The earth is a cube

This statement is “missing” in the “debate” about listening to all sides.

Are those who want us to listen to all “sides” on climate change willing to listen to flat earth “theories”?  Or cube earth “theories”.

I doubt it.  It has been well established that the earth is “round”: round as the irregularities of its surface permit.  And it has been well-established the earth is warming because of human activity.

If fossil fuels are being pulled out of the ground and not replaced, wouldn’t it stand to reason that more carbon dioxide is being put into the atmosphere?  If carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, wouldn’t it stand to reason that more carbon dioxide would warm the earth?

The only counter to this trend would be a substantial increase in the number of plants taking in oxygen.  If anything, we are reducing the amount of space for plants with more and more freeways, parking lots, and buildings.

Exxon-Mobil and Adam Smith

The New York Times (2017-08-22) had a long article on how Exxon scientists had predicted climate change but advertised that the science was unsettled.  See "What Exxon Mobil Didn't Say", https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html.

Many employees and other shareholders are suing Exxon-Mobil for hiding the potential loss of assets as less fossil fuels are used.

I submitted the following quote from Adam Smith:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [those who live by profit], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

I was surprised that it was approved almost immediately after I posted it.  Often my postings of this quote are ignored.   See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html?comments#permid=23840021.

Quote of the Day: Ideas vs. Ideologies

“What unifies [a large social movement] is ideas, not ideologies.  There is a difference between the two; ideas question and liberate, while ideologies justify and dictate.” - Blessed Unrest, How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming: Paul Hawken, ©2007

Unfortunately, we seem to have politicians who have ideologies rather than ideas.  A great deliberative body cannot have ideologies.  How can one deliberate when one has fixed ideas and doesn’t want to be confused with the facts.

Wasn’t it Pete Seeger who sang about the best politicians money can buy and that we elect them again and again.  Not quite: “What did you learn in school today" has “elect them again and again” but not “money can buy”. See http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Pete_Seeger:What_Did_You_Learn_In_School_Today%3F.  It was Morey Amsterdam who said, "Our Congress is the finest body of men money can buy.”  See http://likesuccess.com/topics/3033/finest.

http://www.blessedunrest.com/ hasn’t been updated since 2008.  However, see http://www.paulhawken.com for current updates about his activities.  The homepage features his latest book: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.  Maybe I’ll read it when I finish Blessed Unrest.

Global warming caused by warming oceans?!?

A recent argument I’ve seen is that it is not carbon dioxide that is causing global warming but warmer oceans.  See http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/23/rick-perry-got-tongue-lashing-from-american-meteorological-society-did-deserve-it.html.

Although the author, Roy Spencer, is a meteorologist, I question his attacking climate scientists for using global warming to get funding.  Spencer defends Energy Secretary Rick Perry for stating that the “control knob is the ocean waters and this environment we live in."

Ocean waters are responsible for global warming?  How do ocean waters get warmer?  Increased under-ocean volcanic activity?  Hotter sun?  Or maybe it is hotter air, caused by carbon dioxide not letting warmer air dissipate!

Could it be that Rick Perry has ties to oil companies?  See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/perry-oil-industry-energy-department/.

Note also that Spencer is a meteorologist, not a a climatologist.

“Donald Trump dead from fatal heart attack!”

Wow!  Did I get your attention with this false news!

It is based on an 2007 WrestleMania event.  I’ll let you read the details at http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/04/thenewyorkeveningcom/news-trumps-death-fake-his-wrestlemania-appearance/

There are a whole bunch of web sites that put out almost any kind of distorted news.  Politifact uncovers many of them.  This particular item was given a “Pants on Fire” rating.

Politifact is really non-partisan, but some of those who it criticizes don’t like being exposed.  Unfortunately, those who need criticism more often act offended more often.

Another good site for fact checking is FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.  Vanessa Schipani really took a good look at some of the Republican small concessions on climate change: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/precision-in-climate-science/.

Whatever you read or watch, be sure to use more than one source for your news.

By the way, the worst I wish for Donald Trump is that he sneak off into the sunset with his tales between his legs.

Busy feeling sorry for myself

My wife has had a long-standing cold that just doesn’t seem to go away.  She manages to do some of her chores but spends a lot of time reading.  Meanwhile, I just went on hale and hearty.

