Discussions on Climate Change

A good friend and I have had an ongoing discussion regarding the Climate Change issue. In the beginning, we appeared to have differing views. He supported, I was skeptical. We spent hours discussing the issue, and he had a distinct advantage over me in that he was in a position to get education regarding the issue, and I was only reading an occasional article linked on Fark.com or Digg.com.

Recently, I read an article from the NY Times, discussing the views of Freeman Dyson, a 85 year old physicist who opposes the prevailing views regarding climate change. The eight page article delves into his history, explaining how he used to have lunch with Einstein, was Oppenheimers neighbor, etc. In short, this is a brilliant man. He is also a very liberal man, one who doesn’t buy into the hype. The thing that struck me the most about the article is how this eminent scientist is now being accused of being senile for not accepting the scientific consensus regarding climate change. This was very telling to me: A well respected scientist is derided for not agreeing with everyone else. This is not science, this is politics and herd mentality.

I read another article, which I sent to my friend. This one was related to sea levels, and how the premier scientist in the field was doing numerous studies disproving the claims that sea levels are rising, and major cities of the world were going to be under water soon, as described in the hit movie, wait for it… An Inconvenient Truth. My problem was that the scientific and political communities were doing their best to decry and denounce his findings, not because of faulty science, but because he dares to disagree. His findings are dismissed, no matter how well documented and accurate, because they contrast with the party line.

I am going to copy the email exchange here, since I felt that it was the best I had written regarding my views on the subject. My friend responded to my email with the link as follows:

That’s not at all surprising.  I never really jumped on the sea level
bandwagon as there’s no way to get an accurate and sufficiently large
data set to make conclusions.  The ice core data can’t really be
debated though.  It goes back hundreds of thousands of years and our
ability to measure C02 in it is quite accurate.  I don’t know what
that means as far as prediction abilities go, however.

Hell, I went to a talk by one of the foremost experts in sea ice and
its relation to climate change (Ken Golden from Univ. of Utah) and one
of the first things he mentioned was that predictive models aren’t
totally accurate because they can’t take everything into account.
Trust me, the experts aren’t the ones saying the world is going to end
tomorrow.  It’s the politicians and news media looking to
sensationalize the issue.

In response to this, I wrote the following:

I believe this more than anything gets to the root of my issues with the Climate Change crowd. On one hand, we have Ken Golden who prefaces his lecture with the disclaimer that it is impossible to know with certainty what will happen. I would be more inclined to respect the views of Ken Golden, based solely on this simple fact. Real science is being used, and the conclusions point to a trend, rather than a Psychic Friends type scenario of imminent catastrophe.
 
On the other hand, the only persons who are being listened to are those with an agenda. Typically, these are NOT scientists, and do not base much of their preaching on science. They take the pieces of science that support their view, and accept them as an axiom. This, more than anything, causes me to rebel against the idea, in spite of my intellect telling that I am responding emotionally.
 
As far as the ice core data is concerned, I agree that it is very difficult to debate the data. That can be measured and proven without doubt. What I believe to still be in question is the relationship between CO2 levels and global climate. I will admit to not having done extensive research on the issue, but I have to assume that the CO2 trapped in the arctic or antarctic ice can be accurately correlated to a specific time period. That data can be cross referenced to geological data for the same period to see what kind of environment was prevalent. For instance, it seems likely that if we have elevated levels of CO2 in ice core samples in the same time period that the geological record shows an abundance of rain forest type plants, it is not unreasonable to assume that during that time, there were elevated CO2 levels and tropical temperatures in a much larger area of the globe. To me, again, with the disclaimer of lack of research, this does not prove causation. Are the temperatures due to the elevated CO2 levels, or are the CO2 levels due to the increased volume of life present in tropical jungle growth?
 
In either case, the arguments are merely theories that cannot be proven without duplication. Computer models can only go so far, and without sustained, epoch spanning measurements, the absolute truth cannot be known.
 
