Global Warming and Mainstream Media

Here are two very important links regarding global warming and Al Gore.

"House Democrats shield Gore from debate on warming (Updated)" by Thomas Lifson

"10 Questions for Al Gore" by Steven Milloy

Why don't we hear about these things from the Mainstream Media? Perhaps the following video gives us a clue.

"Updated Exclusive! Entire GE CEO Confrontation"

Environmentalism and the Economy

Conservatives support good stewardship of our earth. We depend on the earth's resources for everything we do and to trash the earth or to waste the resources is wrong and foolish and short-sighted. However, there are radical environmentalists who insist that humans are nothing more than just another species of animal and that preserving the earth should take precedence over everything else, including human life and well-being. This is a very wrongheaded view of things.

We have watched as Al Gore and his supporters have preached global warming and have blamed man for it. They have claimed that the earth is in dire straits because of global warming. They have also proclaimed that the debate is over and some have even threatened to charge those who disagree with them with serious crimes. Additionally, those who disagree with these global warming theories face loss of funding and loss of jobs.

In spite of all this noise, the earth has actually been cooling since 1998. More and more scientists are fed up with the false information being put out by Al Gore and his comrades and are speaking out, providing much data that proves the errors in the global warming theories. I have to wonder how some scientists have become so politicized. They, of all people, should support the truth and search for the truth.

Perhaps much of the problem comes from science jobs and funding being politicized and so scientists play along with the currently politically popular theories in order to get jobs and funding. This happens with evolution, as well as with global warming. On top of all that, there are people who, because of their indoctrination at school, have so bought into evolution and, lately, global warming, that they attempt to intimidate those who disagree with them into silence, shouting them down and accusing them of being ignorant. Actually, we aren't ignorant at all. We just have the good sense to search beyond mainstream media and the popular science magazines to find the facts and to not swallow whole some idea just because it's taught in school. It's certainly true that there are crazies out there supporting any and all viewpoints, but their writings are also not where we turn for facts. I realize that no one supporting either evolution or global warming will admit that those who disagree with them have any legitimate sources of information, but we do. There are scientists and journalists out there with the integrity to dig for facts and to publish them.

What brings all this to my attention right now is that our current administration is ready to push harsh environmental regulations on the auto industry, regulations that will cost so much to implement as quickly as demanded that they will likely kill the auto industry. This after the government handed over billions to save the auto industry. Kind of schizophrenic, isn't it?

Environmentalism, in going beyond good stewardship and common sense, will ruin our economy and damage our national security. Why do I say this? Because the environmental regulations being demanded will cost more to implement than our nation can afford and because wind, solar, biofuels, and other alternate sources of energy are nowhere near well-developed enough to provide this nation with all of its energy (and they may never be), yet environmentalists want to prevent us from drilling for our own oil and natural gas, using our coal, and building nuclear plants. This leaves us dependent on foreign nations, some of whom are enemies and none of whom will put our interests over their own, which is where national security issues come into play.

Forget utopia, we're headed for dystopia if these laws and regulations are allowed to be put into effect.

As usual, I will provide you with a list of articles to read and contemplate. There are many more out there, of course. This is just a sampling.

"Tear Down the Amazon Rainforest Idol" at World Net Daily (which also links to an article in The New York Times (!) titled "New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests" by Elizabeth Rosenthal )

"Lefty, It's Cold Outside" by Deroy Murdock (It's good to know that not everyone on the Left is fooled!)

"The Rise of Self-Defeating Industrial Policy" by Rich Lowry

"California's Carbon-Tax Lesson for America" by Edward John Craig (on the Planet Gore blog at National Review Online )

"Who is the 'They' Now in California?" by Victor Davis Hanson (This piece talks about more than just the environment, although that is in there, too.)

"Anthropogenic Global Warming: The Greatest Fraud in History?" by James Lewis

"Mileage Standards: Not the Way to Energy Independence" by Brian Douglas

"All Seriousness Aside" by Paul Chesser

"His Winter of Discontent" by William Tucker

That will give you sufficient reading for now. In addition, several of the above articles have interesting links in them.

