A hodge-podge of ideas, thoughts, and observations:
Using insects as a source of oil and protein, a huge untapped renewable source, possibly far more oil than all the petroleum we have ever had.
Dubai is investing in power systems for electric vehicles and complete electric vehicles and PHEVs.
http://www.electricdrive.org/ It looks like they are planning for when their oil runs out.
Great Late news: The US Geological survey has just announced a huge new field of sweet (low sulfur) crude has just been surveyed in North Dakota. The Bakken Formation is larger even than the Saudi Arabian field and could be twice its size making it the largest oil field ever discovered. It has been known since 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel. With oil above $100 a barrel, this field can now be processed economically. It could supply all the crude America will need for as long as 70 years.
Before you start dancing in the streets, let’s see how quickly the environmentalists can get Congress to outlaw drilling there. Of course, the price of fuel posted on so many street corners, infuriated motorists and truckers could mount such a force that those environmental special interests in Washington might not be able to have their way. With the current flavor of the election rhetoric against “Big oil,” the new federal government could see this as an opportunity to advance socialism and put the government into the oil business to mine and distribute this oil. Considering the gross inefficiency of government in any endeavor that will probably double the end cost of that crude to refiners. I wonder who the government will hire to drill for the oil and operate the business end? China perhaps?
This brings me to another proposal for oil. Let’s charge a 30% tax on all oil imports and exports with a minimum of $50 a barrel while leaving domestic oil that stays in the country tax free. We should do everything in our power to keep that money out of the hands of the politicians or bureaucrats. It should be placed in a fund in a bank and distributed in total to companies who produce useable, non fossil fuel at the rate of $.75 per gallon produced. As the volume of non fossil fuels increases past the point where the payout from the fund is greater than the input, reduce the payout to the point where input equals output. Make this adjustment on a monthly basis. This will stimulate the domestic oil industry, discourage oil imports and exports and stimulate a domestic alternative fuel industry. Nobody gets a payoff. No earmarks are used. There are no pork barrel projects involved keeping political hands out of the cookie jar. I know no legislator would propose such legislation. They would fear the fury of their lobbyists and that would injure their cash cows.
How about converting all that fat from liposuction to fuel? Centia is a new process that converts animal fats to useable fuels.
China is drilling in our backyard while we look to increase our energy costs by imposing a cap and trade system. The rest of the world must be laughing at the stupidity of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill which will probably add as much as $1.50 to the price of a gallon of fuel and make many things and especially fuel so expensive we have to curtail its use or stop using it all together (unless we are very wealthy or are members of the bureaucracy or hold political office.
While we debate this ridiculous and expensive (to Mr Average American) cap and trade bill, slant drilling is enabling China and India to drill for oil that lies under our Continental shelf immediately off the Florida coast. If you want to blame anyone, blame the liberal environmentalists who have effectively driven the price of fuel through the roof by preventing American oil companies from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and most other places with proven oil deposits. They want us all to be riding bicycles or walking to satisfy their warped sense of necessity. Of course the politicians will still be motoring and jetting around using fuel they don’t have to pay for just as they do now. All of that expensive fuel will be paid for by your money.
Think about American oil companies being forbidden to drill for proven oil deposits around Florida to protect shoreline ecosystems. Sounds great, doesn’t it, protecting the environment. Now that we are not drilling in these fields, the world’s largest oil company, PetroChina in cooperation with Cuba is now drilling not far from Key West where American companies are forbidden to drill. Using slant drilling, they can take the oil from underneath us and, yet, we're not doing a damn thing about it. Ask any liberal what they plan to do about that. I pray none of their undersea wells blows. (as they have in a few other areas) If they do have a blowout, the Florida keys and Everglades will be irreparably damaged. PetroChina has none of the environmental controls on drilling and drilling techniques required of American oil companies. So much for our politicians protecting the environment along our shores. As far as “big oil” is concerned, last year, PetroChina overtook Exxon as the world's largest publicly traded oil company. There goes all that potential profit and billions in taxes from our shores to China. The Chinese are laughing at our stupidity all the way to their banks. Real smart move, that. An enemy bent on destroying our economy could hardly have accomplished more.
Father Michael Pfleger received $225,000 in grants to his church from a Barack Obama earmark. This is the priest who said, “America is the greatest sin against God.” and “racism is as natural as the air we breathe.” Make no mistake this is all extreme racism being used to stir up blacks against white America.
This Catholic priest and the Reverend Right have made many remarks that have opened my eyes to the hatred for America being preached in some black churches. I have heard Farakahn and didn’t realize how many followers of this man’s hate campaign there were in the black community. This hatred is so much like the hatred being taught in Muslim madrassa schools. It makes me wonder if we haven’t pushed ourselves into a very dangerous corner from which there may be no escape. I can only imagine the violent anger that will come from the inflamed black community should Hillary manage somehow to wrest the nomination from Barack at the convention. If not, there is then the general election. No matter what he says or does, McCain will be painted as a rabid racist by blacks and most of the extreme left. Any charge he levels against Barack will be called racist no matter how accurate or unrelated to race. I wonder what kind of sermons will be preached at Trinity during the campaign. I believe this will be one of the most hate filled elections America has ever seen. I have no doubt that any close finish with the decision unclear will result in a violent reaction should McCain win. I think it quite possible that it will trigger home grown terrorism and black vs white violence. If it happens you can thank those so called holy men who are inflaming their congregations precisely as the mullahs have inflamed their followers. What these so called men of God say is certainly the opposite of all Christian principals of any Christian church I have known of previously.
Interesting information on Barack Obama’s background.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/3
Father Michael Pfleger quote, “Hillary thinks, ‘I'm white! I'm entitled!’” I agree she thinks she’s entitled, but it has nothing at all to do with her race. Of course, the father and apparently the ministers at Trinity United Church have to know their words will probably lead to violence in the streets. Their goal appears to be the complete destruction of the nation Father Pfleger describes with the words, “America is the greatest sin against God.” Either he firmly believes that and is acting on it, or is deliberately lying to promote his own agenda. In either case he is wrong
Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by a visiting priest. As far as I am concerned, this changes nothing. He has demonstrated who he is by how he has lived, how he voted, who his friends are, who his associates are, and what he has accomplished.
I am pleasantly surprised at the number of blacks I hear who describe Barack Obama as a black revolutionary and will refuse to vote for him. These are thoughtful individuals like Gale from Kentucky who said this primary battle alone has inflamed racial tensions and set back the existing black progress into main stream America at least twenty years. She says if Obama is the Democrat candidate, all this has made her to decide to vote for a Republican for the first time in her life. She also described the activist ministers as black racists.
“Recognizing the Race hustlers: There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” Booker T. Washington, 1911.
Nancy Pelosi announced that it wasn’t the surge that brought about the recent successes in Iraq. It was due to Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s help the Iranians have given us in Iraq. Can you believe any American could make such a statement? I find it amazing and reprehensible that a member of our Congress would make such a clearly untrue statement and praise the man and nation that is supplying the terrorists with weapons and men who are daily killing Americans. Her blatant lies make those of our former Philanderer in chief almost palatable. Now it looks as though the latest efforts of our combined military forces, the surge, is having great results, and that Iraqi forces are taking over more of the burden of protecting Iraq and routing terrorists. Nancy and friends will do whatever they can to discredit or distort these facts about our nation’s efforts. A victory for Iraq and expulsion of foreign terrorists is happening. For the first time ever, combined forces have retaken the port of Basra and driven the militias out of Sadr City. An Amarican/Iraqi success and complete victory would be a disaster for these leftists, and now it looks to be possible if we can finish before the left can snatch defeat out of the clutches of certain victory.
Oh yes, did you know that Barack Obama voted against a Senate resolution calling the Iraq Revolutionary Guard an Iranian creation? This in spite of the fact that they are mostly Iranians and carry arms made in or obtained from Iran and are proven to be trained and directed by the Iranian military.
I wonder if Ms. Pelosi heard her friend Mahmoud say there are no homosexuals in Iran? That’s true, and the reason is they are hanged. You don’t have to wonder, it is done publicly and the Iranians including Nancy’s friend Mahmoud brag about it.
I love Governor Schweitzer of Montana who said, “we're not going to lose our gun rights in Montana. You can bet on that, but I can assure you of this: Montana will continue to take the lead to make America energy independent. We're not going to allow dictators to push us around anymore. We have an infinite supply of energy in this country. We just have a finite supply of resolve to get it right. We're already giving $2 a gallon to dictators who are trying to destroy our way of life. Look, I support the concerns that people of the world have with carbon dioxide but we have the technology right now to produce all of our energy domestically, to drive all of your cars, run of all trains and plains, light all of your light bulbs without importing oil from them and we can sequester our CO2. Right here in Montana.” And he’s a Democrat.
21,000 scientists have signed a petition saying human caused global warming is bunk. One of these, the President of the Czech Republic, offered to debate global warming with Al Gore. The Pied Piper of the global warming crowd refused as he has refused to debate any other of these scientists. I wonder why?
Oh yes, when we were in Glacier bay in Alaska a few weeks ago I learned that most of the glaciers that are flowing into Glacier Bay have stopped receding and are now advancing. To my knowledge, no one in the main stream media has ever reported that fact. I also learned that in 1767 the entire bay was filled with a glacier being fed by the dozen or so that remained. Most of the recession of that glacier happened between 1767 and 1850 after which it slowed and finally the feeder glaciers, all that were left, stopped around 1990 and have since been advancing. I also learned that the local natives, the Chiklit people, once lived far up in Galcier Bay. Their legends say they were driven south out of their land by a rapidly advancing glacier that advanced, "as fast as a running dog." It advanced so fast they were unable to take many of their belongings and had to abandon them and run for their lives. There are no historical records, but this probably happened When the glacier receded, they visited their former lands and found them scoured clean and not a place they could live. This probably corresponded with the time of the “little ice age” which wiped out the Norse settlement on Greenland after five hundred years of farming and raising cattle successfully during the medieval warm period. During this little ice age there was much starvation and crop failures in Europe. This also brought about the historically recorded migration of many Norse as well as Normans to the shores of the Mediterranean.
In Glacier Bay, several Park Rangers came aboard the ship to explain the glaciers for us. I met and talked with one of these Ranger, a young woman, who invited us to ask questions. I asked her why the glaciers had been advancing for almost twenty years in the face of global warming. Her reply was very interesting. She said that even though the terminus of most of the glaciers were advancing they were still shrinking by getting thinner. When I pointed out that according to recent measurements, all of the midpoints of the advancing glaciers were at least thirty to forty feet higher than they were in 1990, she didn’t have an answer. That certainly doesn’t indicate they are getting thinner. I don’t think she knew that. Then when I commented about the black cover of the American Glacier and that the black cover must accelerate melting she said it didn’t and that it was so thick it acted as an insulator. When I said that was contrary to the very well established heat transfer effect of black body radiation and pointed out that the darker sections had quite obviously melted more than the lighter, she again had no answer. Then she said that’s what they taught her in her training. I said that no matter what she had been taught, the laws of physics and energy transfer are constant and immutable. I smiled, apologized for making her uncomfortable and suggested that I might not be the only on these visiting cruise ships who knew what I knew. I also suggested that she confirm what I said with her superiors.
