Comments on Global Warming

A new study ‘blows the Greenhouse Theory out of the water”.  Interesting….  It will take several years for the shock of all of this to be reviewed and verified, but at least it might be okay now to be skeptical about global warming. 


‘All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control’


My commentary below is not affected by the article above.  It is valid whether the greenhouse theory turns out to be true or not.

Regarding their “studies”, many modern scientists are dishonest and disingenuous.  The conclusions of these “scientists” ultimately serve their political agenda, not science.  As scientists they presumably follow the scientific method.  This implies that they tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding their research.  They are not allowed to “cherry pick” their data in order to manipulate their “conclusions” into fitting their preconceptions or their politics.  The scientific method strongly implies that scientists should be responsible and honest.

However, many of these climate scientists are dependent on research grants from the government.  The way to ensure that they receive and continue to receive these grants is to give the politicians what they want, which is the scare tactics of alarmism.  Politicians need a crisis so that they, as conquering heroes, can provide the solution.  This is explains how modern scientists can be influenced to be biased in their papers and research.

But, there are a few “scientists” who are outright liars without any plausible excuse.  Their “conclusions” are speculations based on flawed data and defective “climate models”, for example.  As alarmists they are blatantly dishonest and disingenuous.  Part of telling the “whole truth” is to give the positive along with the potential negative.  What are the positive consequences of using neonic pesticides in agriculture?  Blank out.  The alarmists never mention the positive effects of a plentiful supply of honey.  (see article below for more detail)

Regarding the global warming scare, the consequences of not using fossil fuels today would be millions of human deaths worldwide.  Virtually everything we do and enjoy in modern civilization depends on cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy.  Look at any critical care facility in a modern hospital, for example, or the supply of clean water.  Fossil fuels provide us with the majority of our electric power without which modern civilization as we know it could not exist.  The current population could not be supported.  Outlawing fossil fuels would throw us back into the Dark Ages, and the U.S. would become a third world nation, at best.  Please connect the dots and realize what you’re doing!  Anyone who advocates the outlawing of fossil fuels is really advocating the killing of millions of human beings around the world!

I am currently reading an excellent and illuminating book entitled, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein.  My comments above rely heavily on Mr. Epstein’s methods, approach, and conclusions.  I very highly recommend his book!

Alex Epstein uses human quality of life as his standard of value, as his basis for comparison.  The radical environmentalists use a pristine earth untouched by man as their standard.  By that standard anything man does must be bad.  The only thing that will make them happy is if humans went extinct.  In approximately 1989 radical environmentalist David Graber said, “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (…to cause the extinction of mankind.)

Comment from Alex Epstein: “Historically and today, there is a shocking disconnect between our highly negative overall moral assessment of using coal, oil, and natural gas and the incredibly positive overall consequences that they have had on human life. The claim that fossil fuels are an addiction whose benefits are far outweighed by the long-term costs of catastrophic climate change, catastrophic pollution, and catastrophic resource depletion is not a new one. It has been made for the last 40 years by many of today’s most prestigious thinkers (Amory Lovins, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Bill McKibben). And it has been exactly wrong: the rapid increase of fossil fueled machines in the world has enabled us to improve every aspect of human well-being—life expectancy, infant mortality, nourishment, income, as well as key environmental metrics such as water quality, sanitation, and, perhaps most startling of all, climate danger (climate-related deaths are at record lows, down 98% over the last 80 years).”

Book: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

The Crisis of Integrity-Deficient Science


DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds


If the ice at the polar icecaps were melting, wouldn’t sea levels be rising?

NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout


Wind and solar power are too dilute and too intermittent to be reliable sources that can be scaled up for mass electrical power generation.  Fossil fuels are depended upon to fill the gaps when wind or solar power is unavailable.  Also, what about the pollution problems involved in the manufacture of solar panels and batteries?  And, what about the problem of the safe disposal of these “green” items at the end of their useful life?  The heavy metals used in their manufacture will always be a potential pollution problem.

Electric cars are another “green” item that have problems with the safe manufacture and disposal of their batteries, and they need mass generation of reliable electrical power to recharge their batteries to keep the cars running.  I’m sure we will eventually solve most of these technological problems in the future, but until then we need to depend upon fossil fuels for mass generation of cheap and reliable electrical power.

How would your personal life change if you stopped using all of the modern conveniences produced and powered by reliable fossil fuels?  No cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones, modern medical care, paved roads, plentiful food, clean water, fashionable clothes, grooming items, and leisure time to enjoy your life.  Technology powered by fossil fuels has also made the environment in the U.S. much cleaner than in China because we’re more developed than China.  How would you like to live and support yourself in a third world country without all of the benefits of a modern and prosperous civilization?  How would you like to breathe the air in a smoky hut every day just to cook your food?  That is what you’re encouraging 3rd world countries to do when you tell them to use costly and undependable “renewable energy” rather than using affordable and reliable fossil fuels.  Are you mean-spirited?

Mandating by law that a certain percentage of the energy in our own country must be produced by “renewable sources” by a specific date “mandates” that innovations occur by a specific date.  Could the innovation of the iPhone have been mandated?  Would the legislators have even conceived of an iPhone before Steve Jobs did?  And, who will innovate when you burden them with impractical regulations so that they cannot profit from or even perform their work?  That’s what big government and government control ultimately means.  That’s why all dictatorships are poor.  A nation’s prosperity is proportional to its freedom!  Citizens in a free society have the freedom to think, innovate, and profit; subjects in a dictatorship do not.  Think about it, and connect all of the dots!

The False Promises of Renewable Energy

The cost of nuclear power has gone way up because of the massive amount of regulations that must be complied with today.  The radical environmentalists are responsible for causing these regulations, and thus for drastically increasing the cost of nuclear power.  Then, they say it’s impractical because it costs too much!

A major factor in any case of poisoning is dosage.  The same principle applies to radioactivity, and we should remember that all matter is radioactive to some degree.  However, the amount of radioactivity is often not mentioned in a nuclear accident.  The media may state that radioactive gas escaped, but they may not mention the amount of radioactivity in that gas.  To sensationalize their news they allow you to assume that the amount was dangerous to humans.  Yet, you personally may have emitted more radioactivity the last time you farted.

Why the Greens Hate Nuclear Power


Global Warming Science – It’s Settled – They Lied Again

This entry was posted in Home Page. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply