Junk Science & Government Policy
The United States government’s investment is scientific research has a long and beneficial history. Government subsidized scientific research has brought phenomenal levels of prosperity to this nation’s people. Government funded scientific research ended America’s war with the Japanese, it has brought about cures and vaccines for numerous diseases, prolonged the lifespan of American citizens, put out nation on the surface of the moon, increased the speed of our communications and affected virtually every aspect of our daily lives. Few would disagree that when federal tax dollars are used to subsidize scientific research the American people should share in the benefits produced. However, when junk science becomes the political cause du jour and is used adversely by the U.S. government to regulate private business and restrict the activities of American citizens then we all have a serious problem that needs to be resolved.
In Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address he used the word “energy” fifteen times and the word “climate” three times. He stated “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”
To date all of the theories about global warming and the affect, if any, it has on the climate of this planet remain unproven and the idea that global warming represents a significant threat to the environment or to mankind is, at this point in time, utterly absurd. The alleged “scientific evidence” has been repeatedly shown to be seriously flawed and in many cases fraudulent data has been used to intentionally reach unwarranted conclusions.
Coral reefs off the coast of Florida are dying off because the water is too cold for them. The Antarctic is getting colder and the glaciers of Iceland are getting increasingly thick. Sea levels are rising, but they are doing so at an extremely low rate, and while the temperature of Earth has increased by a minuscule amount, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are also showing minor temperature rises. The glacial melting that has been the topic of many overblown and sensationalized news reports is far from a recent development inasmuch as it began with the onslaught of the current interglacial period – 10 to 20 thousand years ago.
Scientists first developed the process for taking the Earth’s temperature in the 1880s so our selection of data is somewhat limited. The margin of error for this process is generally assumed to be 14 °C ± 0.7 °C. Between 1880 and it has been demonstrated that the change in the Earth’s overall temperature is +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. That is significantly less than the margin of error for taking the temperature of the planet. That is far from looking like any sort of a dire threat to humanity and yet many Americans have gullibility allowed themselves to be conned into taking this garbage seriously and are even clamoring for the government to take the necessary steps to reverse it, as if they knew how to do that. The fact is that most politicians and a good portion of the scientists who came up with it in the first place, don’t really know what they are looking at or what it all means.
For the last 2.5 million years or so the bipedal humanoids on the planet Earth have tolerated and survived through the best and the worst of whatever weather conditions were thrown their way. Mild weather conditions were greatly enjoyed by all while the extremes of nature’s harsher weather tempered the species as it forced them into a heartless struggle for survival. From the darkest recesses of forgotten time, when mankind’s most distant ancestor first stood upright and surveyed the vastness of his domain, until this date in time, little has changed in this regard. With time and research we have come to understand that the climate of the planet we live on is affected by a large number of variables such as variations in the brightness of the sun, cosmic ray flux, solar energy output, volcanic events, the distance between the sun and Earth, the axial wobble and orbital eccentricities of the Earth, the amount of cloud coverage, variations in the circulation of the oceans, the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere and tectonic movement. Despite the vastness of our accumulated knowledge and the high degree of intelligence we believe we have attained, we can control exactly none of these variables. We can determine the global mean temperature of the planet, but since our scale of comparative values is so limited, that information is virtually useless to us. Furthermore, the planet Earth did not come with a manual that we know of so who is to say what the correct temperature of the planet is suppose to be. When you get right down to it we don’t have the foggiest idea if the planet is too hot, too cold or right where it is suppose to be.
The entire idea of global warming is derived from the output of computer modeling software. The groups and individuals who run these software programs load them up with an untold number of assumptions and correction factors, countless workarounds to keep the data churning and as many adjustments to the numerous parameters as are required to get the software to function. The sum total of all data input to the program does not necessarily reflect reality as far as our atmosphere is concerned and the final results are no more an accurate prediction of the future than what we could find by deciphering hidden messages derived from tarot cards, a bag full of rune stones or the entrails of a dead goat.
Despite the hysterically absurd claims of global warming proponents armed with their fraudulent data and junk science, politicians around the world have shown no reluctance to jump onto the global warming train. Rahm Emanuel revealed a core tenant of modern day politics when, speaking of the nation’s economic situation, he advised Barack Obama, “never let a crisis go to waste.” There is no better motivator than fear, and imaginary threats often stoke the public’s fear more effectively than real threats. In fact, with careful planning and the right amount of spin, imaginary threats can provoke so much fear in the general populace that the real threats are overlooked. Bad weather is something we never run out of, it is always unexpected, we have never been able to predict or control it, and few people remember what the weather conditions were like from one year to the next. Like the classic “he said / she said” argument or the existence of God, global warming can neither be proved nor disproved. Horrific scenarios can be easily constructed and thrown out to the public as if they were highly probable, and because our collective knowledge regarding climate and weather is so limited, the threats can never be proven or disproven. An emotionally distraught population on the verge of panic, in response to an intentionally provoked fear of an imaginary threat, is a population ripe for manipulation.