Do I believe that we should do nothing until it can be proven? Of course not. I truly believe that there needs to be steps taken to reduce the level of pollutants being dumped into the air, water and earth. This comes mostly from an aesthetic point of view, I want to always be able to see the Tetons without squinting though smog. This point was driven home in my mind in the Shenandoah National Park, where I had difficulty seeing mountains five miles away due the haze in the air. The other reason I believe it to be necessary is from a health point of view. It is pretty much impossible to keep pollutants out of the food chain. Water pollutants get into the fish, which is food not only for humans, but other life as well. The same goes for ground pollutants. Plants take their nutrients from the soil, and if contaminants are in those nutrients, they become a part of the food we eat.
 
So, in conclusion, I believe that we agree fundamentally. Our differing view point comes from the fact that I tend to discredit the “popular” stance regarding climate change, since it seems more and more to follow the zealotry associated with a religion, and not science. But this does not mean that I disbelieve the science, provided the scientist is not a part of an agenda. For this reason, I turn a skeptical eye on any claims made by James Hansen, as he appears to have an agenda of keeping himself highly visible not only in the media, but to government officials as well. I see his warnings and a voice in the back of my head tells me that he is looking for a new political appointment as the “Head of the Presidential Committee on Climate Change and Environmental Studies.”

 For reasons stated above, I have a tendency to discredit the mainstream views regarding climate change. When a group resorts to personal attacks on a scientist because he wont toe the line, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with politics. Lets face facts here: Saving the planet is a big money industry. All those earth-friendly shopping bags, all the clever t-shirts, all the galas thrown by Hollywood types all cost money.  Follow the dollars, and you will see the truth. I wonder how much Al Gore gets for a speaking engagement to discuss global warming? Enough to afford big houses and production costs of award winning documentaries. Why are so many sheeple willing to believe the words of a politician on scientific studies? Doesn’t anyone think that it may be possible that Big Green Al has an alternate agenda? I honestly cant think of any other Vice President or failed Presidential candidate that is in the news more than Al. Am I the only person that thinks he is planning another bid for the big chair, and is doing everything he can to stay relevant? The man is in the public consciousness, and I think we will see him “working closely with President Obama” on environmental issues.

A Question of Faith

Let me make a couple of things clear at the outset of this post, in the interest of clarity. I am a Mormon, but not a good one. I disagree with the LDS Church’s stance on gay marriage.

I was born and raised in a community that is about 95% Mormon. I was born a member, I attended church for most of my youth, and I took voluntary Seminary classes that taught doctrine and Church history. I was never what they call an “active” member. At this point in my life, I violate a few of the important teachings. The biggest violation is what is called the “Word of Wisdom.” This is the teaching that most non-Mormons know about. Essentially, this is the teaching that says don’t drink coffee or a soft drink with caffeine in it, don’t smoke, don’t drink alcohol. If you take the religious aspect out of this, it could be the teachings of a health club.  The only other things that I do that cause me to be a “Jack-Mormon” is I don’t attend church regularly, and I don’t pay my tithing. Other than that, I pretty much follow the teachings. I don’t cheat on my taxes, business dealings or spouse, I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated, and I believe in the strength of family. I may not be a “good” Mormon, but I believe myself to be a good person.

The reason I stopped going to church is because of the people. Too many of them had a holier than thou attitude that was rather incongruous with their actions. Without going into too much detail, here is an example of the kind of behavior that caused me to not go to church anymore. When I was 17, my first child was born. I wasn’t married. This meant that I violated a pretty important teaching of the church regarding pre-marital sex. I was confronted by a fellow student at school, who informed me that I was a bad Mormon, I should be excommunicated from the church, and various statements indicating how much better he and his family were due to their church standing. A month ago, he went on the run for ripping off about $50 million in a Ponzi scheme. These kinds of people were prevalent in the community. With so few people in the community, and most of them in the religious community, church standing easily correlated to social standing. It wasn’t necessarily about how much money you had, but how important your church calling was.

With all that out of the way, I can get to meat of what I want to talk about: The recent uproar regarding the involvement of the LDS church in the California Prop 8 vote. As I stated in the first paragraph, I disagree with the Mormon stance. Let gays get married. It isn’t hurting anyone in anychurch, and if your church doesn’t want gay people in it because of their doctrine, kick ‘em out of the church. I do not, however, believe that gay marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right. To be clear, I don’t believe that heterosexual marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right. Marriage is a social agreement that has been granted certain governmental privileges in the way of taxes, health care and property rights. I have talked about this before, and I wont rehash it here.