Human caused global warming menace is a convenient myth that serves the agenda of those who hate America, hate capitalism, hate everyone who has more than they and like Howard Dean, "Hate Republicans, hate conservatives and hate Rush Limbaugh." Even accepting that global warming is as supposed and at its worst, it does not pose nearly the danger as do numerous other menaces we rarely even talk about. The destruction of tropical and temperate rain forest, overgrazing of pastures, salination of crop lands, shortage of fresh water, all of these pose much more serious clear and present danger than global warming at its worst. Of course, the threat of Islamic terrorism and imposition of Sharia law is a much bigger menace to the world than any of the others. Unfortunately, these are not politically correct, nor do they provide grist for the mills of those who would crush America as does global warming. The Lilliputians in Congress would rather joust at windmills, fill their pockets, revel in their power, and curse the things that made America great.
Quite frequently I have heard liberal friends and family members say they never listen to talk radio because its all extreme right wing lies and propaganda. Lately I have begun asking them if they had ever heard any of the conservatives on talk radio. What amazed me was that all but one of them told me they had never listened to talk radio and wouldn’t ever even consider doing so. I asked them how they could pronounce judgement on those they had never heard. The answers were quite revealing. The most frequent response was that their words were all lies and hate rhetoric. When I asked them if they ever heard the words and tone of the rants of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and the like, they usually replied saying something like they’re just politicians, that’s what they do. That was a revelation to me. These liberals firmly believed that members of their own party spoke lies and hate rhetoric—that all politicians do. They also accused the media of being biased toward the right. That makes me howl with laughter and helps me to understand why factual arguments have no affect on the sheep in the liberal fold. Suffice to say that time and time again analysis of the big three in TV has shown they all repeat negatives about Republicans many times more than similar negatives about Democrats and frequently ignore serious Democrat misconduct entirely. In interviews, they will repeatedly ask soft ball questions of Democrats while hurling high fast curved balls at Republicans. This is not just my opinion but has been confirmed by several media watch dog groups. The difference between the main stream, left wing media including the New York Times and conservative talk radio is that talk radio hosts loudly proclaim their bias while the main stream, or “drive by” media as Rush calls them, claim objectivity when they are at least as much in the liberal camp as talk radio is in the conservative one.
Oh yes, liberals have even become so brazen as to speak openly about using the so called, “Fairness Doctrine” to destroy talk radio and so silence most of the few voices of dissent. One of the major steps in developing a socialist dictatorship is to silence dissent. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, in fact all Communists nations did it as soon as they came to power. Venezuela’s fat little dictator did it just recently. This brings to mind an old saying I really think is so on the monet, “Judge them by what they do and with whom they associate.”
Liberals have long and often compared Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler. Now they have decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler to one leader: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Speaking of Hitler, I remember listening to some of his speeches when I was in school. One didn’t need to understand German to feel the hate in the character and delivery of his words, the non verbal message. Communication experts say that a major part of all verbal communication is non-verbal. To me, Hitler’s speeches and those of Ahmadinejad sound the same. Both are in a language unknown to me yet the non verbal message is exactly the same, hate and anger. I hear precisely the same non verbal message of hate in recent rants from many on the left including Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Sylvia Mckinney and the latest from the reverend Jeremiah Right and father Michael Pfleger. It is clear to me these are all similar communications of hatred intended to arouse and inflame to action. That action being precisely the same as the words the instigators of lynch mobs use to incite those mobs to perform their lawless violence. These are certainly not the speeches of those who would like a reasonable discussion to resolve a conflict. These are the speeches of those who want violent action of retribution for grievances often blown far out of proportion, that are imagined, or that serve the purposes of the speaker.
It seems to me that liberal democrats with the aid of the media and supporters like George Soros hate capitalism and are planning to turn America into a secular socialist state. The old axiom “government of the people, by the people and for the people” will be changed to “government of the people by the government and for the government.” Using class hatred and wealth envy to incite anger and even violence against the people who provide the jobs, create the wealth, and guide and generate the thousands of independent corporations and individual entrepreneurs that put most Americans to work. While China and other socialist nations are moving into capitalism and growing their economies at fantastic rates because of it, our country is poised to descend into the socialist misery pit. It will probably take a decade or two, but we are headed to becoming like the China of thirty years ago where one ponderous, inefficient monopoly operated everything “collectively.” We are headed into the socialist gray morass where everyone is equal in poverty. Except, of course, as the pig said, “Some of us are more equal than others.” It will be the sad end to an experiment in democracy which created the most free nation and the widest distribution of wealth among its citizens, of any nation, ever. Or maybe we’ll become a state like our neighbor to the south, Mexico where there is no middle class only the very wealthy and the dirt poor, ruled by a government riddled with corruption and inefficiency. I wonder where our poor will be able to emigrate?
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT COWS are all multi-colored. Most are multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi lingual, and/or multi-national. 10% are homosexual, won’t have calves and so never give milk. 25% are too busy going to peace rallies to have calves or give milk. 35% are on strike and refuse to give milk - The 2% Hollywood cows won’t have calves because they’re afraid it will ruin their career if they produce milk - 38% are feminist activists who hate bulls - 72% believe all Republicans are white bulls. The 25% who do have calves and produce milk place most of it in their family coffers and share very little with the less fortunate cows. All believe the government should guarantee them free barns, free hay and free veterinary services.
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN COWS are many-colored, like bulls and believe having calves and producing milk is their main purpose in life - 85% organize into cooperative dairies and create dairy conglomerates - their cooperatives produce a milk surplus which they keep for a “rainy day” - soon 10% of the cows control 95% of the milk - they resent being forced to provide increasing amounts of their milk to non-producing cows - 72% believe all Democrats are anti-bull cows who are doing to them what the bulls usually do but without the benefits - 90% believe Democrat cows should start having calves and producing milk - 38% believe all forests should be cut down and converted to pastures - 2% control the cooperatives and are buying up all pastures to provide for themselves.
CENTRIST COWS are all pale greyish brown, don’t know if they like bulls or not, and are neutral about having calves and producing milk - they are distressed by the huge dairy conglomerates, but won’t do anything about them - they think all liberal Democrat and conservative Republican cows are, “out to get them” - 34% put off having calves until it’s too late because they just, “can’t make up their minds” - those that do have calves haven’t a clue what to do with the milk they produce, but know they won’t put it in the hands of the cooperatives - 97% will firmly position themselves straddling every fence with their mooer on one side and their udder on the other, “Mooudders?” - nearly all have not the slightest idea of whether they are coming or going.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Another reason for the high cost of oil
This is a perfect example of how governments, and in particular, socialist governments, can and do destroy the viability of any wealth creating endeavor.
Look at what is really happening to oil production in nearly all of the oil producing nations and consider why the price of crude is going to continue to go through the roof. It’s a pattern that is being repeated in virtually every oil rich nation in the world. Consider the basics of oil exploration and extraction.
Exploration and discovery - It is getting more and more expensive to find new fields of oil as all the easy ones have already been discovered. Most oil fields will produce for only ten to fifteen years after which the cost of extraction increases the cost of that oil to more than the price at which it can be sold. If it costs $125.00 a barrel to extract and the going price is $115.00 a barrel, the field is shut down. Hundreds if not thousands of oil fields have already gone this way worldwide. (Of course, some of them that shut down when oil was $20.00 a barrel are being reopened like the huge fields in West Texas.) Oil exploration companies know this and are constantly searching for new fields. This costs a great deal of money, with greater and greater risk of failure. Oil exploration equipment wears out and costs a great deal to replace. These costs must come out of the profits from oil production starting with the first barrel of oil.
Extraction and transport - As oil is extracted, fields slowly give out and the cost of pumping including equipment maintenance and replacement goes up as the flow rate goes down. These costs too must be provided for out of the profits of the companies that extract and transport the petroleum.
Refining and distribution - Converting crude oil into saleable gasoline and fuel oil components is another infrastructure intensive activity necessary to turn petroleum into the end products that finally generate the money to pay for all that exploration, extraction, transport, refining and distribution. No one actually makes a dime until that fuel is finally sold to the end user. During the process from the ground to the user’s tank, around a third of the petroleum is used or lost. At every level in the process a portion of the profit must be set aside to cover not only the direct costs of the three (or six) activities, but also the maintenance and replacement of all parts of the required infrastructure from seismographs and drill heads to tankers, pipelines, delivery trucks and fuel pumps. Lose any part of the whole and the system breaks down.
Unfortunately, nearly every oil exporting nation in the world is treating their petroleum as a money tree, skimming profits for the benefit of those in power and neglecting to invest profits to feed the petroleum goose that’s laying the egg of black gold. Here’s a quote from a Newsweek article by David G. Victor on April 17, 2008 about Mexico's oil company, Pemex.
“Pemex generates two fifth's of the Mexican government's income and is a lucrative employer, but it is ailing from neglect. For years the government has milked Pemex of cash without giving it the wherewithal to invest in and develop new sources of oil. When President Felipe Calderon proposed last week to reform Pemex and encourage more private investment in oil exploration and refining, his leftist opponents shut down the country's legislature in protest. Pemex, they claimed, is a cherished national treasure that must not be pushed into private hands."
Those lefties just can’t stand to see private enterprise succeed in providing good jobs, putting people to work and taking them off of government dependency, can they?
"Mexico is hardly the only country that treats its state oil companies as ATMs for governments, unions, cronies and others who siphon the rich benefits for themselves. A large fraction of the world's oil patch is struggling with the problem that bedevils Calderon: how to make state-owned oil companies (which control about three quarters of the world's oil reserves) more effective at finding and producing oil. Venezuela's oil output is flagging. Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, is on the edge of a steep decline in production. And in different ways many of the world's state-owned oil companies are struggling to keep pace with rising demand. Simply privatizing them is politically difficult, and thus most of the world's oil-rich governments are struggling to find ways to make state enterprises perform better.
“Even among state oil companies, Pemex's performance is notably poor. Used as a cash cow for the government, Pemex has never been able to keep enough of its profits to invest in exploration and better technology, the lifeblood of the best oil companies. Until a few years ago, Pemex invested essentially nothing in looking for new oil fields. It relied, instead, on the aging Cantarell field, which was discovered in the 1970s not by Pemex but by fisherman who were angry that the seeping oil was fouling their nets and assumed that Pemex was to blame. Pemex brought the massive field online with relatively simple technology. A scheme in the late 1990s extended the life of the field, but that effort has run out of steam. On the back of Cantarell's decline, total output from Pemex is sliding; some even worry that Mexico could become a net importer of oil in the next decade or two. They're probably wrong, but even the idea makes people nervous.”
Mexico is but one example of how government run industries can become so riddled with corruption. Mexico's Constitution requires that its hydrocarbons be owned by the people. This translates to their being controlled by corrupt politicians who have no incentive to make the operation generate a return on investment or even become self sustaining. The end goal of virtually all politicians seems to be to take as much money as possible from wherever it can be taken by whatever means necessary to further their political careers.
Quoting David G. Victor once more, “Part of the problem is that risk taking, which is essential to success in oil, is strongly discouraged. My colleagues at Stanford, in a study released last week, have shown that a system of tough laws that control procurement make managers wary of projects that could fail. Although such laws are designed to help stamp out corruption, a noble goal, they are administered by parts of the Mexican government that know little about the risky nature of the oil business.”
Government politicians, socialist leaders and dictators, despots of all kinds who run governments, and the vast majority of their subjects haven’t a clue how to manage any kind of business profitably. They understand virtually none of the risks of business and the risky nature of the oil business in particular. When it comes to choosing between investing profits in their enterprise to cover risks and for benefits that may come in the future or promoting their own fortunes by sticking the cash into the public’s pockets for candy and toys, you know what they’ll choose. Politicians will use it to buy votes or favor. Socialist leaders will use it to satisfy the masses. Dictators will use it to control their subjects. Despots of all kinds will use it for personal aggrandizement. Virtually all government members will use it primarily to strengthen their hold on power. The concept of investing profits back into the enterprise to cover risks or for deferred gain later is as alien to them as would be little green men from Krypton. No one from the left has the slightest clue how to run and sustain an enterprise. All they really know how to do is destroy those who do. There must be an axiom here somewhere.