Whether we are talking about "stimulus" bills or environmental regulation bills, it is so important that we stop the panicked rushing about and think these things through carefully, gathering actual facts to use in making the decisions.

First Yellow Journalism, Now Yellow Science

From The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: Commonsense About Climate Change comes an article by James Kerian called "Yellow Science". The first two paragraphs explain the term:

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

The article itself has a lot to say about the unscientific methods used to promote global warming and create a climate of fear among people so that those pushing global warming can push through their agendas, which will damage economies and production of all kinds around the world. The final paragraph is blunt, but true:

The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."

I recommend reading the entire article. It will give you something to consider carefully. For an excellent additional source of information, try "Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?" by James A. Peden. It's informative as well as fun to read, although the science may make your head spin a bit!

Energy Concerns

With gas prices, and other prices, rising, we are all getting concerned. In spite of the Senate's dog-and-pony show grilling oil execs, the oil companies are not the problem. In fact, they would be the major solution, if we would let them. The problem is our government, which is supposed to be working for us, but often is not. The government has so seriously restricted the USA from developing its own energy resources that we find ourselves hog-tied. It is time, as they say, to stop the madness.

I realize that environmental concerns are real. However, no company is going to risk the problems that would come to them if they carelessly polluted the environment while developing natural resources. In addition, with today's technology and know-how, we can develop our resources in a much cleaner way than in the past. We need to be good stewards of the earth and its resources, but that does not mean, "Don't touch anything!"

A number of countries are drilling off shore in various places around the world--Russia and Cuba (with China), some of the European countries, and so forth. I am not saying we should "follow the crowd" just to be following the crowd. I am saying that other countries are busily developing resources, and since we need to as well, why aren't we?

The resources I am talking about are oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. All of these need to be developed, starting now. In addition, we can continue working on alternative resources, such as wind, solar, liquid coal methods, and biofuels. Regarding that last, I believe the powers that be jumped the gun on ethanol. It needs work to be more efficient and less polluting. There is also much research needed in all areas, and we need to increase our refining capacity. This all takes time and huge amounts of money. Oil companies need the profits they are getting in order to do research and development. They actually get very little of the $4.00 from each gallon of gas--the government takes a far larger share.

I have a number of links to share with you about this issue. Please feel free to mention others in the comments. There are many more informative links around the internet with facts and figures on energy and the environment.


Federal Government sites:


US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (see especially the Minority Page)


US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


The House Committee on Energy and Commerce


The House Committee on Natural Resources


The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming


These provide a starting point for learning about what the government is doing and not doing. You can email the committees as well as individual legislators to tell them what you feel is needed or not needed. Don't forget to find out what your state legislature is doing and give them feedback, as well. In addition to the energy issue, you can look at the committee pages for other issues of concern and email about those, also.


A petition:


American Solutions Petition (this is to be presented to the federal government and is about energy. Details on the site.)


Some informative articles:


"Drill Here, Drill Now" by Jed Babbin (This is the article that told me about the above petition and it discusses the petition.)


"Congress, Gasoline and Hearings--Look! There's a Diversion" by George Landrith


"Top 10 Energy Questions for the US Senate" by Human Events


"Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment" by Charles Krauthammer


"Environmentalists' Wild Predictions" by Walter Williams


"Congressional Problem Creation" by Walter Williams


"Too 'Complex'?", "Too 'Complex'? Part II", and "Too 'Complex'? Part III" by Thomas Sowell (This is about economics and supply and demand, but mentions energy as one issue involved.)


"When 'Market-Based' is a Façade" by George Will


"How Al Gore is Getting Fat off of a Starving World" by Jerry Bowyer (about food prices as affected by ethanol)


"Oil Crisis Solved by Resources, Not Gimmicks" by Kathryn Jean Lopez


"Coal-Cap Disaster" by Lawrence Kudlow


"Windfall-Profit Nonsense" by John Stossel


"Gas Prices and the Blame Game" by Ed Feulner

"The 'Big Oil' Witch Hunt" by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson


The Heritage Foundation's Energy and Environment page (Here you will find dozens of well-researched articles about various aspects of energy and environment issues.)