From what I understand, the Mormon church sent a letter to some of its members requesting that they provide monetary support to organizations opposing the legalization of gay marriage. The church has disclosed that it provided almost $200,ooo in “in kind” donations, meaning airplane tickets, hotel rooms paid for, etc. But so far, no actual cash donations have been disclosed or uncovered. The monetary donations were made by members of the church, not the church itself. This has not prevented the proponents of gay marriage from blanketing the media with the fact that the Mormon church violated the separation of church and state by providing somewhere around $25 million to defeat the measure. These people are also pushing for the removal of the churches tax exempt status on the basis that they got involved in politics. This basically amounts to a fundamental, possibly deliberate, misunderstanding of how things work. These people are screaming about how their rights are being violated because a specific group of people donated money to a cause. Their response, punish those people by taking away their right to donate to a cause. Now we are getting into actual violations of rights. If we can agree that it was members of the church donating money, and not the church itself, these people want to say that members of a certain church do not have the right to donate money to a cause they believe in. This is just as discriminatory as what they are claiming has been done to them. They don’t seem to realize this.

Religion is a very powerful thing. Not only in terms of personal belief, but also in exerting muscle in the form of followers. I don’t even know how many members the Catholic church has, but if the Pope says it, they follow it. The Pope spoke out against abortion, was this political, or was it a statement regarding the belief of the Catholic church? If it is a tenant of the church that abortion is wrong, and the followers of that church then go out and vote against abortion, has the Catholic church become involved in politics? Indirectly, yes. Implicitly, no.

I think the reason so many speak out against the Mormon church has to do with church history. Yes, it is true that the “official” Mormon church once practiced polygamy. They no longer do, yet anytime there is a polygamous community on the news, they are referred to as Mormons. Yes, it is true that one of the teachings of the Mormon church involves special undergarments, referred to as just Garments inside the church. Yes, it is true that the church believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who translated physical written records from the time of Christ. Yes it is true that until 1978 blacks were not allowed to hold the Preisthood. This does not mean that they weren’t allowed in the church, they were not granted the “Power of the Preisthood.” And yes, it is true that Mormons believe that if you live righteously, you will be granted the ability to form your own world, just as the current God did.

Here is where things get skewed by misinterpretation and deliberate distortion of fact. The Mormon church is very focused on family. I think it is safe to say that everything in the church centers around this concept. The believe is that the structure of life on earth is a replication of life in Heaven. God is called Heavenly Father. He is the father of all life on earth. There is a Heavenly Mother. Christ was the chosen son of God, and we are all children of God. We are Gods family. The whole concept of living right and getting a world of your own is no different than hoping that your own kids grow up good and prosperous, get married and have kids. In other words, getting a world of your own is a existential version of moving out of your parents house and raising your own family. The deliberately misleading thing that get spewed into the public consciousness is that instead of world, the word Planet is used. I had never heard, in almost 20 years of Mormon teaching, that God lives on the planet Kolob. A recent conversation with my first wife informed me that they are teaching that the name of the place God lives is Kolob, but by calling it a Planet, it is much easier to label Mormons as wacky. Looking at it in this light, making fun of Mormons for believing God has residence that has a name makes as much sense as making fun of Catholics for having a city where the Pope lives. Its an address for crying out loud.

The bottom line is this: All of those people who want to impose some kind if punitive measure upon the Mormon church and its members are advocating the kind of discrimination they are claiming to be the victims of. Americans are guaranteed the right to worship who they want, to believe what they want to believe. You don’t get to choose what people believe for them, especially if the only only reason you have is that their beliefs don’t correspond with yours. The grass roots campaign that rose up was more successful at influencing the vote than yours. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, we should be challenging the election of President Obama on the basis that his campaign raised more money, or that his grass roots campaign was more effective.