Look at what the left has done to our American oil industry. First of all, they have made the entire industry the focus of constant class warfare with their hate campaigns. Next, they have prohibited exploration in virtually all of the promising areas in and around the nation. They have even prevented exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while giving the green light to our good friends in China to do so together with our other good friends in Cuba. That’s really a smart move that is certain to benefit the environment in the Gulf and keep oil spills from soiling our coasts. If the Chuck Schumers in our Congress have their way, the “obscene billions in profits” of our oil companies (actually a relatively small return on investment in the long run) will become obscene taxes in the hands of Senator Schumer and friends. Then they will have even more money to use in pork barrel projects and earmarks designed solely to buy votes to insure their reelection.
Teddy Kennedy’s “big dig” in Boston is the champion so far. The Big Dig was a project to take a pre-existing 3.5-mile (5.6 km) interstate highway and relocate it underground. It ended up costing $14.6 billion, or over $4 billion per mile. It did absolutely nothing of what it was touted to do, but it did buy Teddy and his boys a lot of votes and other more direct benefits at the expense of federal tax payers. Any private citizen who had any part in such a monstrous boondoggle would have been vilified in the press, denounced by politicians, tried in the courts and probably have ended up in jail. But because he’s liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy he still sits in the Senate and curses others who are rank amateurs at misappropriation of public funds. And he will continue to be a champion of pork barrel projects and earmarks because he can get away with it. I guess the moral I was looking for is, Steal from a few, even a few thousand people and you will go to prison. Steal from the public treasury and if you support liberal causes, they will make you a saint. Hate campaigns and stealing public money must not bother the public much. In fact it seems to help politicians gain office. Maybe that's why there are more indicted and convicted criminals sitting in Congress than in nearly any other public group of similar size.
Thanks to the use by the left of class envy in fomenting hatred for virtually all successful businesses and industries, their friends in the media make billions by beating up on “greedy capitalists” and turning “profits” into a dirty word. They seem bent on doing to American industry what the Mexicans have done to Pemex, what Chavez is doing to the Venezuelan oil industry, and what the Russians are doing to theirs. That’s certainly strangling the goose that’s laying the golden eggs all because it's infinitely easier to destroy than to build. It amazes me that so many people will actually cut their own throats to spite those who have achieved more than they just because it’s easy. The joy that small children seem to express by destroying sand castles and other things built painstakingly by careful hands seems natural and we usually laugh at such antics. Sadly, unscrupulous leaders whip this tendency into a political force for destruction when those children become adults without the wherewithal to build and create for themselves.
Violence is the province of those who lack: the patience to build and create, the will to control their envy, the intellect to understand the real world and the love to control their hatred. It takes skill, caring, determination, intelligence, and time to learn how to build and create anything of value. None of these are required to destroy that which we cannot equal. A classic example is the soldier who slaughtered Archimedes simply because he couldn’t understand what the symbols drawn in the sand by Archimedes represented. Other examples include Czech Jan Hus (burned at the stake), the thousands killed by the Inquisition, the imprisonment of Gallileo and others like him, the demolition of ancient Buddhist statues by the Taliban, even the current flush of terrorism. All of these represent the temporary triumph of intolerance and ignorance over reason, usually through force of violence.
Look at what is really happening to oil production in nearly all of the oil producing nations and consider why the price of crude is going to continue to go through the roof. It’s a pattern that is being repeated in virtually every oil rich nation in the world. Consider the basics of oil exploration and extraction.
Exploration and discovery - It is getting more and more expensive to find new fields of oil as all the easy ones have already been discovered. Most oil fields will produce for only ten to fifteen years after which the cost of extraction increases the cost of that oil to more than the price at which it can be sold. If it costs $125.00 a barrel to extract and the going price is $115.00 a barrel, the field is shut down. Hundreds if not thousands of oil fields have already gone this way worldwide. (Of course, some of them that shut down when oil was $20.00 a barrel are being reopened like the huge fields in West Texas.) Oil exploration companies know this and are constantly searching for new fields. This costs a great deal of money, with greater and greater risk of failure. Oil exploration equipment wears out and costs a great deal to replace. These costs must come out of the profits from oil production starting with the first barrel of oil.
Extraction and transport - As oil is extracted, fields slowly give out and the cost of pumping including equipment maintenance and replacement goes up as the flow rate goes down. These costs too must be provided for out of the profits of the companies that extract and transport the petroleum.
Refining and distribution - Converting crude oil into saleable gasoline and fuel oil components is another infrastructure intensive activity necessary to turn petroleum into the end products that finally generate the money to pay for all that exploration, extraction, transport, refining and distribution. No one actually makes a dime until that fuel is finally sold to the end user. During the process from the ground to the user’s tank, around a third of the petroleum is used or lost. At every level in the process a portion of the profit must be set aside to cover not only the direct costs of the three (or six) activities, but also the maintenance and replacement of all parts of the required infrastructure from seismographs and drill heads to tankers, pipelines, delivery trucks and fuel pumps. Lose any part of the whole and the system breaks down.
Unfortunately, nearly every oil exporting nation in the world is treating their petroleum as a money tree, skimming profits for the benefit of those in power and neglecting to invest profits to feed the petroleum goose that’s laying the egg of black gold. Here’s a quote from a Newsweek article by David G. Victor on April 17, 2008 about Mexico's oil company, Pemex.
“Pemex generates two fifth's of the Mexican government's income and is a lucrative employer, but it is ailing from neglect. For years the government has milked Pemex of cash without giving it the wherewithal to invest in and develop new sources of oil. When President Felipe Calderon proposed last week to reform Pemex and encourage more private investment in oil exploration and refining, his leftist opponents shut down the country's legislature in protest. Pemex, they claimed, is a cherished national treasure that must not be pushed into private hands."
Those lefties just can’t stand to see private enterprise succeed in providing good jobs, putting people to work and taking them off of government dependency, can they?
"Mexico is hardly the only country that treats its state oil companies as ATMs for governments, unions, cronies and others who siphon the rich benefits for themselves. A large fraction of the world's oil patch is struggling with the problem that bedevils Calderon: how to make state-owned oil companies (which control about three quarters of the world's oil reserves) more effective at finding and producing oil. Venezuela's oil output is flagging. Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, is on the edge of a steep decline in production. And in different ways many of the world's state-owned oil companies are struggling to keep pace with rising demand. Simply privatizing them is politically difficult, and thus most of the world's oil-rich governments are struggling to find ways to make state enterprises perform better.
“Even among state oil companies, Pemex's performance is notably poor. Used as a cash cow for the government, Pemex has never been able to keep enough of its profits to invest in exploration and better technology, the lifeblood of the best oil companies. Until a few years ago, Pemex invested essentially nothing in looking for new oil fields. It relied, instead, on the aging Cantarell field, which was discovered in the 1970s not by Pemex but by fisherman who were angry that the seeping oil was fouling their nets and assumed that Pemex was to blame. Pemex brought the massive field online with relatively simple technology. A scheme in the late 1990s extended the life of the field, but that effort has run out of steam. On the back of Cantarell's decline, total output from Pemex is sliding; some even worry that Mexico could become a net importer of oil in the next decade or two. They're probably wrong, but even the idea makes people nervous.”
Mexico is but one example of how government run industries can become so riddled with corruption. Mexico's Constitution requires that its hydrocarbons be owned by the people. This translates to their being controlled by corrupt politicians who have no incentive to make the operation generate a return on investment or even become self sustaining. The end goal of virtually all politicians seems to be to take as much money as possible from wherever it can be taken by whatever means necessary to further their political careers.
Quoting David G. Victor once more, “Part of the problem is that risk taking, which is essential to success in oil, is strongly discouraged. My colleagues at Stanford, in a study released last week, have shown that a system of tough laws that control procurement make managers wary of projects that could fail. Although such laws are designed to help stamp out corruption, a noble goal, they are administered by parts of the Mexican government that know little about the risky nature of the oil business.”
Government politicians, socialist leaders and dictators, despots of all kinds who run governments, and the vast majority of their subjects haven’t a clue how to manage any kind of business profitably. They understand virtually none of the risks of business and the risky nature of the oil business in particular. When it comes to choosing between investing profits in their enterprise to cover risks and for benefits that may come in the future or promoting their own fortunes by sticking the cash into the public’s pockets for candy and toys, you know what they’ll choose. Politicians will use it to buy votes or favor. Socialist leaders will use it to satisfy the masses. Dictators will use it to control their subjects. Despots of all kinds will use it for personal aggrandizement. Virtually all government members will use it primarily to strengthen their hold on power. The concept of investing profits back into the enterprise to cover risks or for deferred gain later is as alien to them as would be little green men from Krypton. No one from the left has the slightest clue how to run and sustain an enterprise. All they really know how to do is destroy those who do. There must be an axiom here somewhere.
Look at what the left has done to our American oil industry. First of all, they have made the entire industry the focus of constant class warfare with their hate campaigns. Next, they have prohibited exploration in virtually all of the promising areas in and around the nation. They have even prevented exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while giving the green light to our good friends in China to do so together with our other good friends in Cuba. That’s really a smart move that is certain to benefit the environment in the Gulf and keep oil spills from soiling our coasts. If the Chuck Schumers in our Congress have their way, the “obscene billions in profits” of our oil companies (actually a relatively small return on investment in the long run) will become obscene taxes in the hands of Senator Schumer and friends. Then they will have even more money to use in pork barrel projects and earmarks designed solely to buy votes to insure their reelection.
Teddy Kennedy’s “big dig” in Boston is the champion so far. The Big Dig was a project to take a pre-existing 3.5-mile (5.6 km) interstate highway and relocate it underground. It ended up costing $14.6 billion, or over $4 billion per mile. It did absolutely nothing of what it was touted to do, but it did buy Teddy and his boys a lot of votes and other more direct benefits at the expense of federal tax payers. Any private citizen who had any part in such a monstrous boondoggle would have been vilified in the press, denounced by politicians, tried in the courts and probably have ended up in jail. But because he’s liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy he still sits in the Senate and curses others who are rank amateurs at misappropriation of public funds. And he will continue to be a champion of pork barrel projects and earmarks because he can get away with it. I guess the moral I was looking for is, Steal from a few, even a few thousand people and you will go to prison. Steal from the public treasury and if you support liberal causes, they will make you a saint. Hate campaigns and stealing public money must not bother the public much. In fact it seems to help politicians gain office. Maybe that's why there are more indicted and convicted criminals sitting in Congress than in nearly any other public group of similar size.
Thanks to the use by the left of class envy in fomenting hatred for virtually all successful businesses and industries, their friends in the media make billions by beating up on “greedy capitalists” and turning “profits” into a dirty word. They seem bent on doing to American industry what the Mexicans have done to Pemex, what Chavez is doing to the Venezuelan oil industry, and what the Russians are doing to theirs. That’s certainly strangling the goose that’s laying the golden eggs all because it's infinitely easier to destroy than to build. It amazes me that so many people will actually cut their own throats to spite those who have achieved more than they just because it’s easy. The joy that small children seem to express by destroying sand castles and other things built painstakingly by careful hands seems natural and we usually laugh at such antics. Sadly, unscrupulous leaders whip this tendency into a political force for destruction when those children become adults without the wherewithal to build and create for themselves.