Then bam!  Last week I lost all my energy.  I first attributed it to splitting wood. lots of ice chipping, and a heavy workout at the fitness center.  But no, my cough got worse and my nose ran a lot.  I gave up on going to the cabin.  Fortunately, we had a thaw and the snow is almost gone (in February, in Duluth Minnesota?  Global warming is a hoax?)

Wait!  If you don’t like the weather in Minnesota, wait five minutes.  It is raining, the temperature is dropping, and we have snow!

My energy level was just sufficient to read books and newspapers.  Let’s see, I got through both of Aaron James’ “Asshole” books,  I finished another non-fiction book and got half-way through a fourth.  Today, I just had to finish Lisa Scottoline’s Courting Trouble.  Wow!  Does it twist and turn.

Now, I have to gather all the notes I made from reading newspapers, sort out what I have already made blog entries about, and write something that is a different take on what is being published.

I hope i don’t have to shovel snow tomorrow!

Quote of the Day: Pass law to say science is wrong

“I think this is a brilliant solution, if your science gives you a result that you don’t like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved.” - Stephen Colbert

Quoted by Robert S. Young, “A Scientists’ March on Washington Is a Bad Idea”, New York Times, 2017-01-31, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/a-scientists-march-on-washington-is-a-bad-idea.html

His argument is that a march politicizes science and then gives anti-scientists opportunity to denigrate scientists yet again.

Young cited a case in which the North Carolina legislature passed a law “that barred state and local agencies from developing regulations and planning documents anticipating a rise in sea level.”  This was in response to the uproar from real estate and economic development interests.

Let me guess.  All these who supported the law were all for free markets.  That is free to withhold crucial information from buyers who in a true free market have all the information they need.

Create jobs! Bring back whaling!

"In fact, his approach may be even more antique: Fixating on Canada’s tar sands — where the economics of extracting low-quality crude have driven one big company after another out of that oil patch — is roughly equivalent, in its energy logic, to planning a sperm whale expedition."

Bill McKibben, "On Pipelines, Donald Trump Looks Backward", New York Times, 2017-01-25 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/opinion/on-pipelines-donald-trump-looks-backward.html.

McKibben also points out that more people are employed in solar energy than in extracting coal, oil,  and gas.  When the Keystone pipeline is completed, it will only employ 35 full-time workers, most of the work being done with sensors.

I recommend reading the full article.  McKibben has many more ideas that are worth quoting.

Just who are the 3% of climate scientists?

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the science of global warming.

One, carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas.

Two, carbon dioxide is created by burning carbon: wood, coal, oil and its by-products.

Three, if wood is used and replanted, we have a virtuous cycle.  Wood is burned and trees take up the carbon dioxide, making more carbon

Four, if coal or oil are burned, they are taking carbon from under the ground, but there seems to be few ways to convert this carbon dioxide into underground carbon.
.
Five, geothermal on a large scale is not an answer.  It may not be adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but it is taking heat from underground that is not put back underground.

Six, nuclear energy is not the answer.  First, it generates a lot of heat that must be dissipated somewhere.  Second, what do you do with the very hazardous waste?

That leaves only with wind, solar and tidal power.  It is bad enough that there are naysayers about global warming, but each of these energy sources has problems with storage for when they are not available.  No wind, no sun, or no nearby tides.

The way technology is changing, the storage problems may be solved in the next ten years or so.  Battery technology is improving in power and cost.  Will dynamos or capacitors be far behind?

Oh, by the way, who employs the three percent who claim not enough evidence has been gathered to confirm global warming.  Could it be polluters?  Even EXXON scientists are saying that global warming exists.

"Eppur si riscalda!” - “And yet it warms”, a variant of “Eppur si muove” - “And yet it moves”, incorrectly attributed to Galileo after he recanted his findings to the Pope.

Is climate change God's warning to those who pollute?

The Duluth News Tribune had an article about climate scientists who are worried about Donald Trump's proposed appointments.

"Florida climate scientists worry as Trump picks his Cabinet and sea levels rise"

"These choices dismay Dan Weiss, a clean-energy consultant who has led climate change programs for several major environmental organizations.