This seems like a long list of links, but the energy situation needs to be resolved now because it will take time to get the various energy production projects going, and to build nuclear plants and expand refineries. If Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed a bill that would have allowed all this in 1995, we would now be enjoying the benefits of producing much of our own energy and who knows how much farther along we would be in the research and development of alternative energy resources? I ask you to read these articles and look into what our government is doing. Then contact your government representatives and let them know that the time for foolishness is over and it is time America produced its own energy freely.

Imagine a World Without Environmental Activists

Not that taking care of our environment is a bad thing, but it is the going to extremes that causes everybody grief. I ran across an article a The New Media Journal which, patterned after the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", will give you some things about environmental policy to consider.

The article is "It's a Wonderful Life...Environmentally Speaking" by Greg Lewis. He imagines what the world might be like if environmentalists hadn't forced restrictions or outright bans on drilling for oil in America and building nuclear facilities in America. Interesting scenarios. Perhaps things wouldn't turn out precisely as he imagines, but one can see how much better things might be, and why. I think it's a good read.

On a similar note, also at The New Media Journal, take a look at the article "When Gas Reaches $5 a Gallon, Thank Liberals!" by JB Williams. In this piece, Mr. Williams considers the high cost of gas and why it is so high. He points out the high prices in the European Union, which those on the left seem to consider a model for their policies, and he points out who the highest oil producers are who can "hold America hostage over an oil barrel". He also breaks down the cost of a gallon of gasoline and tells us where the money goes (hint: very little goes to oil companies). This article, too, will give you something to consider.

The Environment

I ponder the environment a fair amount these days because of all the global warming hype and high gas prices, high food prices, etc. We should, of course, be good stewards of the earth and avoid pollution as much as possible. However, I disagree with the notion of putting the earth before humans, or blaming humans for anything problematic about the environment. I ran across a couple of articles that I recommend that you read and give some thought to. They are as follows:

At Townhall, "A New Environmentalism" by Victor Davis Hanson

At American Thinker, "Earth First! (People Later)" by David Bueche

In "Earth First! (People Later)", Mr. Bueche discusses why global warming isn't really a problem and how much of a disservice it is to humans to focus on that instead of other, more urgent problems (food, sanitation, etc.).

In "A New Environmentalism", Mr. Hanson focuses on energy and points out that if the US continues to import oil, we are often filling the coffers of terrorists and others who do not have our best interests at heart. If we continue to divert grain to biofuels, we raise food prices around the world, which hurts the poor most of all. He points out that solar and wind simply do not provide enough energy at this time or in the foreseeable future. The wisest course is to build nuclear plants and to drill for oil in our own country (ANWR, off the coasts).

I think these two articles make a lot of good points and that we need to get away from extreme positions on the environment (Don't touch anything!). It is possible to seek traditional sources of energy without much in the way of pollution or other environmental damage. We need to do what is best for our country, which in turn will do a lot to benefit people around the world. We need to think instead of following along with the various hysterical claims of global warming or whatever the cause of the day is. We can still be good stewards of the earth while making sensible use of its resources.

The Encyclopedia of Life Has a Lot More Content Now

The Encyclopedia of Life has had a website up for a year or more with minimal content (6 demonstration pages), but now they have 25 complete pages, about 30,000 partial pages, and a million or so minimal pages. If you had given up on them ever getting more up, now is the time to go explore! You can register for free and the encyclopedia is meant to always be free, to provide information about all life on earth to everyone everywhere. Lots of interesting stuff there now and to come in the future. It's scheduled for completion in 2017.

If you register, you can sign up to get their quarterly newsletter in your email. They are having a contest to name the newsletter. Also, later this year, they plan to make it possible for anyone to contribute photos and content to be reviewed for inclusion. This is a great site for anyone interested in science and nature and for anyone taking classes along those lines. Kids will enjoy learning more about common plants and animals they see around their homes or getting information for school.

I know I sound like an advertisement, but I have no connection to the encyclopedia except as an interested reader. I just think that it'll be a fascinating place to learn.