Violence is the province of those who lack: the patience to build and create, the will to control their envy, the intellect to understand the real world and the love to control their hatred. It takes skill, caring, determination, intelligence, and time to learn how to build and create anything of value. None of these are required to destroy that which we cannot equal. A classic example is the soldier who slaughtered Archimedes simply because he couldn’t understand what the symbols drawn in the sand by Archimedes represented. Other examples include Czech Jan Hus (burned at the stake), the thousands killed by the Inquisition, the imprisonment of Gallileo and others like him, the demolition of ancient Buddhist statues by the Taliban, even the current flush of terrorism. All of these represent the temporary triumph of intolerance and ignorance over reason, usually through force of violence.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Lemons and Lemonade
I have read Michelle Obama’s Princeton theses in light of the controversy it interjected into the campaign and the attention all kinds of media have given it. Considering its source, I see nothing radical, dangerous, or even very controversial in it. I see it as a very normal expression of a young, intelligent black woman in the America of 1985. I think there is a way for the average American to understand it in the broad American culture rather than in the black culture segment within that broader culture from whence it originated. Merely replace each word white in the thesis with the word, American or even, non black wherever it refers to race and it becomes much more understandable.
America has assimilated many different ethnic and racial subgroups over the years. Many of these had to fight their way through prejudice and bigotry to become truly integrated into the American melting-pot. Yet even many of these still maintain at least part of their heritage and their culture. Many live in neighborhoods or even cities where they are with mostly others of their own ethnic background, often bound by language which tends to isolate them. In these circumstances, natural as they are, it becomes easy and convenient to blame those outsiders for many of the individual’s and the group’s problems. Successful members of these groups may even use the overcoming of these often imagined problems as their means to success. Unfortunately it is far easier to succumb to the temptation to blame others other than engage in the hard work of overcoming these problems in a positive manner.
There are many groups who have actually done this in America. Nationalities like the Irish, Italians, Germans and other Europeans faced with terrible discrimination and bigotry at first, then overcame it and became integrated into America, at least mostly. Of course, these were all white or Caucasian people and thus more easily integrated. I think you would find that those immigrants who came to our shores in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did not see it as very easy. Look at the non Caucasian immigrants from China, Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, The Phillippines and elsewhere on the Pacific rim. Still in the process of integration, many of these people became highly educated and successful, some say driven by cultures that prize education, family continuity and self reliance. Few of these people used discrimination as an excuse for poor performance.
The latest cultural, ethnic invasion of America by Latinos may be creating another group to use the excuse of being denied advantages by those in the majority. This is an easy trap for those who lack the will to succeed on their own to fall into. Blaming the powerful in any venue, social, economic, ethnic, racial, and/or political, as the reason for one’s failure absolves a person from any fault. The blame game has been taken to the heights of excusing one’s own failure. Whether it’s big business, big government, the boss, the wealthy, or even Whitey, it’s the same lame and actually damaging effect. It actually keeps many so-called disadvantaged people from solving their own problems. After all, Since I am not the cause of my problems, I cannot do anything about them. As long as a person can blame those other than themselves, they have an excuse for failure in virtually any endeavor.
Misdirected and often unscrupulous leaders of these groups gather support by keeping their constituents downtrodden and so beholden to them. By virtually screaming discrimination or conspiracy and anti establishment rhetoric at every opportunity, these hate mongers and rabble rousers promote themselves and seek to control their followers. They do this by blaming the group they call oppressors, of an evil conspiracy against the helpless victims in their supporting groups. Then they call these imagined oppressors every evil name in the book as if most of their efforts were directed specifically to oppress them. This of course is right out of the NAZI play book.
All actions of these leaders, no matter how evil or outlandish is condoned or excused with, it wasn’t their fault, or look where they came from. While the best known of these leaders are currently from the Black community, there are a number in the Latino community who seem to be growing in power and influence. Currently, the reverend Wright has gained the spotlight because of these actions, but he is merely one of a large group of destroyers who spout hate to rally their supporters. These are small people who take advantage of the ignorance and frustration of those they seek to lead in promoting their own agenda of hate. The lynch mob is their most prominent accomplishment. The really sad thing is that these leaders not only do great damage to those they purport to be aiding, but they help advance the efforts of their counterparts in the other groups. White supremacists, for instance, gain much credence from those leaders in minority groups who speak out with inciting, hateful charges against whites. Were it not for these minority leaders, white supremacists would have no more power than a distasteful joke.
Frequently, when members, even famous and admired members, of these disadvantaged minorities try to help their fellows by pointing out that they have the power to overcome being at a disadvantage. That by self reliance, hard work and positive effort on their part they can pull themselves up economically and socially. Even when they offer encouragement by example, effort, or pointing out that positive effort is more likely to get positive results than negative effort, they risk being condemned by many in their community to whom being a victim is their greatest asset. I illustrate with one example where all I need do is mention the name of one who is greatly admired by virtually all Americans, Bill Cosby. The response to his words of encouraging advice to his fellows was to be called by many an Uncle Tom. That was pathetic. Like the name calling done in third grade playgrounds it was childish and unworthy. His response to this attack was an indication of his greatness and humanity.
In his book, The True Believer, Eric Hoffer describes men who think so little of themselves they can only gain self-esteem by abandoning self to a cause. These true believers, as he calls them, will do anything, including committing suicide, for their cause. Following their leaders who enslave them to serve the leader’s own and often undefined purpose, these are not men of free will, but true slaves of those who manipulate them. Such is the enemy free men now face.
Man has a natural instinct for enslavement. All great and small movements utilize this pack animal instinct to control masses of people as tools of opportunistic leaders. Humanitarian civilization tends to counter this instinct while mobs, movements, charismatic leaders, and fundamentalists tend to nurture and expand it.
The real power in mobs, movements, fundamentalism, and other uses of instincts to control lies in a very simple, irrefutable fact—that it is infinitely easier to damage or destroy to change things than to build or create. Only the most rudimentary skills were used by a few men to bring down the World Trade Center in just a few minutes. Contrast this with the immense effort required to design and build those same structures. In the same vein, it is far easier to make angry criticisms of ideas that differ from your own than to listen to those ideas and then make calculated judgments. Closed minds can be true agents of evil.
Of those controllable by such leaders, Eric Hoffer wrote, “People unfit for freedom—who cannot do much with it—are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a have type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a have not type of self.”
What is needed is for these kinds of men in any group or society to be treated for what they are, immature annoyances to society serving their own egos for their own selfish purposes. There are many of these types of leaders. Most common today are those leading the inner city gangs in the drug culture and living off of the misery of others. These are the little Napoleons with maybe a few dozen soldiers who create and destroy victims and whose lives are almost always short and violent. The romantic picture of these contemporary pirates as portrayed by our entertainment world is a far cry from the sordid realities of their lives and those of the victims of their actions. In truth these are the marauding packs of humans like feral dogs, bent on destruction and death. Why? Simply because it is far easier than being civilized. Civilization requires hard work and respect for others. Gang life disdains both as does the life of any who are slaves to the command of others rather than free men.
Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
James Allen said, “Before complaining that you are a slave to another, be sure that you are not a slave to self. Look within;...You will find there, perchance, slavish thoughts, slavish desires, and in your daily life and conduct slavish habits. Conquer these; cease to be a slave to self, and no man will have the power to enslave you.”
What all of this says is that many people, placed at a disadvantage by any circumstance, will blame something outside of self and so be defeated from the outset. Those who realize it is up to them and so work to overcome their disadvantage often reach heights of success in spite of overwhelming handicaps. Joni Erickson Tada is one great example. Paralyzed by a diving accident at seventeen, her life was virtually over. Joni refused to be defeated and with herculean effort refocused her life and became an inspiration to thousands of handicapped people all over the world. Her books are now sold all over the world and her positive contribution to humanity is priceless.
I am reminded of an old saying I really like and try to act on. If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. I firmly believe life has handed a lemon to many out there, but most just decry about and fight the lemon while a few add their own form of sugar, ice and water creating a delightful beverage. The individual has the power to chose between bitterness and joy.
America has assimilated many different ethnic and racial subgroups over the years. Many of these had to fight their way through prejudice and bigotry to become truly integrated into the American melting-pot. Yet even many of these still maintain at least part of their heritage and their culture. Many live in neighborhoods or even cities where they are with mostly others of their own ethnic background, often bound by language which tends to isolate them. In these circumstances, natural as they are, it becomes easy and convenient to blame those outsiders for many of the individual’s and the group’s problems. Successful members of these groups may even use the overcoming of these often imagined problems as their means to success. Unfortunately it is far easier to succumb to the temptation to blame others other than engage in the hard work of overcoming these problems in a positive manner.
There are many groups who have actually done this in America. Nationalities like the Irish, Italians, Germans and other Europeans faced with terrible discrimination and bigotry at first, then overcame it and became integrated into America, at least mostly. Of course, these were all white or Caucasian people and thus more easily integrated. I think you would find that those immigrants who came to our shores in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did not see it as very easy. Look at the non Caucasian immigrants from China, Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, The Phillippines and elsewhere on the Pacific rim. Still in the process of integration, many of these people became highly educated and successful, some say driven by cultures that prize education, family continuity and self reliance. Few of these people used discrimination as an excuse for poor performance.
The latest cultural, ethnic invasion of America by Latinos may be creating another group to use the excuse of being denied advantages by those in the majority. This is an easy trap for those who lack the will to succeed on their own to fall into. Blaming the powerful in any venue, social, economic, ethnic, racial, and/or political, as the reason for one’s failure absolves a person from any fault. The blame game has been taken to the heights of excusing one’s own failure. Whether it’s big business, big government, the boss, the wealthy, or even Whitey, it’s the same lame and actually damaging effect. It actually keeps many so-called disadvantaged people from solving their own problems. After all, Since I am not the cause of my problems, I cannot do anything about them. As long as a person can blame those other than themselves, they have an excuse for failure in virtually any endeavor.
Misdirected and often unscrupulous leaders of these groups gather support by keeping their constituents downtrodden and so beholden to them. By virtually screaming discrimination or conspiracy and anti establishment rhetoric at every opportunity, these hate mongers and rabble rousers promote themselves and seek to control their followers. They do this by blaming the group they call oppressors, of an evil conspiracy against the helpless victims in their supporting groups. Then they call these imagined oppressors every evil name in the book as if most of their efforts were directed specifically to oppress them. This of course is right out of the NAZI play book.
All actions of these leaders, no matter how evil or outlandish is condoned or excused with, it wasn’t their fault, or look where they came from. While the best known of these leaders are currently from the Black community, there are a number in the Latino community who seem to be growing in power and influence. Currently, the reverend Wright has gained the spotlight because of these actions, but he is merely one of a large group of destroyers who spout hate to rally their supporters. These are small people who take advantage of the ignorance and frustration of those they seek to lead in promoting their own agenda of hate. The lynch mob is their most prominent accomplishment. The really sad thing is that these leaders not only do great damage to those they purport to be aiding, but they help advance the efforts of their counterparts in the other groups. White supremacists, for instance, gain much credence from those leaders in minority groups who speak out with inciting, hateful charges against whites. Were it not for these minority leaders, white supremacists would have no more power than a distasteful joke.
Frequently, when members, even famous and admired members, of these disadvantaged minorities try to help their fellows by pointing out that they have the power to overcome being at a disadvantage. That by self reliance, hard work and positive effort on their part they can pull themselves up economically and socially. Even when they offer encouragement by example, effort, or pointing out that positive effort is more likely to get positive results than negative effort, they risk being condemned by many in their community to whom being a victim is their greatest asset. I illustrate with one example where all I need do is mention the name of one who is greatly admired by virtually all Americans, Bill Cosby. The response to his words of encouraging advice to his fellows was to be called by many an Uncle Tom. That was pathetic. Like the name calling done in third grade playgrounds it was childish and unworthy. His response to this attack was an indication of his greatness and humanity.