“'Nominating climate science deniers to head EPA, Energy and Interior is the same as appointing an arsonist to head the fire department,' he told McClatchy. 'South Florida should get used to higher floods than it has today.'”

- Duluth News Tribune, 2016-12-22.

Maybe global warming is "fire the next time"?

China to become leader of the free-breathing world

With Donald Trump’s appointments leaning to climate change deniers, it is interesting to note that China is being very aggressive about addressing climate change.

See “China emerges as global climate leader in wake of Trump’s triumph”, Isabel Hilton, The Guardian, 2016-11-22.

Quote of the Day: TV viewers vs. newspaper readers

"Yes, I know, people should be paying more attention [to candidates climate change plans or lack thereof]— but this nonetheless tells us how easy it is for voters who rely on TV news or don’t read stories deep inside the paper to miss what should be a central issue in this campaign."

- Paul Krugman, "What About the Planet", New York Times, 2016-10-07, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/what-about-the-planet.html

It makes no sense?

Some weeks ago I was in a coffee shop when one of those who has to talk to the whole room was holding forth.  He repeatedly exclaimed “It makes no sense” with regard to gas prices rising after haven fallen so low.

Rather than going over to his table and joining the conversation, I just stayed where I was and kept quiet.

However, in the true free market sense, it does make perfect sense for more than one reason.

First, the number of producers of oil was way up.  When a commodity becomes plentiful the price goes down.  But when the price becomes too low for some to make money, they drop out.  The number of producers drops and the price starts to climb.

Two, traditionally the price of gasoline rises in spring and fall as refiners switch the blends to match the season.

Three, as the price dropped, more people drove more.  As they drove more, the demand for gasoline increased.  As demand increases so does price.  That’s the “free market”.

I don’t know whether this exclaimer was a “liberal” or a “conservative”, but this is the kind of view that some who call themselves “conservative" hold.  These “conservatives” are ready to blame anybody but themselves for almost any problem.

Ironically, these up and down gasoline price movements are one of the few really free markets we have in our “free market” economy.

There are many buyers and sellers.  Many sellers if we limit sellers to those extracting the oil.  It is not so with refiners where we have relative few; one refinery can be producing gasoline for an entire region.

Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market.  Many drivers can change their driving habits: make fewer trips or use other transportation.  Drillers do turn their rigs off and on and explore more or less.

Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision.  For the most part, gasoline is a price-driven commodity.  Despite what the oil companies say, the product is the same from station to station.  For the station, it’s mostly is the credit card good.

All costs are covered by the transaction.  This is where gasoline fails miserably.  We don’t pay for the pollution and global warming caused by our “freedom” to drive when, where, and how much we drive.

I wish more of what happens made as much sense as the ups and downs of the price of gasoline.

Free opinion vs. free speech

The Duluth News Tribune ran a Pro/Con about free speech and climate change.  The Con was an article by H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute.  He claimed that climate change deniers should be protected by the First Amendment: the right of free speech.  I think he seriously misreads the Constitution and established law.

According to him, we should all be free to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.  According to him, there should be no libel laws to prosecute those who slander another.

He somehow conflates opinion with lying.

I could say H. Sterling Burnett is a jerk, and all he could do would be to refute my statement.  He could not take me to court for my statement.  On the other hand, if I said that H. Sterling Burnett embezzled the Heartland Institute of $100,000 when he did not, then he has every right to deny me my “free speech rights” and take me to court for slander.

Check out what Wikipedia has to say about The Heartland Institute.  Among other nefarious activities they worked with " Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans”.  So, if an organization denies the dangers of smoking, should we believe them when they claim there is no climate change?  They are not stating an opinion; they are lying to the public for the benefit of their paymasters.

His article was only published by two newspapers that I could find.

http://www.thegleaner.com/opinion/deniers-have-a-right-to-voice-their-opinions-3011c156-e057-4103-e053-0100007f3587-375715371.html
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/national-view/4017028-procon-should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted

I hope most other papers had the common sense not to do so.

The climate scientists are the fire marshals telling theater owners there should be no smoking in their theaters.  The climate change deniers are the owners who insist their free speech rights are being denied if they can’t tell their customers there is no problem.  Guess who will be successfully prosecuted when one of those crowded theaters catches fire?