Is Science Really the Answer to Everything?

It seems that for a century or more, some people have had the idea that science is the only source of truth and therefore, is the answer to every human problem--from disease to poverty and beyond. While science can provide helpful facts and ideas, there is much more to life than science alone. I found an article at The Heritage Foundation that should be required reading for all. It provides a common sense view of science's limitations and why we cannot and must not treat science as the be all and end all of the world and the universe.

The article is titled "The Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science". It's by John G. West, Ph. D., who is "a Senior Fellow at the Dis­covery Institute, Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (ISI Books, 2007)."

Dr. West starts by writing:

"An age of science is necessarily an age of material­ism," wrote Hugh Elliot early in the last century. "Ours is a scientific age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists now."

One does not have to look far to discover the con­tinued accuracy of Elliot's assessment. Scientific materialism--the claim that everything in the uni­verse can be fully explained by science as the prod­ucts of unintelligent matter and energy--has become the operating assumption for much of American politics and culture. We are repeatedly told today that our behaviors, our emotions, even our moral and religious longings are reducible to some combination of physical processes interacting with our environment.

He later says, referring to what his book is about:

My book Darwin Day in America explores the impact on American politics and culture of the mate­rialistic abuse of science Lewis warned about so many years ago. Contrary to its title, the book is not just about Darwin. It is about how modern science--a very good thing--has been misappropriated by scien­tific elitists who want to offer a materialistic explana­tion of every part of human culture.

Here is what he says scientific materialism was supposed to do and introduces how it has failed:

Such comments embodied perfectly the optimis­tic vision offered by scientific materialism at the dawn of the last century. During an era when science seemed to be uncovering the material basis of all human problems, it was widely believed that science with a capital "S" could lead to the transformation of society, bringing about greater human freedom, dig­nity, and happiness in the process. In short, scientific materialism was supposed to be a great engine of human progress in politics and culture.

It was not. Human nature was not reformed; crime did not disappear; and scientific materialism did not usher in a new age of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, the excesses of scientific materi­alism have continued to influence American public policy in at least five important ways.

The five important ways, of which his discussion makes up the body of the article, are technocracy, utopianism, dehumanization, relativism, and stifling free speech. Dr. West offers some valuable perspective as to what science can and cannot do and he concludes with this statement:

Contrary to the assertions of some, robust public scrutiny of claims made in the name of science does not constitute a "war against science." Indeed, it may be the very thing that saves science from its own excesses.

Science, in and of itself, is a good thing, but it is not everything. In addition, science, properly conducted, often leads to new information that negates previous ideas and theories. To be blind to science's gifts and limitations is, in itself, unscientific.

Ten Sensible Questions

At the Human Events website, Pat Sajack (yes, of "Wheel of Fortune" fame) writes an excellent piece in which he asks ten questions about global warming. These are questions that we should insist on answers to before we allow the trashing of the world as we know it by politicians and environmentalist extremists. The article is titled "Manmade Global Warming: 10 Questions".

Here are the ten questions:

1. What is the perfect temperature?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

9. How will we measure our successes?

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

Good questions, aren't they? Mr. Sajak offers a few comments on each question. When I was at the site, there were 102 comments by readers, so there is lots of good reading on this topic for you to enjoy.

Thanks to my friend JR for bringing this piece to my attention. I hope all of you will give this some thought!

The Bali Conference on Global Warming/Climate Change

The United Nations has been holding a climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. A huge number of people winged their way to the island resort for this meeting. It boggles my mind that so many still think that global warming as a disaster waiting to happen is a done deal. I want to present some information to you from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Minority Page. The minority members of the committee, led by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), have a blog here and that is where I'm getting this information. The December 11 and 13 posts are of particular interest.

On December 11, a post by Marc Morano (who posted all 3 articles I'm going to link to) titled "Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference" that illustrates how far from a scientific consensus the global warming 'beliefs' are. There are links in the article to other material. Some quotes:

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

And:

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

Note that Dr. Gray is a member of the UN IPCC and shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to that group.