In his book, The True Believer, Eric Hoffer describes men who think so little of themselves they can only gain self-esteem by abandoning self to a cause. These true believers, as he calls them, will do anything, including committing suicide, for their cause. Following their leaders who enslave them to serve the leader’s own and often undefined purpose, these are not men of free will, but true slaves of those who manipulate them. Such is the enemy free men now face.
Man has a natural instinct for enslavement. All great and small movements utilize this pack animal instinct to control masses of people as tools of opportunistic leaders. Humanitarian civilization tends to counter this instinct while mobs, movements, charismatic leaders, and fundamentalists tend to nurture and expand it.
The real power in mobs, movements, fundamentalism, and other uses of instincts to control lies in a very simple, irrefutable fact—that it is infinitely easier to damage or destroy to change things than to build or create. Only the most rudimentary skills were used by a few men to bring down the World Trade Center in just a few minutes. Contrast this with the immense effort required to design and build those same structures. In the same vein, it is far easier to make angry criticisms of ideas that differ from your own than to listen to those ideas and then make calculated judgments. Closed minds can be true agents of evil.
Of those controllable by such leaders, Eric Hoffer wrote, “People unfit for freedom—who cannot do much with it—are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a have type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a have not type of self.”
What is needed is for these kinds of men in any group or society to be treated for what they are, immature annoyances to society serving their own egos for their own selfish purposes. There are many of these types of leaders. Most common today are those leading the inner city gangs in the drug culture and living off of the misery of others. These are the little Napoleons with maybe a few dozen soldiers who create and destroy victims and whose lives are almost always short and violent. The romantic picture of these contemporary pirates as portrayed by our entertainment world is a far cry from the sordid realities of their lives and those of the victims of their actions. In truth these are the marauding packs of humans like feral dogs, bent on destruction and death. Why? Simply because it is far easier than being civilized. Civilization requires hard work and respect for others. Gang life disdains both as does the life of any who are slaves to the command of others rather than free men.
Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
James Allen said, “Before complaining that you are a slave to another, be sure that you are not a slave to self. Look within;...You will find there, perchance, slavish thoughts, slavish desires, and in your daily life and conduct slavish habits. Conquer these; cease to be a slave to self, and no man will have the power to enslave you.”
What all of this says is that many people, placed at a disadvantage by any circumstance, will blame something outside of self and so be defeated from the outset. Those who realize it is up to them and so work to overcome their disadvantage often reach heights of success in spite of overwhelming handicaps. Joni Erickson Tada is one great example. Paralyzed by a diving accident at seventeen, her life was virtually over. Joni refused to be defeated and with herculean effort refocused her life and became an inspiration to thousands of handicapped people all over the world. Her books are now sold all over the world and her positive contribution to humanity is priceless.
I am reminded of an old saying I really like and try to act on. If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. I firmly believe life has handed a lemon to many out there, but most just decry about and fight the lemon while a few add their own form of sugar, ice and water creating a delightful beverage. The individual has the power to chose between bitterness and joy.
Friday, March 28, 2008
America Needs a Mission for Energy Independence
(Excerpt from the book, A Convenient Solution)
That mission is to discover, develop and implement practical ways to save us—the United States and the world—from the ravages of the fossil fuel dragon. We should do our utmost to make everyone aware of available options for safe, affordable energy generation and use. We should also try to motivate everyone to demand we adopt these options.
We need to develop realistic solutions to the energy crisis from among the multitude of products and systems that are in use, under development, or even latent ideas in the minds of America’s creative genius. We must collect and examine descriptions of fuels and energy systems—past, present, and future—and of many possible and practical ways to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels or energy systems. All of the new systems could replace fossil fuels as the prime energy source for our nation and even the world. In the process this could lead to a carbon dioxide neutral energy system, one that adds no new CO2 to our atmosphere. The options needed are real and practical alternatives to fossil fuels that will replace the use of petroleum and coal-based fuels with renewable, non polluting fuels and in the process:
1. build an American energy system that will stop the hemorrhaging of billions of U.S. dollars, mostly to despotic nations that preach our destruction:
2. build an American energy industry that boosts our economy and provides good jobs for many Americans:
3. stop the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide and that possible link to global warming: and
4. accomplish most of this within just the next ten years.
There are many energy systems, sources, and conversions that comprise our total energy system. The requirements of the components of such a workable system should be judged by the following criteria:
● They should be relatively inexpensive to utilize.
● They should be developed using environmentally sound, sensitive principals
● They should be far easier, simpler and less expensive to implement than the hydrogen fuel cell system.
● They should be adaptable to our existing infrastructure with minor changes.
● They should use raw materials we already have or that can be developed here, locally.
● They should be applicable to existing vehicles with relatively minor upgrading.
● They should be useable with existing IC (Internal Combustion) engines of all types.
● They should be developed using existing, evolving technology able to be essentially complete within ten years.
● They should create a system that is a net zero contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
● They should use an evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary change—a good start to becoming constantly improving, adapting systems driving numerous growing and improving technologies.
● They should be developed by America-based industry with the many resulting substantial benefits to our nation—social, political, and economic.
While the main thrust of such systems will be to provide new, better, less expensive and less environmentally intrusive systems for energy and transportation, there are many benefits other than just getting away from fossil fuels. These include direct positive effects on four of the first seven of the top twenty-two “most serious concerns of the American public” as shown in a public survey conducted by MIT and cited below.
No. 1 Terrorism—cut off the billions in oil money now going to so many despotic regimes and into funding of terrorism, chiefly to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who plan our destruction.
No. 3 The Economy—a greatly expanded American energy industry would be an enormous boon to our economy if it only shut off the hemorrhaging of money for oil.
No. 4 Employment—thousands of high-paying new jobs would be created right here.
No. 7 Federal budget deficits—profits from new and expanded industries would pour billions into the federal treasury; money now going out overseas.
No. 13 The environment—may be far down the list of public concerns, but net carbon dioxide emissions would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. That can’t be anything but good.
Even with these substantial benefits bundled into grand plans there are significant forces to be dealt with. Forces that can make a new idea work or relegate it to the ash can of history. There are real difficulties and obstacles to overcome in order for any new system to become a reality no matter how positive and/or effective that system might be. Indeed, the battle to get the most beneficial systems noticed and made a reality may require more effort than the implementation of the idea or system itself. The process, once begun, may take completely unexpected twists and turns in moving, sometimes forward and sometimes back, but always in the ultimate direction of successful implementation.
Our space program and its “put a man on the moon” goal followed just such a wandering path en route to its success. We can expect no less from our efforts to find a new fuel/energy system which certainly has a more powerful practical and obviously profitable goal. Clearly, President Kennedy’s commitment to put a man on the moon in ten years and the follow-up on that commitment was a major force in making it happen. Media hype and glamorization help garner public support and enthusiasm. That was a government program operated by a government agency which was implemented mostly by private contractors according to government bid specifications. It was a process oriented solution with a single defined goal.
What we need now is leadership courageous enough to boldly state a goal such as eliminate the use of fossil fuels in ten years and then work ceaselessly toward achieving that goal. Leadership that will initiate a system oriented, broad spectrum approach to solving our growing energy crisis. This is an even greater challenge than putting a man on the moon, a serious challenge that could be instrumental in securing our very survival. We need this ten-year goal declaration to be well stated and backed by leadership with vision and the dedication to follow through. The commitment would be to develop new energy systems that will provide American-made renewable fuels or other portable energy systems and will add no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and do it within the next ten years. This is a much broader multiple goal than putting a man on the moon. Indeed it has many branching and interconnected avenues which could lead to a successful solution. I believe the key to final success will be found in the development of several areas of research rather than a single one. The best combination of energy sources, means of obtaining that energy, means of moving the energy from source to use point, and finally the systems of using that energy. There may be a variety of equally effective systems fitting differing needs. The result could end up a variation on the current theme where we use several types of systems in different configurations .
The attention given to new energy and fuel systems will undoubtedly involve effort into other seemingly unconnected areas. We are still deriving long-term benefits from technology developed for our space program. It would certainly be the same for any fuel/energy program. It is amazing to discover that so many of our serious problems are interrelated and how finding one solution often leads to another almost totally unrelated solution and so to the demand for another workable system.
Existing systems
Presently there are at least seven petroleum-based and mined fuels used in a variety of engines and boilers. These are in addition to coal used mostly in power plants. Use of all of these fossil fuels add carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. There are at least six non fossil-based fuels currently being used or being considered for use. Most are manufactured from plant materials and add no-net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in use. Some do add carbon dioxide in their process of manufacture. There are a few non fossil solid fuels, mostly used for heating and cooking. There is a wide variety of harvesting and manufacturing processes used to obtain or make these fuels. Some of these manufacturing processes require more energy input than the resulting fuel can produce.
There is also the special case of nuclear fuels that use radioactivity to generate heat to boil liquids that drive turbine generators. Since these do not use combustion, they do not release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The only reason we need fuel is to provide heat energy which we then convert to electricity or mechanical power. There are at least five combustion-based systems in use. The internal combustion piston engine is the most common and the most developed. Turbine engines make up the rest of the internal combustion types. Other sources of power include: piston steam engines, turbine steam engines, several types of nuclear reactors, fuel cells, and batteries. All of these power sources turn energy derived from chemical reactions or nuclear fission into electricity or mechanical energy which then powers vehicles, tools, and factories.
There are at least six types of batteries in use, some of which are very new and just beyond the development stage. These new technologies will come of age when continuing development of improved technologies lower their costs and improve their safety and efficiency.
Electric motors of many types and sizes, long important in stationary applications and semi-portable tools are growing in use in vehicles. The fastest growing application of new battery technologies is now battery-powered, cord-free tools and electronic equipment. Application of these new batteries to hybrids, plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs), and even pure electric vehicles (EVs), is just in the beginning stages.
In the power plant segment of our energy system there are at least eight very different sources of energy we use to drive the generators that produce our electricity. Each has its own positives and negatives and all can pose serious environmental problems.
I have described all of these parts of our energy system to illustrate how complex it is. Making any major change would be a difficult and arduous task. Even deciding which changes to make—what system to develop—will be difficult. The answer could lie in a very successful technique used mostly in America for a long time, individual entrepreneurship in a relatively unfettered capitalist business environment.
The challenge ahead
There are literally thousands of individuals using their genius to develop new energy technologies motivated by the promise of rewards for themselves and for their organizations. We are not alone in free entrepreneurship. The powers that control China have suddenly realized its value and are now encouraging it. This has created one of the biggest economic turnarounds in the history of nations. Other nations have seen the light for some time and their economies are booming. Even India, the other Asian giant, is beginning to loosen the socialist government reins that have held their economy in check for so long. The phenomenal growth of the Irish economy is another example. Internet access to the rest of the world and primarily the free world has been a factor in these changes. Even some governments that once controlled virtually every aspect of their people’s lives are now recognizing the value of free entrepreneurship, and even capitalism. Profit is no longer a dirty word in many of these nations. Tom Friedman details these changes in his recent book, The World is Flat 2.0.
Ireland is a prime example of what can happen when government frees businesses and entrepreneurs from oppressive controls and taxes. After years of wallowing in poverty in a country where government controls and high taxes on business stifled progress and discouraged investment of both time and money, the Irish took a dramatic new course. Government interference and controls of business were largely abolished. Complex reporting that bogged down management was mostly thrown out. Corporate taxes once among the highest in the world were reduced or eliminated. Government changed from being the enemy of business to being a strong supporter. The results speak for themselves.