Looking for mainstream climate skeptics

The Duluth News Tribune published a letter from Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition

I searched for “International Climate Science Coalition” as well “Tom Harris” in the following newspapers:

New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Toronto Star
Star Tribune (Twin Cities of Minnesota)
Los Angeles Times
Ottawa Citizen

I only found two references to these searches.  One was a letter from Tom Harris similar to the letter he submitted to the Duluth News Tribune; it was date 2015-05-01. The other was about a scientist connected to Harvard and the Smithsonian who wrote a paper skeptical of climate change.  He didn’t disclose that he received funds from the oil industry.  See
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/26/harvard-smithsonian-climate-change-skeptic-accused-violating-academic-disclosure-agreement/Y1uMQ8yuLpYCjOHGckRArO/story.html

General Ization battles truth

Originally published in
Reader Weekly
April 26, 2007

I meant to write about the General’s sister Globa L,. but several articles, including in the Reader Weekly, made writing about the General seem more timely.

Generalization is taking something specific and applying it to many other situations that might not have any relation to the original event or idea.  One of the worst examples is calling Jews “Christ killers” because a mob called upon Pilate to crucify Jesus.  But does a mob in one part of one city represent all the people of a country?  Is every child in that country responsible for the actions of a mob?  Should these children’s descendants be responsible for something they had no say in?

We certainly don’t like certain Muslims deciding all Americans should die because of the actions of governments that we can’t always control.

One of the most frequent generalizations is “the media is liberal”, seen most often in the letters to the editors of daily papers.  These letters are often written by someone who has a “conservative” agenda and doesn’t want to see anything published that contradicts his or her viewpoint.  Ironically, the publication of these letters proves the writers are correct; publishing many different viewpoints is a liberal action.

On the other hand, many so-called liberals complain that the media is conservative.  The Reader Weekly publishes the views of two columnists who often level this charge.  I long ago gave up on reading Norman Solomon because he derides “the media” for not covering news as he thinks it should.  Jim Hightower recently complained about media bashing Democrats for investigating the Justice Department using two publications as an example.  Then he uses a poll by USA Today to show popular support for continuing the investigation. (1)  The papers that I read, all called “liberal”, report that even Republicans are dissatisfied with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony.

“Mallard Fillmore”, the conservative duck drawn by Bruce Tinsley, bashes liberals and government mercilessly.  One of his favorite targets is the U.S. Postal Service.  One of his recent strips was a reply to an “irate postal worker” asking when Mallard would stop bashing the Postal Service.  Mallard’s reply was “When they stop bashing my packages.”  My question is when is Mallard going to bash UPS or other package carriers for bashing his packages. (2)

I’ve probably received more damaged packages from UPS than I have from the Postal Service.  Does that mean UPS bashes packages more?  No, I have to take into account that I probably receive more packages from UPS than any other source.

Ad hominem arguments are a form of generalization, that is, an idea is not very good because a certain person said it.

I would suppose that the income tax is a bad idea because Marx and Engels called for it in “The Communist Manifesto”.  Oh, but conservatives in Britain imposed an income tax in 1799.  The British Government needed all the revenue it could get in its struggle against Napoleon’s France.  Despite income and property taxes going from 1.67 million pounds in 1799 to 14.6 million pounds in 1815, the British economy prospered. (3)  Napoleon had to rely on indirect taxes because the French were resistant to more direct taxes.  Guess who won the war.

Many conservatives seem to use ad hominem thinking to formulate their positions.  They see global warming as a liberal cause, and therefore they must oppose it.  Some of these global warming skeptics use generalizations to support their arguments.  Many letter writers say the cold weather in March proves there is no global warming, mixing up meteorology and climate (weather today and weather trends spanning decades and centuries).