Just like the presidential campaign, there will be another chance to bring the issue up again. You got the issue on the ballot once, you can do it again. Next time, do a better job of campaigning. But crying about how your rights were violated because you didn’t win is as stupid as saying it isn’t fair that the other guy can run faster and that’s the only reason he won the race. To use the same argument that the general Democrat public is using, “You lost, get over it.”

Oh, and one more thing: Until you quit attacking the young men in white shirts on bicycles, quit calling the Mormon church a “Hate Group.”  If it’s a Hate Crime to beat up a person because of their sexual orientation, it’s a Hate Crime to beat up someone based on religious belief.  In other words, quit being fucking hypocrites.

YHGTBFKM! Volume 2

Yet again, it’s time for another episode of YHGTNFKM! (You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me!)

I am a regular reader of social news sites, mainly Fark.com and Digg.com. While this may not keep me as up to date on top news stories as reading CNN.com or Fox.com, it does give me a much greater knowledge of the news of the weird. And it also gives me adequate fodder for the YHGTBFKM header. A while back, there was a story regarding Peta and its newest campaign to indoctrinate the nations children into its wacky, over the top, generally insane antics. While I can understand, and to an extent agree with, a very select few of their causes, some just seem to be spooling off the ticker tape from the Twilight Zone and into their press releases.

The things I can agree with are:

• Raising animals solely for the purpose of fashion. Synthetics are just as lovely. Until they get red paint or blood thrown on them.
• Hunting whales to extinction. See Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home for justification.
• Peta has been able to get more high profile stars naked on film than Hugh Hefner

What I have a problem with is Peta’s apparent need to elevate animal rights above human rights. One gets the impression that if a hard-core Peta activist was in a situation where they could save either a rat or a baby, it would be Bye-Bye Baby. Because somehow, the rat is more noble than a human, because it isn’t a human. Peta’s latest foray into madness comes from their Sea Kitten Campaign. For extra fun, read the bedtime stories. One that really shines is “Sally and the Land Kittens.” What a wonderful story! I wish this had been around when my kids were young so I could teach them all about vengeance and revenge by inflicting death! What I think is funny is that all the sudden, Peta puts a picture of a real kitten being baked into a pie at the hands of a fish. That is sure ethical.

Now, the reason this was brought to my attention again and actually caused me to do some writing about it was this story, regarding a prank pulled on Peta. Someone copied their entire Sea Kitten website, then put an ad for Omaha Steak House at the top. This made me laugh. Then I read more of the story describing the prank, and saw this:

All jokes aside, giving up meat is one of the best ways you can help stop the advancement of global warming and air and water pollution.

So, now we get a cause that is not as popular tagging along with one that has popular support. I have never understood the Vegetarian movement. I have never been able to fully understand if this is a animal rights choice or a health choice. From my limited understanding of healthy eating, the medical downfalls of a carnivorous diet are more related to how it is prepared more than what is prepared. This causes me to think the issue is more of an animal rights issue, vegetarians don’t want to eat the cute and fuzzy animals. This doesn’t even get into the anthropomorphizing of the animals raised for consumption. While I am sure that we don’t really have any way of knowing the “thoughts and feelings” of animals, I really don’t think that we can attribute the complexity of Human thoughts and feelings to most animals. I know with absolute certainty that I have never seen a “sea kitten” playing with a ball of yarn, as shown in “Sea Kitten Stories.”

I do know that Humans are designed to be omnivorous. This is easily seen by going to the closest mirror and opening your mouth wide. The front teeth are sharp, like a pure carnivore, suitable for the tearing of meat. Back teeth, flat for the grinding of grains and plant matter. We are animals designed to eat whatever it takes to survive. In the olden days before we became all enlightened and shit, we ate meat off the bone for the protein needed to keep muscles alive to go out and catch more meat. And also to gather grains, berries, whatever it took to survive. Nowadays, eating has become more of a pleasure based activity than a survival one. This relates to both vegetarians and non. If you doubt it, try getting a kid to eat something he doesn’t like, or talk to the Hershey people, or McDonalds. The food industry is based on providing food that tastes good. We can be more selective. The health issues come from the fact that although our tastes have evolved, out bodies haven’t. Back in the hunter gatherer days, we could have eaten a couple of Hershey bars a day, because later we were going to be trying to chase down an antelope on foot. We burned off the calories. Indeed, the calories were needed to provide the energy for the chase. We don’t chase any more. We Drive-Thru. So we don’t burn the excess calories. A person would be fit as a fiddle if we attached their Big Mac to a remote controlled car and made people chase it down before they got it. Same food, different lifestyle.