Ireland is now one of the most vibrant economies in Europe. Business is booming like never before. There are now many high paying jobs and investment capital is flowing freely into a nation that once couldn’t coax any investors. In the last twenty years more then 1,000 foreign companies have moved to or opened operations in Ireland. Local firms have also flourished and greatly expanded with worldwide impact. Employment has grown so much that Ireland now imports thousands of workers just to keep their industries running. All of this success is because of the new positive attitude of the government of Ireland to the development of business. This radical new attitude has brought on the availability of world class support services including banking, trade finance, transport systems and advanced telecommunications.
Historians like Tom Garvin are having trouble keeping score. "I have to make a mental effort to remember the Dublin of the 1950s, which was in many ways a Third World city," recalls Garvin. "Horses, no motorcars, children in bare feet, dirt everywhere, people living in slums, no television, no bathrooms - a really impoverished European country that didn't seem to be going anywhere." The picture today is almost unbelievably different: hopeful, optimistic, enthusiastic, almost ecstatic. This amazing economic outcome resulted from government working with business rather than against it and removing oppressive tax burdens rather than imposing them. What also helped was a pro-business attitude of people and even the media rather than the class hatred and anti business attitude we see so prevalent in our own country today.
The concerted effort to solve our energy problems if augmented by this kind of positive attitude and action by everyone here at home would certainly stimulate the economic growth that has sustained our economy at such high levels for so long. If our efforts at solving our energy crisis are driven by hope for substantial economic rewards we will surely succeed and hugely so. If on the other hand, those anti-business voices of doom and gloom succeed and control our government with the new oppressive regulations and taxes they have promised, our economy could will surely go into reverse and much more quickly than even the present slow down has indicated. The fall of the dollar we are currently experiencing will accelerate. Those entrepreneurs who might have solved our energy crisis will do so in Ireland, or China, or India as our stifled economy sinks into depression and our energy needs go unsolved.
How we approach and deal with this serious problem and the attitude we take toward those who have the power to solve it will ultimately decide which technologies prosper and which fall by the wayside. The steadily rising costs of petroleum fuels has made alternative systems practical that were far too expensive when oil was five dollars a barrel. One possible stumbling block to these changes could result from an effort by OPEC to increase the supply of oil and thus reduce the price. Eventually dwindling supplies of petroleum would wipe this out as a practical tactic.
There are many serious and demonstrable problems solving the energy crisis will effect right now. The biggest is the outflow of billions of dollars for oil to nations that preach our destruction. The boost to our economy alone would create a bonanza in this country like we have never before seen. New jobs, new technologies, new industries, and new entrepreneurs would flourish. Even without new taxes (what a dream that is) government revenue would soar from the increased economic activity. The demise of the oil industry would certainly be replaced by the new energy industries. Actually, those oil companies that got aboard these new technologies rather than opposing them, could use their present wealth to invest in them and grow rather than fade away.
Whether or not human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere creates global warming is actually only remotely connected to our energy related problems. If these new energy systems eliminate the wholesale use of fossil fuels, so much the better. Even if it has a negligible effect on global warming, it can do no harm to maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near to where it has been for a very long time. That would also satisfy the demands of the global warming proponents and opponents and redirect their energies elsewhere to other far more dangerous challenges facing humanity. Concrete benefits to the rest of the world with the exception of the oil-rich nations would also be substantial.
Some predictions:
After studying energy systems of so many kinds I am convinced that the future will see the greatest growth in energy generated in the form of electricity, distributed and used by a wide variety of systems. I see rapid growth in electric generating capacity primarily in nuclear, but with geothermal a close second and possibly eventually leading. I see a decline in coal fired power plants unless we find a practical technology to gather and sequester carbon dioxide, a very difficult and expensive challenge. I see wind and direct solar generation as always being too expensive and remaining minor players in contribution to the grid. Their use in small, local applications where connection to the electric grid is expensive and to home heating and providing hot water will probably be a substantial benefit and addition to the energy mix. Hydropower will not grow much as environmental concerns will make it increasingly expensive. One interesting possibility now being studied is the conversion of ocean wave action to electrical energy. Thus far, costs and practicality seem reasonable and downsides appear to be virtually nonexistent.
Vehicles will become more electric and less fuel powered as battery technology continues to improve and rapid charging systems are developed. There will always be hybrids, mostly electric vehicles with onboard charging capability, because charging capabilities may be unavailable in some places. Of course there could also be additional growth in micro turbine generators which are already being used for both remote and emergency power applications. Variety will be great at least as technologies progress and new ones come along.
There are several effective new fuel and energy systems to replace the existing system based on coal and petroleum with one that does not use fossil fuels. The benefits of such systems are many, varied, and have far-reaching positive attributes. These include immeasurable economic and political benefits for the citizens of any state or country that adopts them and environmental benefits for the entire world.
There are many innovative new products and technologies that could help us move to a new energy system with a low, or possibly zero-net carbon dioxide environmental impact. Many of these are already available and on the market. Others are soon to come. All that is needed is acceptance by the buying public and the associated development of better technologies and manufacturing capabilities. Some effective PR would provide a big boost.
Two possible direct replacements for gasoline are butanol (butyl alcohol) and 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF). Both have been available for a long time primarily as solvents and paint thinners. Both can be used in current gasoline engines with little or no modifications. Their high cost relative to gasoline is now changing as gasoline prices rise. New manufacturing techniques have already lowered the production costs of these new fuels to competitive levels. These also have the possibility of being made out of waste plant materials by active biota. Several new techniques have already shown some success. All that is needed is further research and development of processes that can be scaled up to meet the kind of quantities required for a gasoline replacement.
One caveat regarding alternative fuels is already creating serious problems that can only grow worse. Enough corn, wheat and soy beans are being diverted from food to energy use (as ethanol and biodiesel) to bring about some major increases in the costs of these grains. Most have hit all time highs on the grain markets and no sign of a relaxation of this upward trend has yet appeared. Farmers everywhere are thrilled with this new bonanza. Increases in prices for all baked goods, meats, eggs and milk—anything that uses or requires grains—are already quite noticeable in stores.
Another concern that has quite a different but equally negative effect is the growing of palms for palm oil to be used as biodiesel fuel. Much tropical rain forest is being cut, burned and cleared to grow palms for the highly profitable oil they produce. Destruction of rain forest with its huge capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could more than counter any gain in the carbon dioxide balance from use of biodiesel from palm oil. I’m certain there are other problems with conversion to renewable fuels from crops.
There are many other ways to produce biodiesel that could become practical were we to pursue them aggressively. One that is well documented is the use of Algae fed nutrients from waste water or other biological waste materiels to produce useable oils. View the Internet site http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html. for more information on this example of just one possible process. Many of these new technologies would bear fruit if more research were provided. This would accomplish two needed goals. One would be to produce biodiesel without interfering with food crops. The second is make profitable use of waste materials that now cost money for their disposal.
Using food crops to make biofuels has already caused disruption to the food supply which is only going to grow worse. Because of this, I favor emphasis on new fuels made from non-food chain raw materials along with new battery technologies, electric vehicles and a great expansion of geothermal power generation to cover the increased energy demand. These are some of the only readily acceptable and practical options that can lead us away from dependence on fossil fuels without a major disruption of our food supply or serious damage to our environment. I see no practical development of cost-effective fuel-cell powered vehicles, hydrogen or otherwise, without a major breakthrough in technology. Although such a breakthrough is always possible, there seems to be no hint of any in the foreseeable future.
There are powerful and deeply entrenched economic and political forces all over the world that actively oppose any system to replace fossil fuels. This is because it would challenge their power and control over energy. I trust our nation will overcome this opposition and lead the world by becoming the first to adopt such a system. If we don’t, I’m certain China, India and several other countries will jump at the chance to be first with new energy technology and its associated benefits.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Anecdotal evidence does not an understanding make
All you global warming fanatics and all you anti-global warming fanatics please take note.
Just as the higher temperatures of recent years is an entirely illogical and useless indicator that we are in a period of global warming, the drastically cold weather of the 2007-2008 winter is an equally useless indicator that we are not. The opposing opinions for or against global cooling, is just as applicable. Both of these extreme positions are caused by emotional reactions exacerbated by political bias and media hype. They have very little to do with the science of climate or climate change. These opinions are used by media hypers and those with a political agenda as weapons, really brutish clubs wielded indiscriminately. Among we who analyze the facts objectively, it seems this has to be obvious to all but the dimmest of light bulbs.
For those who would like to be enlightened about what we do know about climate and also informed of the infinitely larger body of information that we do not know, there are a lot of conflicting data and wildly divergent opinions available from both good and questionable sources. Just because the word science or scientist is attached to any source of information or opinion does not make it accurate, or even honest. Ever hear of the Piltdown man hoax?
Deliberate misinformation aside, it is extremely easy for any scientist to have his opinion shaded a bit in the direction of what he hopes to be true, especially if that helps obtain a grant, gain a research assignment, get a paper published, or win a prestigious prize. (The Nobel people even bragged that it was political expediency that motivated the award to Al Gore. Is that not the ultimate height of hypocrisy?) After all, scientists are people just like the rest of us. They are certainly not immune to the temptation to shade equations and conclusions in the direction of their own desires and opinions. This is especially true where the balance point between one direction and the opposite is close to the center. They can honestly express that those close choices are one way or the other and not be condemned except by those with differing opinions or agendas.
Consider the differing pressures on scientists brought about by their position or circumstance. All are at least partially affected by the political, social, emotional, financial and hierarchical pressures of their positions in the organization, their peers, their superiors and even those who work for them. To some extent, each group described has most of the same or similar pressures of all of the other groups.
University scientists have all the pressures of the academic environment: the need to be published, the requirements to do directed research, the need to obtain grants by yielding to the desires and requirements of the grantors, the requirements to meet peer review standards, and often the need to be socially and politically correct.
Government scientists have many of the same pressures as the academics and a few different ones: The need to meet often rigid technical and mechanical government requirements, the strict hierarchy of the government bureaucracy, the annual budget submission and justification process and all the other government red tape requirements.
Private industry scientists have some special pressures: meeting profitability projections, sometimes special reporting processes, meeting company purpose or mission requirements, less job security than the others, considerable job or position competition, and more powerful superiors to deal with.
All of these pressures can affect research related decisions and the ultimate tenor of the chosen and reported results. Much data that sits on a fence is moved one way or the other by these pressures rather than by truly objective judgement.
Once in the hands of the media or politicians, information from those close choices with their many shades of gray opinions, become pure black or pure white. Remember the fable of the man who blew on his cold hands to warm them as he came in out of the cold and then blew on his hot soup to cool it? The moral is something about how can one blow hot and cold with the same breath? For media and political people, facts are rarely significant compared to the power of a position that furthers their chosen agenda. Their opinions blow hot or cold at their whim. Politization of anything is the art of creating an effective club with which to beat down and destroy competitors or rivals. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding the truth or facts in the matter, or developing a workable solution to any problem other than that of getting elected or gaining higher ratings.
If you would like to read some hopefully reasonable opinions about climate and where it might be headed, there are anumber of articles from several viewponts in earlier postings on this blog. All you need do is scroll down to find them.
For additional information in another blog goto http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/. The most recent article there is about geothermal energy so scroll down to the section on global warming and the Gulf Stream.
Incidently, I have a powerful personal motive for hopping onto the global warming bandwagon. As the author of a book on energy and what could be the best answer to the global warming problem, I could very easily embrace the whole global warming movement in its promotion. My book, A Convenient Solution, is about to be released and in spite of this, I still remain objectively neutral on global warming.