Global warming skeptics also use “positive” ad hominem thinking.  If someone who seems to have some scientific stature supports his or her viewpoint, then that person must be correct.  (Like all those liberals who are praising Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which I haven’t seen and don’t intend to.)  One of these global-warming skeptic documents was supposedly signed by 17,000 (or was it 20,000) scientists stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide … is causing, or will, … cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (4)

But who are these 17,000 scientists?  Are they all climatologists or chemists employed by oil companies?  Are there even 17,000 climatologists in the world?  It turns out that these scientists are anybody with a degree who signed a certain petition. (5)(6)  I think I would rather go with the opinion of people who regularly study weather and climate. (7)

If climate change is not happening, why is the corporation liberals love to hate, Wal-Mart, going green, saving itself and its customers money? (8)

Generalizations about conservative and liberals certainly don’t always work out as expected. Truth takes a bit more work.

P.S. Do your own search on "17,000 scientists" and "Marshall".  I did and found the "Global Warming Petition Project".  I looked for a unique name in the A section and found "David Acerni" and did a search for him.  There is only one "D Acerni" at whitepages.com.  He lives in Kittaning PA.  According to a Department of Energy spreadsheet from 1999, he was the contact for the Rosebud Mining Co. of Kittaning PA.  I can find no current professional reference to him.

(1) “NYPD’s ‘intelligence’”, section titled “Why media companies get no respect”, Jim Hightower, Reader Weekly, April 12, 2007

(2) “Mallard Fillmore”, Bruce Tinsley, Star Tribune, April 13, 2007

(3) The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy, p. 130

(4) “Gore causes lobal warming in area middle school brains”, Budgeteer News, April 15, 2007

(5) “What the skeptics don’t tell you”, Woods Hole Research Center

(6) “The denial industry”, George Monbiot, The Guardian, September 18, 2006

(7) Climate Change: An information statement of the American Meteorological Society, Feb. 1, 2007,

(8) “The Power of Green”, Thomas Friedman, New York Times Magazine, April 15, 2007

See also "General Ization's power grows".

©2007 Melvyn D. Magree

Capitalists vs. Scientists

First, just what is a capitalist.  Most are definitely not the little top-hatted guy in Monopoly or big-hair Donald Trump.  Surprisingly, if you look in the mirror you might see a capitalist.  A capitalist is a person who provides money, directly or indirectly, to the funds of a company, be it Behemoth Industries or Tiny’s Corner Store.

If you are contributing or have contributed to a company pension plan, you are a capitalist. Most pension funds invest in stocks or bonds.  If you invest in an IRA or 401K, you are likely a capitalist. We could quibble whether an investor in government bonds is a capitalist.

Government “bureaucrats” are often capitalists.  CALPERS is the pension fund for many California public employees, whether they are school teachers, snow plow operators, or motor vehicle clerks.

Union members are capitalists.  Teamsters employed by UPS can have 401K accounts managed by Fidelity Investments.

Who we think of as capitalists sometimes really aren’t capitalists in the sense of putting their own money into a company.  These “capitalists” are executive hirees who are given humongous stock benefits to run a company.  These hirees or those who inherit a company from a parent can be, but not always, focused on short-term profit without consideration to the environment, employees, or customers.

Fortunately, there are many capitalists, both stock owners and corporate hierarchy that think of the long term effects of their businesses.  Unfortunately, it is the short-term profiteers who too often have the ears of politicians to serve their short-term interests.  These are the people that Adam Smith had in mind when he wrote, “This order of men is not to be trusted…”

These short-term thinkers are the ones who do everything they can to discredit those who get in the way of their profits, be it in food, medicine, or climate.

Many CEOs don’t care about the long-term consequences of their actions.  Scientists do.

Scientists are the ones who seek out answers to life’s persistent questions: what causes this disease and how do we best cure it, what is the safety of our air and water and can we make it better, and what is happening to our climate and can we mitigate any adverse effects?

All of these scientists have had their detractors who use all the tools they can find to discredit the scientists: “junk science”, “just a theory”, “doctored data”, and lists of “scientists” who disagree with the scientists doing the actual work.  Everything except do some actual scientific work to evaluate the evidence on its merits.

Newspapers have been filled with letters denying global warming, aka “climate change”.  They almost seem orchestrated with far-fetched “proofs” that there is no climate change.  One is tempted to put these deniers on an Arctic ice floe in the winter and see how soon they call for help in the summer.

I was inspired to write this column after having had on my to-read list for a very long time Michael E. Mann’s “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”. I finally read it. I knew that many distortions had been made about climate research, but Mann provided many of the details.

“The Hockey Stick” relates to the graphs showing global warming.  The graphs aren’t nice straight lines with a sudden rise up, but they are lots of squiggles as temperatures vary from year to year but in a band that doesn’t drift very far.  Then in the middle of the Nineteenth Century the band angles steeply up.  Mann has been attacked for manipulating data, for leading a cabal of renegade scientists, and for much more, but his results have been replicated independently by others many times over.

You probably read about the falsifying of data by climate researchers at the University of East Anglia.  But, did you read that the email was hacked and phrases cherry-picked from them? One example of the deceit of the hackers was to rewrite a sentence using “trick” as a clever way to do something to imply that the “trick” was deceit.

Time and time again, the deceit is on the part of the deniers, and very few reporters follow up with the truth.  Very few of these follow-ups make it to the front pages or opening news bites. Unfortunately, there are too many news outlets that will never admit they are wrong, especially if the truth doesn’t match the owners’ view of the world.

One weapon that deniers have is a Congress which is now heavily weighted with Senators and Representatives heavily subsidized by certain old-style energy interests.  This weapon is a double-barreled shotgun.  One barrel shoots out thousands of misleading statements about global warming.  The other barrel shoots out subpoenas to climate researchers to appear before Congress.  Often researchers have to appear because many of their funds come from Federal grants.  These subpoenas have the effect of taking the researchers from their work and providing a grandstand for the deniers in Congress.

After I finished Professor Mann’s book, I had an exchange of emails with him.  One paragraph I wrote was a parody of Galileo being put under house arrest for asserting that the Earth moved around the Sun (Eppur si muove):

“Sen. James Imhofe, Pope of the Wholly Wrong Church, condemned Michael Mann to house arrest for the heresy of questioning a static climate.  As Mann was condemned, he muttered, ‘It’s still getting warmer!’”

Mann replied that in many of the hearings he was tempted to mutter: “Eppur si riscalda”.

No harm to humans: where have we heard this before?

I just watched “The Clean Room” in “Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey” with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Clair Patterson, a graduate student then a professor, spent years trying to determine the age of the earth by the amount of lead, a product of uranium decay.  He kept running into far more lead in the environment than should occur naturally.  He concluded that the lead was coming from tetra-ethyl lead added to gasoline to improve anti-knock qualities.

However, lead is a known neuro-toxin, known even in Roman times.  Chemical industry representatives kept trying to show that leaded gasoline was not a problem.

We still have many people having neuro-toxin problems from leaded paint in older buildings.  But we try to show that their problems are caused by lack of initiative rather than environment.

Now we have the same scenario all over again with vested interests working overtime to “prove” that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a problem.

When will we ever learn?  Those who live by profit are not to be trusted: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

“Junk science” has been junked

Have you seen the charge that some scientist’s work is “junk science” lately?

It always frosted me when I read an op-ed or letter to the editor that charged that some widely accepted scientific work was “junk science”.  “Junk science” is a contradiction.  If it is “junk” then it is not science.  If it is science, then it is not “junk”.  Science is postulating a hypothesis and then testing it.  If a number of scientists can replicate the tests, then the hypothesis can start to be called a theory.

A good example of a hypothesis that couldn’t be replicated was “cold fusion”.  A single lab coming up with a drug to cure whatever is not really proven until hundreds or even thousands of cases can demonstrate the drug gives the desired results.

I think that those who promoted the idea that the mounting evidence of global warming was “junk science” have finally decided that it was a poor phrase to promote their own interest in a denial of global warming.

I was inspired to write this blog by Dr. Phil Plait’s introduction to “50 popular beliefs that people think are true” by Guy P. Harrison:

“The basic property that makes science science is that it’s self-checking.  You don’t just make an assumption; you test it.  You see if it works the next time you use it. And you don’t assume because it did, it always will.”

And for people who dismiss scientific research with, “It is only a theory”, I hope they don’t walk off any cliffs because gravity is only a theory.

God and fossil fuels

If God put all the fossil fuels in the ground, which of these two might have been his will.

1) God put the fossil fuels in the ground to help people prosper when they developed the skills to use those fuels.

2) God put the fossil fuels in the ground to keep people from squandering them and thus destroying his creation.