But what about the Organic movement? Not vegetarian, per se, but allegedly healthier and better for the environment. Not so fast there, Moonbeam. I recently listened to an episode on Skeptoid which discussed the Organic Movement. The article is disappointingly devoid of citations, but it does at least make you think. The biggest complaint I hear about organic foods is the higher cost. I see the cost being the result of two factors. One, it is a prime, niche market. “It is healthier, I want to be healthy, it is worth paying for.” I see the same attitude towards Star Trek DVD’s. Fanatical people who will pay a premium price for a product, based on the popularity. Simply put, it costs more because people pay more.  The second reason is simple supply and demand. An organic field will produce less product than a non organic one. Organic food has had no “Bio tampering.” The reality of cross breeding and bio engineering is that we are looking to increase yield. More product per acre to sell. Also, more product per acre to feed people.I thought that one of the big causes of the world was to end starvation. We have agricultural scientists looking for ways to make more food on the same land, but this is somehow bad since that means that “Big Agro Business” will make more money. We cant separate these things. There are very few farms in our country that are solely for the provision of the farmer and his family. Farmers, large and small, are in it to make a living. And to make a living in this day and age, you need money.

Based solely on bumper stickers, I believe that most activists are active in more than one cause. They want to feed the world. They want to protect the animals. They want to save the planet from Man. In my mind, here is how the scenario would play out if we were to do all  the things activists want us to do. First, we get rid of the industries that are polluting the earth. This causes more people to fall out of the commercial infrastructure, and be forced into the agricultural to feed themselves. But they cannot raise meat to eat, so we can protect the animals, so they are all vegetarians. We no longer use anything but natural fertilizers and crops, decreasing yield per acre. It now takes more land to provide food per person. We cannot create more farmland, since that would require eliminating forests. At current levels, it requires 1.2 acres of land to feed a single person. We are about 400 million acres short of arable land on the planet to provide that for the world population. (I have citations, and may put them in a future post, but this is already long enough) But don’t forget, are saving the animals too, so they have to have food as well. So, now we have to let the herbivores eat some of the people food, because they outnumber the carnivores. And they reproduce like mad. After a couple of generations, the world population starts to decline. Daily life is no longer centered around advancement of the species, but survival of the species. By limiting ourselves, we actively destroy our own race just as surely as global thermo-nuclear war, it just takes longer.

But, hey. The sea kittens are safe to play with their balls of yarn. Oh, wait. There aren’t any balls of yarn because that comes from either chemicals or abuse of animals. Poor sea kittens. If only someone had thought of them.

YHGTBFKM!

That’s my new Internet Acronym, I just coined it, and you saw it here first. It means; “You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me!” I decided to use it here because of this article.

I grew up in south-east Idaho. Close enough to Yellowstone National Park that I could sleep in on Saturday, feel cabin-feverish and be having lunch at Old Faithful. I have seen Yellowstone so many times that I get bored unless I am taking someone who has never been there and get caught up in their infectious excitement. But it is still close enough to home, where my entire family lives, that headlines regarding Yellowstone catch my eye, whether its about wolves, bans on snowmobiles, or the super-volcano that could erupt any day now killing everyone and causing a massive disruption to the food source for every single thing on the planet, possibly even other planets!!!”

So, when I was reading that article, regarding the recent swarm of earthquakes, my first thought was; “I didn’t feel any earthquakes while I was within a hundred miles of Yellowstone.” Then I thought about the super-volcano eruption, and it’s likelihood, which I think is slim. Of course, this is still part of my immature “it cant happen to me or anyone I care about” syndrome. Then I got to the last paragraph.

Casualties of global warming? Who knows. There’s not much anyone can really do about these, except wait them out.