Just as the higher temperatures of recent years is an entirely illogical and useless indicator that we are in a period of global warming, the drastically cold weather of the 2007-2008 winter is an equally useless indicator that we are not. The opposing opinions for or against global cooling, is just as applicable. Both of these extreme positions are caused by emotional reactions exacerbated by political bias and media hype. They have very little to do with the science of climate or climate change. These opinions are used by media hypers and those with a political agenda as weapons, really brutish clubs wielded indiscriminately. Among we who analyze the facts objectively, it seems this has to be obvious to all but the dimmest of light bulbs.
For those who would like to be enlightened about what we do know about climate and also informed of the infinitely larger body of information that we do not know, there are a lot of conflicting data and wildly divergent opinions available from both good and questionable sources. Just because the word science or scientist is attached to any source of information or opinion does not make it accurate, or even honest. Ever hear of the Piltdown man hoax?
Deliberate misinformation aside, it is extremely easy for any scientist to have his opinion shaded a bit in the direction of what he hopes to be true, especially if that helps obtain a grant, gain a research assignment, get a paper published, or win a prestigious prize. (The Nobel people even bragged that it was political expediency that motivated the award to Al Gore. Is that not the ultimate height of hypocrisy?) After all, scientists are people just like the rest of us. They are certainly not immune to the temptation to shade equations and conclusions in the direction of their own desires and opinions. This is especially true where the balance point between one direction and the opposite is close to the center. They can honestly express that those close choices are one way or the other and not be condemned except by those with differing opinions or agendas.
Consider the differing pressures on scientists brought about by their position or circumstance. All are at least partially affected by the political, social, emotional, financial and hierarchical pressures of their positions in the organization, their peers, their superiors and even those who work for them. To some extent, each group described has most of the same or similar pressures of all of the other groups.
University scientists have all the pressures of the academic environment: the need to be published, the requirements to do directed research, the need to obtain grants by yielding to the desires and requirements of the grantors, the requirements to meet peer review standards, and often the need to be socially and politically correct.
Government scientists have many of the same pressures as the academics and a few different ones: The need to meet often rigid technical and mechanical government requirements, the strict hierarchy of the government bureaucracy, the annual budget submission and justification process and all the other government red tape requirements.
Private industry scientists have some special pressures: meeting profitability projections, sometimes special reporting processes, meeting company purpose or mission requirements, less job security than the others, considerable job or position competition, and more powerful superiors to deal with.
All of these pressures can affect research related decisions and the ultimate tenor of the chosen and reported results. Much data that sits on a fence is moved one way or the other by these pressures rather than by truly objective judgement.
Once in the hands of the media or politicians, information from those close choices with their many shades of gray opinions, become pure black or pure white. Remember the fable of the man who blew on his cold hands to warm them as he came in out of the cold and then blew on his hot soup to cool it? The moral is something about how can one blow hot and cold with the same breath? For media and political people, facts are rarely significant compared to the power of a position that furthers their chosen agenda. Their opinions blow hot or cold at their whim. Politization of anything is the art of creating an effective club with which to beat down and destroy competitors or rivals. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding the truth or facts in the matter, or developing a workable solution to any problem other than that of getting elected or gaining higher ratings.
If you would like to read some hopefully reasonable opinions about climate and where it might be headed, there are anumber of articles from several viewponts in earlier postings on this blog. All you need do is scroll down to find them.
For additional information in another blog goto http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/. The most recent article there is about geothermal energy so scroll down to the section on global warming and the Gulf Stream.
Incidently, I have a powerful personal motive for hopping onto the global warming bandwagon. As the author of a book on energy and what could be the best answer to the global warming problem, I could very easily embrace the whole global warming movement in its promotion. My book, A Convenient Solution, is about to be released and in spite of this, I still remain objectively neutral on global warming.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Global Cooling May now be Upon Us
http://robertd.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/some-global-cooling-updates/
Cashmere Goats are Dying by Ethel C. Fenig (see above link for complete story)
Have you noticed the absence of Al Gore (global-warming-the-sky-is-falling) in light of the unusually harsh winter across the planet? Why he wasn’t even at the Academy Awards!
Meanwhile cashmere goats, and their herders, do wish Al Gore would open his mouth and spew forth some hot air about the perils of global warming instead of hiding under the cover of climate change.
At least 600 rare Himalayan goats — famed for their pashmina wool, also known as cashmere — have died and thousands face starvation after their desert habitat was blanketed with snow during the region’s worst snowfall in three decades, authorities said Thursday. Over 100,000 cashmere goats have faced starvation as winter stocks of fodder ran out after heavy snow covered pastures in the remote Ladakh region near the border with China last month.
The PETA people have been unusually silent also. From American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Snowfall Records Being Broken in New England
by Noel Sheppard February 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET
Cashmere Goats are Dying by Ethel C. Fenig (see above link for complete story)
Have you noticed the absence of Al Gore (global-warming-the-sky-is-falling) in light of the unusually harsh winter across the planet? Why he wasn’t even at the Academy Awards!
Meanwhile cashmere goats, and their herders, do wish Al Gore would open his mouth and spew forth some hot air about the perils of global warming instead of hiding under the cover of climate change.
At least 600 rare Himalayan goats — famed for their pashmina wool, also known as cashmere — have died and thousands face starvation after their desert habitat was blanketed with snow during the region’s worst snowfall in three decades, authorities said Thursday. Over 100,000 cashmere goats have faced starvation as winter stocks of fodder ran out after heavy snow covered pastures in the remote Ladakh region near the border with China last month.
The PETA people have been unusually silent also. From American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Snowfall Records Being Broken in New England
by Noel Sheppard February 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET
(Photo of snow on roof in Vermont)
Remember all those articles last year about how ski resorts were going to go bankrupt, and that folks with vacation homes near such areas were going to take a bath as global warming significantly reduced snowfall levels? Well, ski enthusiasts and investors around the country should rest assured that this media hype was just as accurate as all those hurricane forecasts in 2006 and 2007. In fact, much as what has occurred across the northern US this year, parts of New England have experienced more snow than ever in history as reported by USA Today late Wednesday evening. Read the rest from NewsBusters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This La Nina Likely to Have Legs - February 28, 2008
As I mentioned in my post here about one of the satellite data sets (RSS) that showed a marked cooling globally in 2008, La Nina and PDO seem to be drivers of this change. Here is Joe D’Aleo’s take on it below. - Anthony
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM ICECAP
Evidence is growing this La Nina will be a longer term event. Most similar important La Ninas are often multi year events (1949-1951,1954-1956, 1961-63, 1970-1972, 1973-1976, 1998-2001). Though the easternmost Pacific near South America has warmed at the surface as the seasonal weakening of the tropical easterlies led to weakened upwelling, it is still cold beneath. Below you can see the latest depth-section of ocean temperatures (top) and anomalies (bottom). Temperature are in degree Celsius. Note the large reservoir of subsurface anomalously cold water (up to 4 degrees C) in the eastern tropical Pacific at 50 to 100 meters.
For the rest of the original article goto
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/this-la-nina-likely-to-have-legs/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Stop The Presses......What We Have Now Is Global Cooling
Call it what you will, global cooling, or "The Al Gore Effect". No you can not have your money back on all those carbon credits you just bought. What about all these efforts to stop global warming, the UN's IPCC, the Kyoto Treaty, what are we going to do?
Peter
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year. (See graph at website link below)
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
For the graph of world temperatures and the rest of the story goto:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/02/stop-presseswhat-we-have-now-is-global.html
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Verdict: All Four Major Global Temperature Tracking Outlets Release Updated Data
"For quite some time now I have been openly harping on global "warming" hysterics. Throughout my debates I have maintained that within the next 20 (or some odd) years, we will begin to see signs of the next global climate cycle - a cycle that will bring global "cooling".
It appears I was wrong.
Apparently we won't have to wait that long.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
To read the complete article and comments goto:
http://theconservativemanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/02/verdict-all-four-major-global.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 29, 2008 7:53 AM - Comment by jovial_cynic said...
And in related news: bacteria can cause rain and snow.
Check on: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228174801.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
February 29, 2008 7:53 AM - Comment by HoJo...
I have quite a bit of information about new energy systems that could replace our use of fossil fuels and thus stop new carbon dioxide emissions. This would silence the global warming crowd complaining about CO2 emissions. Far more important, it would bring back home all those billions now going to nations who plot our destruction.
Check out these sites on the web.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Simplifying extremely complex systems
--
This is in response to the article,
Heavy footprint weighs down U.S. empire
by Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix spnews@sp.canwest.com
Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
His premise is stated in the first paragraph of the article. "Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint? A strong argument can be made that the fading of the American empire is fundamentally an environmental issue." To his comments about "the fading of the American empire" That remined me of a quote from Mark Twain, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
Mr. Hanley's copyrighted article can be read at
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/arts/story.html?id=82235c7e-e146-4c12-af09-f6c3458cd676
This BLOG is in response to Paul Hanley’s article.
The article has an interesting concept and conclusion that is a typically simplistic identification of a narrow range cause of an extremely complex system. Mostly these types of conclusions tend to promote the opinion and/or agenda of the creator. This is not intended as a condemnation, but is merely an observation by one who tends to look for the complexities in systems like the Roman Empire, the United States or even global climate. One could see the similarities of destructive effects in such factors as: the growth of government of Rome and the US and the associated increasing cost, the use of human energy, and the consumption of effort that growth requires.
Another example from another source comes from far back in history. When the 13 colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian democracy over 2000 years earlier.
“A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”
This does not apply as closely to a representative republic, but our republic is rapidly being eroded by those who see a democracy as being more in their own best interests than a republic. This too could be an equally accurate explanation for the fall of Rome and the future of America. There are doubtless many other applicable reasons with possible equal or greater effects. Jared Diamond covers many, natural and man made in his books, Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel.
I shall try to explain the type of problems complex systems pose for those who would try to understand them by describing one such system I have been studying. For more than ten years I have been working on answers to a very complex system or more accurately group of systems related to our use of energy. These include: energy systems we have in place, where they are headed and practical solutions to the constantly changing energy requirements and uses in the world. My book, A Convenient Solution, does not provide a single solution but it does describe many of the systems now in use, possible future systems, their practicality and how they can be implemented. I think most people would be surprised at the number and variety of energy systems in use, soon to be in use and those that could be in use in the near future. All of these systems from power plants and distribution systems to vehicles and power tools are available with existing technology. Many new concepts are already available and more are coming in the very near future. Most are being developed by independent entrepreneurs, not government. The positive effects on our economy, our environment and the well being of planet earth could be enormous.
I state in the title that freedom from fossil fuels could be accomplished in ten years. All we have to do to achieve that goal is quit spending our efforts on blaming everyone and everything we disagree with, while condemning things as they are. Then spend our energies on developing and promoting these new concepts and products. I think we have far to much use of problems as political battering rams against opponents and far too little effort at finding and implementing viable solutions. Most everyone wants a single simple answer, and by the same token many blame one or a few situations or efforts as the sole or certainly the overwhelming villain in the case. I’d like to use the current media hot button “global warming” to illustrate.
Global warming has become such a popular catch phrase it is being used as a verbal club in condemnation of many things. It has become the subject of much TV humor. Late night talk shows on TV seldom miss a chance to tell a global warming joke. Passions run high on the subject. So high that global warming has taken on almost the trappings of a religion. Certainly it rouses almost religious fervor in its believers. The truth, degree, causative factors, and ultimate results of global warming if indeed it is real, are completely lost in the passionate rhetoric from adherents and nay sayers alike.
