Tilting at the Climate Change Windmill

Dr. Strangelove Had it Right

Recently your beloved Ostrich Killer engaged in discussions with several global warming / climate change Chicken Littles.  These people have some things in common, to wit:

1.  Science doesn't matter, anecdotes do.

2.  Science doesn't matter, politics do.

3.  A belief that today's climate is the only correct climate for Earth.

4.  Cost doesn't matter.

Yes, these people are true ostriches when it comes to science.  I call them 'enviro-wackos' and I once wrote a poem about the way they think:

Don't bore me with facts 
I don't want to believe.
When you tell me the truth, 
There's plots up your sleeve.

Earth does have a history and cycles, fellow skeptics.  Looking at the geological record, the Earth has a long and rich history of hundred-million year or so warm cycles interrupted by (relatively) short cooling cycles, during each of which the average global temperature was in the neighborhood of 75 degrees Fahrenheit.  It is currently in the neighborhood of 57 degrees Fahrenheit and on the upswing from a low of about 55 degrees, during which low man sprang forth.  This upswing possibly indicates another warming cycle is starting.  ALL of Earth's warming cycles preceded man's appearance on the planet.  Life thrived during most of those cycles.  Continents broke up, moved, re-formed, broke up again . . . Life went on, evolved, and so did the Earth.

And these Chicken Littles think we can do something, anything to prevent the next warming cycle?  Please!

But why should we prevent it, even if we could?  Would that not be - gasp! - unnatural?

Is it not likely that man will also thrive at 75 degrees?  Are we so fragile and unable to adapt / cope that breaking a sweat will make us extinct?  Or are we merely concerned that our coastal cities will gradually move inland to higher ground over a few dozen / hundred / thousand centuries?

What price are we willing to pay to tilt at the global warming windmill?  To erect a "STOP" sign in front of an approaching avalanche?

Global warming, based on geological history, is cyclical and inevitable.  What difference do a few decades one way or another make when one is talking about a hundred million years?  They're less than a rounding error.  And man's impact on those decades - if any - is so far looking like less than a rounding error on that rounding error.

So I'm all for enjoying life and cheap energy.  Cheap energy allows societal growth for less fortunate nations.  Cheap energy allows for mobility, powers industry,feeds people and enables cultivation of grain so I can enjoy a Buckhorn now and then.  Cheap energy gets me down to my boat and back.  Raise the cost of energy and people die.  Simple as that.  But to an enviro-wacko gaea worshipper, that's okay because humans are a scourge on their holy planet.

What is cheap energy?  The EPA says that, for electrical generation, hydro-electric is cheapest, followed by nuclear, followed by oil / coal.  They don't even rate 'green' (windmills, solar, geothermal, warp drives, etc.) sources of energy, probably because they're off the scale in costs and almost invisible in terms of contribution.  So logically we should dam more rivers, build breeder reactor power plants, and drill baby drill.  Because no matter what we do, the next cycle will come anyway.  So, as Dr. Strangelove would advise, stop worrying and learn to love the climate.

Wargaming Global Warming

The Oceans will Rise.  So What?

The eco-alarmists among us would have us believe that global warming exists, and that it is caused by man burning stuff.  While your Ostrich Killer is agnostic about global warming, and a 'denyer' about man's activities being a significant contributor, let's pretend that those Chicken Littles are correct.  So what?

So what?  So what, you ask?  Won't the seas rise a couple feet over the next century or so as polar ice melts?  Won't millions of people living on the coasts flail about in the suddenly high water?  

No.  Oh, the seas would rise, all right.  But not over night.  They will rise minutely each year.  And each year, as coastal communities continue to build and evolve, those that build will build high enough away from the actual coastline that their structures are safe.  The sea will gradually reclaim the existing shorelines and create new ones.  The shapes of those new shorelines will be different than the existing shorelines.  So will the shapes of the coastal communities.  This rise in the oceans will be, for all intents and purposes, unnoticed and unfelt.

So no need to panic.  You don't need to wear a life preserver when you go to bed.

But even better news: we seem to be in a cooling period, not a warming period.  So if you lose sleep over the size of the arctic ice packs, you can sleep easy.  If you worry about the shape of the existing coastlines, you can sleep easy.  On the other hand, if you were hoping you wouldn't have to keep heating your home into the month of May, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

And now for some coffee.  

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW 'CLIMATE CHANGE'

The envirowacko fringe has apparently adopted a new tactic in the face of growing skepticism over human-caused global warming: they've de-emphasized the 'human caused' part of their rhetoric, and they've changed the concern to 'climate change.'

Convenient. Now no matter which way the climate changes, they can say they warned us.

New flash: the climate is always changing. Never in the history of this planet has it just sat there, twiddling its thumbs. No, sir. It's always changing - sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always. So announcing that the climate is changing is comparable to announcing that the dead vegetation littering North America right now will start to turn green in a few months. Both climate and foliage greening are cyclical, and just as certain. And both will take place with or without Man's impact, if any.

So why the big concern by these envirowackos? The short answer is, it isn't about climate at all. It's about sucking tens of trillions of dollars out of the world's productivity in order to create a global serfdom, dependent upon government benevolence for simple subsistence; enslaved to work but not excel; survive but not thrive; obey but not dare to challenge. A humanity of that sort can be easily ruled. So - you think your Ostrich Killer is paranoid again? Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Want proof?

Think for a moment: do you REALLY think that these envirowackos will call for more SUV sales should climate change mean cooling? You remember that these envirowackos and their pet 'scientists' have hammered at us for years that carbon emissions were heating up the planet. So wouldn't it be logical, if we discover we are actually cooling, to want to increase those carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse that cooling? Build more coal-fueled power plants. Burn more wood openly. Oh, there are many ways to increase carbon emissions. But have you heard even one of these guys suggest anything of this nature?

You can certainly think of many more things they've said or pronounced as gospel that they simply will not reverse, no matter whether the climate is cooling or warming. That's because the goal is not reducing the rate of climate change, it's eliminating profit and productivity, thereby 'taming' the human population so that it depends on government for meals and health and transportation and entertainment, which of course means they'll be easily ruled. Got unclean, anti-government thoughts in your head? Your food ration will be cut. Say anything the government might not like? Avoid the hospital . . .

Energy drives the world's economies. Energy comes from coal and wood, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, and oil. All other sources of energy combined make up about one percent of output. But the envirowackos will tell you that coal and wood, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric and oil are unacceptable. So what does that leave us with to drive the world's industries, to light the world's cities, to heat the world's homes, to fuel the global transportation grid?

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. Without access to cheap energy, we grind back into a pre-industrial revolution agri-economy. A massive, global feudalism similar to that which existed in King Arthur's time. It would almost seem that the envirowackos are targeting energy on purpose, wouldn't it? What better way to lower productivity than to deprive it of energy? What better way to eliminate profit than to make industry impossible due to lack of energy?

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but expect to think about this as you listen to the news about climate change. If you don't believe in this conspiracy now, just wait.