The two December 13 posts are titled "Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts" and "Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference". The first post is about an open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. It contains a copy of the letter and a list of those who signed it. The second post tells of advocacy for a global carbon tax which would, in effect, be an attempt to redistribute wealth and would diminish future prosperity. A couple of quotes from that piece:

However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

And:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)

Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK)

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK)

I highly recommend reading these blog posts. They will give you information you might not get anywhere else.

You can find out about congressional committees by going to the Federal Legislative Branch page of the US Government official website. You can then click on "Committee Office Websites" for either the House or the Senate and find out what committees there are, clicking on the committee name to find out what said committee is doing. Informative reading.

On a side note, if you have not been able to post comments because you did not have a Google/Blogger account, that is no longer the case. Blogger was making some changes to the comments portion of the program, but you can comment by selecting either "Nickname" or "Anonymous" and post a comment without having to register anywhere.

Fun and Interesting Websites

I love to learn about anything and everything. Learning about the things in nature is especially fascinating and so I am sharing some links with you about insects, birds, and various other things that are fun to learn about.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Insects

geology.com

Tom Campbell's Amateur Astronomy

Archaeology Info (This site is pro-evolution, but has lots of information about archaeology.)

Noble Plant Image Gallery

Birding, Birdwatching, and Wild Birds at About.com

"Fish" at Wikipedia

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (a fun page of FAQs about fish and other aquatic life)

USDA Plants Database

Botany.com The Encyclopedia of Plants, Gardening, and Botanical Dictionary

An Illustrated Herbal (I'm not recommending any medicinal use--this is just an interesting site to read)

Well, that's enough links to keep you busy for a long time! It's just so interesting to learn to identify fish, plants, birds, and insects. There are lots of fascinating, little known facts about them. The Botany.com site seemed to have lots of gardening information, too, which should be helpful for those with a place to grow things.

Global Warming Again

You may or may not be tired of hearing about global warming, but this is an important issue because many politicians and other leaders are trying to use the hysteria they have created to grab power and money.

At Jewish World Review Dr. Walter Williams writes a column called "Global Warming Hysteria". As usual, Dr. Williams cuts to the chase and also tells you where you can find some good information:

There's an excellent booklet available from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) titled "A Global Warming Primer." Some of its highlights are:

"Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."

"Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

"There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

What about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? The primer says, "Polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century." The primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us.

Here's a link to the National Center for Policy Analysis. And here is a link to "A Global Warming Primer". Enjoy.

Environmental Hysteria

I've found an interesting article at FrontPage Magazine called "Hysteria's History: Environmental Alarmism in Context" by Amy Kaleita, Ph.D., with Gregory R. Forbes. It's a 30-page pdf file, but well worth your time to read. In it, Dr. Kaleita reviews the various alarmist predictions about the environment and how they have proven to be inaccurate. She also writes about some of the bad policies that have been enacted due to alarmism and the damage those policies have done.

Here is a sample quote from page 11:

Alarmists consistently ignore or deny the ability of humans to learn, grow, and advance socially and technologically. Swiss biochemist Ehrenfried Pfeiffer clearly states this alarmist view: “Production, rationalization and technicalization have reached a ‘saturation.’ They can not be increased.”21

Yet time and time again we see agricultural production records being broken. Human ingenuity and scientific advances help us better manage our acres and plant higher-yielding varieties that are drought, pest, and disease resistant. Every continent has seen an increase in yield in the last 40 years—with, of course, localized differences. Crop yield worldwide has increased for every commodity type, including fruit by 31 percent, rice by 63 percent, vegetables by 37 percent, and wheat by 148 percent.22

This is an interesting article with some good information. We definitely need to consider more than just the writings of the mainstream media when figuring out what policies to enact and what to avoid.

Oil is also a topic covered in this article. Here is a sample quote from page 12:

In 1971, proven oil reserves were at 521 billion gallons; in 2006, they were at 1,290 billion gallons.37 The Cambridge Energy Research Association (CERA) has predicted that petroleum supplies will actually grow faster than demand until 2010.38 Oil production and reserve levels have not yet dropped and are not likely to drop; supply constraints, where they exist, are issues of investment, geopolitics, and infrastructure.

