaganda- funding from the federal government to ensure that the organization continues to receive funding from their political masters.  For instance, the manipulation of data by Climate Change advocates to ignore the medieval ice age (little ice age) among numerous other lies.  This is just one of many examples where these so called scientists ignore or manipulate the data to fit their conclusions.  This is not science, it is propaganda.  Note both sides of the political spectrum behave in this moral depraved activity – see Creationism.  Not surprisingly, the religious right was no more a fan of Ayn Rand than the religious left.

If you approach this movie as a separate artistic piece from the book you will find it highly entertaining and enlightening.  I hope that people in their 20s and 30s can transcend the focus on industrial technologies opposed to  the information age.

You will love this movie if you understand the value of freedom and reason.  If you are an intellectual or economic leech, you will hate this movie.

April 15, 2011 Posted by | Innovation | , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Science or Religion: Environmental Doomsday Theories

A fundamental difference between religion and science is that a scientific theory is testable, while a religion is not.  Religion ignores facts and believes in faith.  All environmental doomsday theories are religions, not science.  This is true no matter how much they disguise their religion with scientific jargon or call what they are doing a science.

Before I examine some of these environmental doomsday theories, let’s look at another pseudo science.  Creationists say creationism is a science and they attempt to include scientific jargon, including their attempt to show probabilistically human life is impossible.  One version of this idea is that given the number of base pairs in the human genome and that even if one of them were wrong humans would not exist, it is therefore impossible that their was not a Devine hand.  Of course, it turned out that much of the genetic material is irrelevant and that there are redundancies in the encoding of the human genome.  Did the Creationist admit defeat?  No, because it’s a religion not a science.  The same is true of Global Warming (Climate Change), Global Cooling, Malthus, Club of Rome Limits of Growth, Population Bomb, Nuclear Winter, etc.  None of these hypothesis are testable.  The proponents cannot name a single test that would prove their hypothesis incorrect.

Limits of Growth

In this post, I will only discuss the ideas related to some limit to human prosperity.  The idea that humans are doomed to starve to death was first proposed by Thomas Malthus in 1798.  Human population was about 1 billion when Malthus wrote this and today we have a population of about 7 billion.  In 1800 a much larger percentage of people were at risk of starving to death than today.  Nevertheless this did not stop Paul Ehrlich from writing The Population Bomb in 1968 warning of mass starvation in 1970s and 1980s.  When Erhlich wrote The Population Bomb the world had population of about 3.5 billion.  Of course, Ehrlich turned out to be wrong, just as Malthus had.  Note that Mr. Ehrlich also believed we faced imminent Global Cooling at the time, now he is apostle for Global Warming.  How many times can a person be wrong?  Has Ehrlich admitted that his earlier hypothesizes were clearly incorrect?  No.  Have the mass starvation proponents admitted their ideas are incorrect?  No, because their theories are not science they are a religion.  No facts will convince them to give up their irrational argument that we are about to run out of food.  See Earth Economist: The food bubble is about to burst.  The argument in this article is that we are about to run out of water for agriculture.  This is nonsense.  The amount of water on the Earth is essentially the same as it was a billion years ago.  Water has never been where we want it or necessarily in the form we want it.  This is not a resource problem, this is an infrastructure/invention problem.

Club of Rome

This was a book commissioned by the Club of Rome.  The Club of Rome is a think tank and the book “Limits of Growth” was published in 1972 and based its predictions on a computer model.  This model did not include the Internet, Personal Computers, email, genetic engineering, heart transplants, etc.  The model did not include the single way that humans increase wealth – inventions (new technologies).  The book was widely criticized by people such as Robert Solow, Nobel Prize economist, as having a weak base of data.  The book has recently been updated.  I bet it still does not take inventions into account.  The Club of Rome’s prophecies have been no better than Paul Ehrlich.  Is there any fact that if true would prove this hypothesis wrong?  No, because this is a religion not science

All these doomsday prophecies are religions.

 

Limiting Freedom

All these proposals demand that human freedom be limited to deal with these doomsday religious theories.  This makes them somewhat self-fulfilling prophecies.  The way human’s create wealth is by the use of their mind and the ability to act on their thoughts.  Or as Ayn Rand said in Capitalism” The Unknown Ideal, “reason is man’s means of survival.  Limiting freedom, limits the ability of people to create wealth.  For more information see Sustainability isn’t Sustainable.

 

While Ronald Reagan pandered to the religious right, he still nailed this issue.

Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people.

 

February 15, 2011 Posted by | -Economics | , , , , , , | 30 Comments

Climate Change and Innovation

President Obama travels to the climate conference at Copenhagen this week.  How would limiting CO2 emissions effect innovation?  The president has promised that:

U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.[1].

In order to achieve this goal will require significant advances in technology or significant restrictions on the activities of U.S. residents.  The argument that limiting CO2 emission will increase innovation are based on the idea that government mandates stimulate innovation by businesses to meet the directive.  The problem with this argument is that it ignores the innovation that businesses did not undertake because they had to spend their research and development budgets to meet a government directive.  Since it is unlikely that the U.S can achieve these goals without also limiting the activities of its residents, the CO2 emission goals set by the President will limit economic activity.  According the Rate Law of Innovation, any limitation on the goals or means of innovation reduces the rate of innovation.  A weaker economy is also likely to reduce the number of innovators slowing the rate of innovation.  Continue reading

December 7, 2009 Posted by | Innovation | , , , , , , | 6 Comments