The truth is that climate and climate change are very complex, far more complex than our best computer simulations can handle. As a result, we have great difficulty in predicting the path of a single hurricane with much accuracy. While we are getting better at it each year as more sophisticated simulations are developed we still have a long way to go before we can have as much as 80% accuracy five days ahead. A single hurricane is a far less complex system with far fewer variables than is the climate of the entire world. Change a few variables a very small amount and simulation results can be vastly different.
This is virtually axiomatic in all types of complex systems we could talk about. It is true of global climate, economics, energy, civilizations, nations, you name it—there are many extremely complex systems with almost infinite numbers of variables that are extremely difficult to understand. The question was posed and then somewhat answered in Paul Hanley’s article, “Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint?” This is a classic example of applying a single causative system as the sole or primary reason for the behavior of an extremely complex system and then applying the same factor to another very different and also complex system. I am not saying it is not a factor, but that to explain it as the primary one is to presume a great deal. It is even possible that this factor is the effect of other factors and not a cause at all. Cause and effect often are confused in this type of situation.
To illustrate my meaning I will use climate again. It is often assumed that rising average air temperatures indicate the planet is warming. Actually, that may not be the case. The entire atmosphere holds only a fraction of the heat that the earth’s liquid and frozen water holds. All of that heat is held in the planet’s very thin surface skin comparable in thickness to paint on the surface of a croquet ball. Movements of ocean currents distribute far more heat energy around the planet than do air currents and thus should be a bigger contributor to climate. Indeed, it is primarily the energy from warm ocean water that powers hurricanes and we are just beginning to understand how the warm surface waters of the Pacific can affect climate over much of the globe. Discovering how changes in our atmosphere affects the oceans—actually the complex exchanges of energy between oceans and atmosphere—is an extremely difficult and complex task. Though there is much we do understand, that understanding is but a tiny portion of what is needed to design competent computer simulations. What we can project from current knowledge is a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) at best.
Too often adherents to an idea will take a SWAG and run with it as a definite fact. Our media in particular tends to do this particularly if the SWAG happens to promise dire consequences for our nation or the world. Those dire predictions seem to sell newspapers and gain TV viewers. It is well known that bad news sells much better than good news. We all have a tendency to stop and gawk at an accident scene and pictures of all manner of disasters and mayhem bring many viewers to TV. The temptation to sensationalize seems far too great to keep reporters and TV news writers from emphasizing the negative aspect of virtually any situation. With all this sensationalism available it is quite difficult for any calm, objective, broadly based observations or studies to get much exposure.
Often reports of such careful observations are condemned as opposition to an accepted position or known fact. The known fact of global warming is just such a creation and is now accepted by many as axiomatic. Thirty or forty years ago many of these same individuals were treating global cooling as a known fact.
When we learn enough that we are able to predict precisely where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will become when it is merely a disturbance off the coast of Africa—then we may be able to say whether global warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide is a reality with some degree of certainty. Now, no matter how you look at it, to say that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the responsible agent causing global warming in the manner it is being described by so many agenda driven spokespersons is Chicken Little at best.
The same type of observation could be made about Mr. Henley’s report. I am not saying it is wrong, just that it may be an effect, rather than a cause—a symptom rather than a disease. Certainly it is worth consideration as being among countless other factors. It may be a factor, but certainly not necessarily the definitive one. There is probably not a single definitive factor at all, but rather many significant ones. To make comparison of the situation in Rome and in America today requires another stretch of the imagination and denial of countless other factors. The two systems and their complexities have far too many differences for the type of conclusion made to have more than passing interest and value. An interesting thought perhaps, but quite far from proven.
To me the concerns expressed about our lavish lifestyle and fiscal cancer are far more significant than the heavy ecological footprint. The paragraph, "The empire also needed tax gatherers and civil servants. These armies and bureaucrats had to be supported by the empire. Expansion was also necessary to get booty and other forms of wealth, such as gold, to pay for the Roman lifestyle and the costs of expansion itself." is to me a far more significant comparison as it could be said almost verbatim of our present government. I believe Tyler’s observation about democracy cited earlier in this commentary predicts a far more accurate and likely scenario and provides more serious concern than any ecological effects. Unfortunately, it is also a real menace that seems to interest very few Americans and certainly few politicians. Currently, this frightens me far more than any concern about our ecological footprint.
This is in response to the article,
Heavy footprint weighs down U.S. empire
by Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix spnews@sp.canwest.com
Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
His premise is stated in the first paragraph of the article. "Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint? A strong argument can be made that the fading of the American empire is fundamentally an environmental issue." To his comments about "the fading of the American empire" That remined me of a quote from Mark Twain, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
Mr. Hanley's copyrighted article can be read at
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/arts/story.html?id=82235c7e-e146-4c12-af09-f6c3458cd676
This BLOG is in response to Paul Hanley’s article.
The article has an interesting concept and conclusion that is a typically simplistic identification of a narrow range cause of an extremely complex system. Mostly these types of conclusions tend to promote the opinion and/or agenda of the creator. This is not intended as a condemnation, but is merely an observation by one who tends to look for the complexities in systems like the Roman Empire, the United States or even global climate. One could see the similarities of destructive effects in such factors as: the growth of government of Rome and the US and the associated increasing cost, the use of human energy, and the consumption of effort that growth requires.
Another example from another source comes from far back in history. When the 13 colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian democracy over 2000 years earlier.
“A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”
This does not apply as closely to a representative republic, but our republic is rapidly being eroded by those who see a democracy as being more in their own best interests than a republic. This too could be an equally accurate explanation for the fall of Rome and the future of America. There are doubtless many other applicable reasons with possible equal or greater effects. Jared Diamond covers many, natural and man made in his books, Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel.
I shall try to explain the type of problems complex systems pose for those who would try to understand them by describing one such system I have been studying. For more than ten years I have been working on answers to a very complex system or more accurately group of systems related to our use of energy. These include: energy systems we have in place, where they are headed and practical solutions to the constantly changing energy requirements and uses in the world. My book, A Convenient Solution, does not provide a single solution but it does describe many of the systems now in use, possible future systems, their practicality and how they can be implemented. I think most people would be surprised at the number and variety of energy systems in use, soon to be in use and those that could be in use in the near future. All of these systems from power plants and distribution systems to vehicles and power tools are available with existing technology. Many new concepts are already available and more are coming in the very near future. Most are being developed by independent entrepreneurs, not government. The positive effects on our economy, our environment and the well being of planet earth could be enormous.
I state in the title that freedom from fossil fuels could be accomplished in ten years. All we have to do to achieve that goal is quit spending our efforts on blaming everyone and everything we disagree with, while condemning things as they are. Then spend our energies on developing and promoting these new concepts and products. I think we have far to much use of problems as political battering rams against opponents and far too little effort at finding and implementing viable solutions. Most everyone wants a single simple answer, and by the same token many blame one or a few situations or efforts as the sole or certainly the overwhelming villain in the case. I’d like to use the current media hot button “global warming” to illustrate.
Global warming has become such a popular catch phrase it is being used as a verbal club in condemnation of many things. It has become the subject of much TV humor. Late night talk shows on TV seldom miss a chance to tell a global warming joke. Passions run high on the subject. So high that global warming has taken on almost the trappings of a religion. Certainly it rouses almost religious fervor in its believers. The truth, degree, causative factors, and ultimate results of global warming if indeed it is real, are completely lost in the passionate rhetoric from adherents and nay sayers alike.
The truth is that climate and climate change are very complex, far more complex than our best computer simulations can handle. As a result, we have great difficulty in predicting the path of a single hurricane with much accuracy. While we are getting better at it each year as more sophisticated simulations are developed we still have a long way to go before we can have as much as 80% accuracy five days ahead. A single hurricane is a far less complex system with far fewer variables than is the climate of the entire world. Change a few variables a very small amount and simulation results can be vastly different.
This is virtually axiomatic in all types of complex systems we could talk about. It is true of global climate, economics, energy, civilizations, nations, you name it—there are many extremely complex systems with almost infinite numbers of variables that are extremely difficult to understand. The question was posed and then somewhat answered in Paul Hanley’s article, “Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint?” This is a classic example of applying a single causative system as the sole or primary reason for the behavior of an extremely complex system and then applying the same factor to another very different and also complex system. I am not saying it is not a factor, but that to explain it as the primary one is to presume a great deal. It is even possible that this factor is the effect of other factors and not a cause at all. Cause and effect often are confused in this type of situation.
To illustrate my meaning I will use climate again. It is often assumed that rising average air temperatures indicate the planet is warming. Actually, that may not be the case. The entire atmosphere holds only a fraction of the heat that the earth’s liquid and frozen water holds. All of that heat is held in the planet’s very thin surface skin comparable in thickness to paint on the surface of a croquet ball. Movements of ocean currents distribute far more heat energy around the planet than do air currents and thus should be a bigger contributor to climate. Indeed, it is primarily the energy from warm ocean water that powers hurricanes and we are just beginning to understand how the warm surface waters of the Pacific can affect climate over much of the globe. Discovering how changes in our atmosphere affects the oceans—actually the complex exchanges of energy between oceans and atmosphere—is an extremely difficult and complex task. Though there is much we do understand, that understanding is but a tiny portion of what is needed to design competent computer simulations. What we can project from current knowledge is a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) at best.
Too often adherents to an idea will take a SWAG and run with it as a definite fact. Our media in particular tends to do this particularly if the SWAG happens to promise dire consequences for our nation or the world. Those dire predictions seem to sell newspapers and gain TV viewers. It is well known that bad news sells much better than good news. We all have a tendency to stop and gawk at an accident scene and pictures of all manner of disasters and mayhem bring many viewers to TV. The temptation to sensationalize seems far too great to keep reporters and TV news writers from emphasizing the negative aspect of virtually any situation. With all this sensationalism available it is quite difficult for any calm, objective, broadly based observations or studies to get much exposure.
Often reports of such careful observations are condemned as opposition to an accepted position or known fact. The known fact of global warming is just such a creation and is now accepted by many as axiomatic. Thirty or forty years ago many of these same individuals were treating global cooling as a known fact.
When we learn enough that we are able to predict precisely where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will become when it is merely a disturbance off the coast of Africa—then we may be able to say whether global warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide is a reality with some degree of certainty. Now, no matter how you look at it, to say that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the responsible agent causing global warming in the manner it is being described by so many agenda driven spokespersons is Chicken Little at best.
The same type of observation could be made about Mr. Henley’s report. I am not saying it is wrong, just that it may be an effect, rather than a cause—a symptom rather than a disease. Certainly it is worth consideration as being among countless other factors. It may be a factor, but certainly not necessarily the definitive one. There is probably not a single definitive factor at all, but rather many significant ones. To make comparison of the situation in Rome and in America today requires another stretch of the imagination and denial of countless other factors. The two systems and their complexities have far too many differences for the type of conclusion made to have more than passing interest and value. An interesting thought perhaps, but quite far from proven.
To me the concerns expressed about our lavish lifestyle and fiscal cancer are far more significant than the heavy ecological footprint. The paragraph, "The empire also needed tax gatherers and civil servants. These armies and bureaucrats had to be supported by the empire. Expansion was also necessary to get booty and other forms of wealth, such as gold, to pay for the Roman lifestyle and the costs of expansion itself." is to me a far more significant comparison as it could be said almost verbatim of our present government. I believe Tyler’s observation about democracy cited earlier in this commentary predicts a far more accurate and likely scenario and provides more serious concern than any ecological effects. Unfortunately, it is also a real menace that seems to interest very few Americans and certainly few politicians. Currently, this frightens me far more than any concern about our ecological footprint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)