Concern about energy supplies is widespread and certainly needs to be considered. It just needs to be considered with facts and not with alarmist predictions.

All in all, this is a good article for those concerned about the various aspects of the environment.

Space

I've been battling the flu or something this past week, and I just don't feel up to a full-fledged post. However, here is a link to Space.com where you can enjoy news, science, technology, and pictures about the skies above our heads. Enjoy.

Science is Supposed to be About Investigation

Like global warming, another object of scientific study is evolution. And again, a small group of people insist that the debate is over and evolution, like global warming being caused by man, is a fact, even though it is assuredly not. I found an interesting article called "Theory of Evolution" at the Conservapedia. Like Wikipedia, this is a publicly written/edited online encyclopedia, so you would want to do some research of your own to confirm the information. However, this article is full of names and quotes and footnotes, so it gives you plenty of information to research.

My reading on the topic of evolution shows little, if any, evidence confirming it. Yet this is what is taught in our schools, and other viewpoints and ideas and facts are shut out. It can take years, even decades, for such indoctrinated students to realize they've been had. Who knows how much scientific research goes undone because everyone thinks "the debate is over". How many ideas and solutions and new discoveries are delayed or never found because research is stifled in certain directions?

Wikipedia has a good article on "Scientific Method" which should serve as a good reminder of what science is supposed to be about.

This past week, Newsweek had a story called "The Truth about Denial" by Sharon Begley. An excellent rebuttal of this article can be found at Townhall.com in an article called "Paralyzing Fog of Uncertainty on Climate" by Debra J. Saunders.

Just keep an open mind and search out all sides of an issue. You might be surprised at what you find. And don't forget to consider motivation for taking one side or another--the spokespeople might have hidden agendas.

Global Warming Complications

I have a couple of articles I would like to share with you. We are told that the debate is over about global warming--that it is an undisputed fact. We are told that it is man's fault and that in order to save the planet, we must cut back on carbon emissions. We are told lots of things, but the truth is that the debate is not over. The touted solutions may, in fact, be making things worse. And there are things that have been accepted as truth that have been found to be questionable at best, false at worst.

First is an opinion piece from Fox News called "Junk Science: How Now Brown Cow?" by Steven Milloy. It seems that particles in the air called "aerosols" (soot and sulfates from fossil fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions), long believed to be a cooling agent, may in fact be warming the atmosphere. The article says:

Based on data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles over the Indian Ocean, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and NASA reported not only that aerosols warmed temperatures, but they also increased atmospheric heating by 50 percent. This warming, they say, may be sufficient to account for the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

Mr. Milloy cites sources in his article and discusses some other findings. He concludes by saying:

If manmade global climate change is something worth fretting over — and it’s not at all clear that it is — the aerosol study opens up the possibility for an entirely new hypothesis for global warming with aerosols as the culprit. Yet up to now, the “consensus” crowd has portrayed aerosols in the opposite light as cooling agents.

When so-called “consensus” can be that far off, it would seem that there’s plenty of room for serious debate.

The second article you should read is on the American Conservative Union, but was originally printed in Rolling Stone, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. The article is "Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles" by Jeff Goodell. In this article, Mr. Goodell discusses the difficulties with trying to produce ethanol--from the heavy use of fossil fuels to do so to the problem of using corn for ethanol instead of food. It's an intelligent article that everyone ought to read.


The point of my pointing out these two articles is that we need to seriously look at what we do and don't do when it comes to the environment, and that blindly following politicians looking to grab power and/or money is not the best way to go about it.

Global Warming

Have you noticed how far from scientific enquiry the global warming discussion has become? In fact, there is a concerted effort on the part of global warming advocates to silence any discussion. They have announced that the debate is over and that those who do not agree with them are guilty of treason and are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. These kinds of statements should be waving red flags at the people of the world. Science is supposed to be about objective research, not name-calling and censorship.

The global warming movement is taking on the appearance of a religion. The question seems to be, "Do you believe in global warming?" Believe in? Hmmmm.