This is where I uttered the phrase that I am making into a meme. It seems that no matter what is happening, Global Warming or Climate Change is at fault, therefore, it is the humans fault. I have had a number of in-depth conversations with a friend regarding the whole Global Warming / Climate Change debate, and I think it is fair to say that we are on opposite sides of the fence on the issue. Keeping with the analogy, we are close enough to the fence that we can have a conversation about it without shouting. I cede points to him, he cedes points to me, but neither of us has really changed our position. The closest I have come to stepping over the fence is acknowledging that human actions have had an impact on the Climate Change, but I refuse to believe that human actions are the cause of climate change. For his part, the closest he has come is that the cycle is natural, but human actions have caused a “perfect storm” of circumstances where the natural cycle can’t be dealt with by the earth’s ecosystems, because of the added difficulty of dealing with the human activities. I think both of our opinions have merit, but neither of us are scientists devoted to this science.

I tend to look at the whole climate change issue very skeptically, as it has more of the earmarks of an agenda than a science. To explain that belief, perhaps an explanation is in order. To my recollection, this whole movement started with the “Hole in the Ozone” issue long ago. At the time, this was attributed to the CFC’s being released into the atmosphere by the countless cans of consumer products that used a propellant to get liquid out of a can. It was pointed out at the time that a single volcanic eruption emitted more ozone depleting compounds than CFC’s. It was proven in studies that the chemicals from volcanoes did, in fact, destroy ozone in a laboratory environment, but that those chemicals did not reach far enough into the atmosphere to destroy the ozone layer. But then in 1991, two volcanic eruptions happened that showed a significant reduction in the ozone layer, up to 50% in the Antarctic. Then came the further studies that showed that the emissions of volcanoes weren’t the culprit, it was that the volcanic emissions interacted with the CFC’s that humans were dumping in the atmosphere. Volcanoes spewing crap that spread for hundreds of miles didn’t reach the upper atmosphere, but the cans of Aqua-Net required for the big-hair 80’s did. This is the theme that I see reported. Anything that happens naturally, is good. Anything man does is bad. The volcano didn’t do it, it was the volcano interacting with the human made CFC’s.

After the hole in the Ozone Layer, came the greenhouse effect. Again, Man was the guilty party. After the UN passed restrictions regarding ozone depleting chemicals, scientists expected the hole to close up. But wait, there’s more! Now its vehicle emissions that create smog that are causing the greenhouse effect! Now that solar radiation can get through the ozone without causing molecular damage to DNA, its getting trapped by the clouds of pollution, causing temperatures to rise. The Greenhouse Effect was rolled into the Global Warming issue. For a decade, pollutants were to blame for a trend of increasing global temperatures. The scare this time was that temperatures would continue to increase, causing drought and famine worldwide, and this was the cause of the filthy humans driving their filthy cars.

After a decade or so, there were record low temperatures reported across the globe. Skeptics with a political message rather than a scientific one were quick to say that there cant be global warming when temperatures keep dropping. A good portion of the population was being swayed by these arguments, because on the surface, they make sense. I imagine the thought process going something like this: “Here I am in an area historically known to be a region of moderate temperatures, and yet, I am so cold that I am afraid to sit down lest my ass freeze to the surface I plant it on. I have never been so cold in all my life, Global Warming can kiss my ass!”

At this point, proponents of Global Warming changed the name of the “crisis” to Climate Change. I think it was at this point that my skepticism began in earnest. I had never really looked into the science before, but changing the name sounded, to me, like less of a physical science and more of a science of marketing. I think even the most fervent believer in climate change would have to admit that there has been a lot of money spent on this issue, by governments, scientists and corporations. I don’t believe that “pure” science is the motivation behind any of these groups. The governments spend the money because there is a very vocal community that needs to be addressed, some people in that community are actually in the government. Since these people get on the news, and their statements are given merit by a percentage of the public, the Government has to be seen to be “doing something about the Climate Change issue.” To ignore the issue would bring about even louder cries about how the government is in the pockets of big business, who, in the eyes of the activists, are the biggest culprits responsible for climate change.

The scientists, who by their very nature are not stupid, realize that their education in global climatology can get them far more interesting work than telling the people in Squeedunk, Iowa what the weekend forecast is, apply for grants to study Climate Change. These grants pay for the research. But who is doing the research? The scientists who apply for the grants. I am not trying to say that this is just a bunch of greedy eggheads out to get a cushy job, or that they are willing to falsify research in order to give the results that are wanted by the check writers. But I am pretty sure that you have a much larger pool of money being granted to study how Climate Change is happening than there is for disproving it, and those grants pay scientists salaries while they do the study. I am pretty sure that no matter what the results are, pro or con, further study is definitely needed by the scientists.

To me, the interesting part of the debate is how the science seems to be divided along political lines. If you were to ask the average person on the street whether Climate Change was a scientific or political debate, I think the scales would tip in favor of politics. This is the other area where I feel that the actual science is being debased. The pro Climate Change people tend to be Liberals, while the anti’s are Conservative. Or, to use the epithets thrown at each group, the filthy hippies and the money grubbing capitalists. The liberals want a pristine earth, with every tree, flower and animal preserved, even at the expense of human development. Conservatives, usually, tend to see the earth as resources granted to the human race in a modified, quasi religious Manifest Destiny, God made the earth and everything on it for man, so we can use it. The strange thing is that both groups see the race of Man the same way, outside of nature. The conservatives say that man has the right because we are so damn smart, and the liberals say that since we are so damn smart, we should save everything, unspoiled, forever. If we were at our current level of technological sophistication 65 million years ago, the liberals would be demanding that we “do something” to prevent the extinction of the noble dinosaur, while the conservatives would see it as part of the circle of life. Unless dinosaurs were really, really tasty. I cant help but wonder what a Brontosaurus Burger with Tyrannosaurus Bacon would taste like. Which brings up another funny thought… how come all the environmental health nuts that were so up in arms about hunting Buffalo… sorry, North American Bison, outside of Yellowstone in the 80’s are now selling bison meat in health food stores at a premium price?

My opinion is that anytime you have to evaluate science by following the money, it isn’t real science. Anytime you have science being used to further a political agenda or career, (I’m looking right at you, Mr. Gore) it isn’t science. To me science is provable, repeatable fact. The fact is that the earth has been around for four and a half billion years and we have only been on it for a million or so of them. Accurate, global weather records have only exited for maybe a hundred and fifty years. We do not have enough data regarding the life cycle of the planet to make predictions for or against the climate change issue. All data we have is interpreted from other sources, be it geological strata, or ice core samples from Antarctica. And we definitely have not been around long enough to prove any theories by reproduction of circumstances. And the bottom line is, no matter how you look at it, global climate change will have a greater impact on the human race than the earth itself. So lets be honest… we don’t want to save the planet, we want to save ourselves. If another comet hit and wiped out all human life on earth, there would still be surviving life. That life will continue, and according to the Theory of Evolution, with grow, mutate and survive, supplanting the soft, squishy bags of mostly water we call Man as the dominant species on earth. And the earth itself? It will still be here. I will probably be a great vacation spot for the aliens who keep telling friends that its a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

Political Musings

I started having feelings of Deja Vu a month or so ago. It was about the same time I started going to a nice little Irish bar in a college town. Institutions of higher learning typically seem to have a very liberal, left leaning stance on politics. Before you start thinking I am falling into some conservative rhetoric, understand that I worked at a college in Texas, a red state, and 95% of the professors offices I visited had, posted on their walls or doors, comics or commentary critical of Republicans or President Bush. Whether or not they were able to keep these opinions out of the classroom or not, the still advertised their positions to the students. So, I was sitting in the bar, mostly looking at girls, but noticing the guys they were there with. For the most part, these guys had Napoleon Dynamite hair, curly or just plain long and shaggy, no styling at all. In other words, they looked like they just rolled out of bed after sleeping with wet hair. Many of them had full beards in the same grooming style. They wore a lot of flannel.