In the effort to avoid certain extinction as a result of disastrous climate change for which there is no credible supporting evidence, the American people have willingly accepted some of the most harebrained legislation imaginable. The development of our own natural resources has been prohibited and we have become dependent on the more expensive resources of countries that hold us in low regard. Simple, cheap and entirely safe incandescent light bulbs have been banned by the United States Congress in favor of much more expensive compact fluorescent bulbs containing hazardous mercury. Gasoline, the substance that fuels the American economy, allows millions of American citizens to commute to work and facilitates the delivery of products from manufacturers to wholesalers and on to retailers is, by legislative mandate, required to contain 10% ethanol. We have been told that in order to meet this requirement, the tax money of American citizens must be used to subsidize huge agricultural corporations, fuel blenders and ethanol refineries. It has driven the price of gasoline through the roof, reduced the amount of acreage in the U.S. dedicated to the production of food, does absolutely nothing to reduce the so-called “greenhouse gases,” and increases the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9%. The addition of ethanol to gasoline actually increases the level of ozone in our atmosphere, decreases wildlife habitat, and increases the amount of photochemical smog we must breath, aggravates medical conditions such as asthma and distorts the free market economy by artificially increasing the price of the feedstock used now for ethanol production. Furthermore, by mandating that all gasoline in the U.S. contain a 10% mix of ethanol, the federal government has increased the emission of carcinogenic aldehydes, such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, by as much a 40%, and all of this has been done purportedly to save us from the threat of global warming, a threat that is, to date, unsubstantiated by empirical scientific evidence. Despite the numerous problems caused by the legislation requiring ethanol in gasoline, the American people are stuck with it because it enhances the economic welfare and prosperity of the large corporations and agricultural conglomerates involved and while we are forced to foot the bill for this nonsense, the politicians reap the rewards through campaign donations and lucrative deals cut behind the scenes with agricultural lobbyists.
While the list of insane legislation is far from comprehensive, I would be entirely remiss if I failed to include the recent legislative effort to establish cap and trade regulations, the single largest enhancement to the federal government’s revenue since the implementation of the income tax. The American economy is seriously tanking, millions of people are unemployed and facing bankruptcy, foreclosure, homelessness and hunger. Businesses are going belly up in record numbers, the ones that have survived to this point have done so by cutting back and laying off and all across the country strip malls and shopping areas are pockmarked with the paint covered windows of business that have already gone under. Instead of alleviating the unwarranted financial burden our government levies against the source of our nation’s prosperity, the United States Congress, in their benevolent wisdom, has seen fit to implement cap and trade legislation and accelerate the demise of companies now barely hanging on. Carbon taxes and cap and trade regulations are financial penalties levied against companies that emit carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” which may, or may not be causing global warming. No clear indication exists to warrant a belief that increased carbon taxes or cap and trade regulations will have even the slightest effect on the environment, however, they will make it much more difficult for struggling businesses to remain solvent, and even more importantly (to the government) they will significantly increase government revenue in a manner that “appears” to be more of a fee than a tax. They reap the benefits, we shoulder the burden. The unbelievably wealthy corporations that have always been identified as the major source of pollutants will easily be able to meet the high auction price of carbon credits and purchase their legitimacy and the smaller companies, the ones that most middle-class Americans work for, will either succumb to the bureaucratic nightmare of this convoluted system, or be forced to reduce their scale of operations to meet the new compliance requirements. Carbon credits will become the nation’s hottest commodity and insanely huge profits will be made by those who figure out how to manipulate the system to their financial advantage, but the effect of this added burden will be catastrophic for many smaller businesses and the consequence of the ill-advised legislation will be an increase in prices and a higher unemployment rate.
As if matters couldn’t get any worse, on Wednesday, February 5, 2010, while speaking to a number of state governors, Barack Obama announced a the implementation of new initiatives intended to increase the use of ethanol by moving to a 15% blend of ethanol in all gasoline sold in the United States. The success of his plan may result in a reduction of foreign oil over a long period of time but it will likely cause an increase in fuel costs for consumers as refineries are retooled to meet the changes required. In addition to the higher costs and the increased output of carcinogenic aldehydes into the atmosphere, it is estimated that more than 3 million American families will be left without transportation because the mixture will destroy the engines of many pre-1998 automobiles as well as those of many luxury cars. Along with the decrease in fuel efficiency, the increase of carcinogenic pollutants and the accelerated fouling of carburetors and fuel injectors, ethanol attacks the elastomers that bind together plastic automobile parts together. Ethanol causes rubber hoses, seals and gaskets dry out and crack, it seeps through fuel lines increasing the likelihood of engine fires and it can destroy some fiberglass fuel tanks. The primary impact of the increased ethanol content will be felt by the lower middle-class individuals at or below the poverty line who are driving, and in some cases, living in the older, pre-1998 automobiles that they can afford to purchase. Inasmuch as the upper middle-class and wealthier Americans will be able to afford the cost of new cars and the requisite engine modifications to their existing automobiles, the impact on the lower middle-class and poorer families will disproportionately affect many Hispanic and African American families.
The United States government should consider science in the establishment and implementation of new policy, however, that consideration should be limited to well-developed, repeatable scientific findings developed through empirical scientific experimentation. The unsupported hysterical allegations of environmental alarmists armed with questionable computer modeling software should be discounted until such time that the results of their modeling can be supported empirically. Anything less is political manipulation and should be considered detrimental to the welfare of the American people and the economy of the United States.
Technorati Tags
Barack Obama, 
junk science, 
global warming, 
climate change, 
ethanol