Science is also not about consensus. Something is either true or not true, or it might still be under investigation. But it is not something we vote on. There are too many experts in the relevant fields of climatology, meteorology, and so forth who have stated quite firmly, and with evidence, that there is no global warming crisis--the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling and anything we are experiencing now is not significant in the history of the earth. There have been warmer, and colder, periods dating before the industrial revolution, when man began to create industrial emissions.

I can't help but wonder if the global warming crowd is more concerned with creating power and wealth for themselves than with saving the earth. The so-called solutions seem to call for a lot of economic regulation and suppression. And let's not forget taxes levied on the people. These are the kinds of things that stifle economic growth and create all sorts of problems for the citizens when it comes to making a living and having the freedom and the means to follow their dreams.

Freedom and prosperity are very much at stake in the global warming situation. It sounds like more of an excuse to grow government than to be wise stewards over our environment. It reminds me of Hillary Clinton's health-care agenda--taking over huge segments of our national economy and turning them over to government control.

If we aren't careful, we could lose a lot of our freedom and prosperity in some surprisingly devious ways. I hope we will all consider carefully for whom we vote, and that we will frequently contact our current representatives to express our concerns. If enough of us do that, we cannot be ignored.

Natural History

Natural history is a fascinating topic in and of itself. When you can read essays and articles from many years ago, it increases in fascination--what has remained true and what has been found to be in error?

Online you can go to Natural History Magazine and read not only current articles here, but also articles from the early 20th century here. There are a couple of articles, for example, by Theodore Roosevelt. For some reason, I can't link to individual articles, but the link to articles from the early 20th century will bring up a page listing a number of them.

Some additional reading from the past is found at Bartleby. Here is a link to the "Scientific Papers" page, with articles by Michael Faraday and Lord Kelvin, among others. The "Voyages and Travels" page has writings from Herodotus to Sir Walter Raleigh. The nonfiction page offers writings from Charles Darwin, Theodore Roosevelt, and others on various topics, some on science and nature.

You can also seek out literary journals such as Isotope, put out by Utah State University, for literary science and nature writing. A click on the "Samples" button will take you to the archives where a few pieces are available for reading online. There are blogs, too, such as Science Musings by Chet Raymo.

Reading about science and nature is a pleasing way to spend a little time and to further your appreciation of the world around us. Check your local library for books, as well as doing searches online to find sources of reading material, current and past. Also, see my posts here at Writing Blog and here at By Study and Also by Faith, my other blogs, for more on this topic. Enjoy your exploring!

"The Encyclopedia of Life"

There is a new web resource just starting up called The Encyclopedia of Life. It is an ambitious undertaking by scientists to post pages on every form of life discovered. The press release says:

Many of the world’s leading scientific institutions today announced the launch of the Encyclopedia of Life, an unprecedented global effort to document all 1.8 million named species of animals, plants, and other forms of life on Earth. For the first time in the history of the planet, scientists, students, and citizens will have multi-media access to all known living species, even those that have just been discovered.

The press release is a fairly long article and you can read all of it on the link provided above. Very interesting. Another paragraph states:

Over the next 10 years, the Encyclopedia of Life will create Internet pages for all 1.8 million species currently named. It will expedite the classification of the millions of species yet to be discovered and catalogued as well. The pages, housed at http://www.eol.org, will provide written information and, when available, photographs, video, sound, location maps, and other multimedia information on each species. Built on the scientific integrity of thousands of experts around the globe, the Encyclopedia will be a moderated wiki-style environment, freely available to all users everywhere.

Demonstration pages are available here. FAQs are here and answer a lot of questions you may have about this project. You can register here and get email updates. I'm going to do that because this looks fascinating. It will be a long-term project, obviously, but a very interesting one. I read a note about it somewhere (I'm sorry I can't remember where.), but I think it will be something we can all enjoy and benefit from.

Friends of Science

There is a website with a focus on climate change. It has some good articles and a section on myths and facts. The website is called Friends of Science.

There is also science news, science background, and scientific references. There is also Kyoto/Climate News. These sections have information and links to information.

Enjoy!