As the election got closer, I began to overhear political conversations when I went to the bar. I wasn’t surprised by the tone of the conversations, but what I was a little surprised about was how people could make such inherently contradictory statements, and believe them both to be true. I listened to a conversation between the bartender an a 40-ish woman, where she asserted the following statements within five minutes.

“George Bush is a fucking idiot! My goddamn DOG is smarter than that son-of-a-bitch!”
“George Bush manipulated the whole country into going to war just to get oil so he and his cronies would get richer.”

So, according to this lady, a retarded monkey can orchestrate the whole 9/11 thing to make money, and no one has figured it out or gotten proof. Come on. Clinton couldn’t even get a blow job in the Oval Office without the whole world finding out.

It was at this point I figured out the déjà vu. I was living in the early 70’s again. The hair, the clothes, the unpopular war, the unpopular President, the protests, and mostly… The anger. I cannot believe how much anger there is regarding this election, how much hatred. It was the biggest reason I lost ( or so I thought) any interest in the election. After it was decided, I found myself a bit depressed by the outcome. Not necessarily because my party lost the presidency, but because I worry about the Democrats having majority control over all three branches of the government.

Don’t on’t misunderstand. I am not a right wing radical. I don’t believe everything the hard core conservatives do. For instance: I don’t believe that gays should be denied the right to get married. I really don’t believe the government should be involved in the marriage process at all. I believe the sex trade should be legal. If we say a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body when it comes to abortion, why not sex?

Back to the election. believe that this election was decided on three factors, in order of increasing importance: 1) Political Policies; 2) Skin Color; 3) Hatred of Bush and his party.

I also base it on the belief that Obama’s supporters believe something along these lines. If you dont want to click, I will sum up: a woman celebrating Obama’s win states for the news that she will no longer have to worry about paying her mortgage, or for her gas. Now, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say that she doesnt believe that Obama is gonna pay for those things, but that he will solve the mortgage and gas crisis. But I think many people do feel that way, and when the candidate repeatedly talks about sharing the wealth, is it any surprise that people think he will be taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor? Why do they believe that one man has this ability?

The reason for number two is twofold. I think that many people are very anxious to be a part of history. We heard our grandparents talk about WWII. We heard our parents talk about Vietnam and protesting and Civil Rights. These are big issues, and they lived through it. Louie Anderson said it best: What are we gonna tell our kids? “I didn’t get cable until I was 12!” We want to be a part of history, and this is history. The first black president. (I don’t believe in hyphenated Americans. Everybody who is a citizen is an American, and personally, I don’t feel the need to separate us into smaller groups than that) And the second reason is because of what used to be called reverse-discrimination. I know that this is probably the least reputable source, but Howard Stern played interviews where people in Harlem were asked why they supported Obama, and then asked if they supported his policy of X. Replace X with a McCain policy. All of them supported the policy, as long as Obama did.

The third is self explanatory.

Politics is all about power. Plain and simple. The reasons behind wanting that power is varied, but the power is ultimate. We have one party in power of all three houses, and this makes me nervous. Even if it was the Republican party. I believe in the system of checks and balances, because there are wackos on both sides of the political fence, and I don’t want them getting their wacky ideas passed with no argument, or in spite of the arguments. I think that the next two years are going to be spent trying to get a larger control of the house and senate. A presidents first term is spent doing what it takes to get a second term. The second term is spent trying to keep the party in power and doing the things promised in the first term. I personally feel that the next four years will be spent making sure that the approval rating is high, to secure a second term. I also think that in the second term, the subject will be brought up about eliminating the two term limit on Presidents, providing Obama is still riding the popularity wave. I will give the man this, he is an excellent orator, he can fire up a crowd. But I think he will be constantly ridden by his own party to approve whatever they send up the hill. I sincerely hope that he stays “almost center,” but I think the change he was talking about will be shocking to those who are mostly conservative in values, but still voted for him.

I think we are going to see a harder push for the typical left policies, and they may actually get passed now. Abortion rights, gay marriage, the environment, immigration (legal and illegal) and gun control. These are the issues that have been stymied by the Republicans, and Democrats haven’t given up in spite of loss after loss.

I think they are tired of losing, and they wont be doing it anymore.