Fri - March 2, 2007

Common sense global warming FAQ


Considering how confusing the issue is, I thought I would put a brief FAQ together. This is a work in progress, I welcome comments and suggestions.


Why do you have a problem with the global warming theory?

Actually it is several theories bound together in one dogma that people aren't allowed to question.

I've no problem with theories until someone starts demanding I change my behavior to accommodate the theory. Then I want to see facts, or at least observable evidence. I've not see that yet with human caused global warming.


Several theories?

Yes, several theories. To keep things brief and sort through the confusion, I break the global warming theories into two groups, the political theories and the climate theories.

For most people, the only reason to consider the political is because of the climate.


So what are the climate theories?

That is where things get confusing. I've read several books on it, studied what I could, cross indexed and drove myself nuts.

In basic terms, the climate theories of global warming say that the global temperature is increasing catastrophically and human produced greenhouse gases are to blame.

I don't agree with the "science" because it doesn't seem to be backed up with observations, just computer projections.

Supposedly greenhouse gases increase the amount of water in the atmosphere and that leads to warming. Sure enough, high humidity can increase temperature.

Unless the water in the atmosphere turns to clouds, which can lower the atmospheric temperature.

We don't yet understand what makes atmospheric water clouds or just very humid air.

Then there is how the temperature is measured. A parcel of land as small as an acre can have different temperatures at opposite ends, based on everything from soil composition to caves to vegetation to groundwater. It's one thing to look at the map and say that Cincinnati is 72 degrees, but is that downtown or uptown? Do the suburbs run cooler or warmer? Los Angeles is much more spread out than New York City, so why does it get only one temperature?

Finally, there is the assumption that excess carbon dioxide is bad. Plants live on carbon dioxide, much as animals live on oxygen. More carbon dioxide means more plant growth, which in turn means more oxygen. You can't take one piece out of the cycle and say "this is BAD."


Can you give specific examples?

I could, but it would make this FAQ incredibly long. One draft was about twenty-seven pages before I decided to focus on common sense instead of facts, statistics, and charts.


Didn't you write something about global warming science before?

Yep, I did. I listed four questions. In my opinion, each of these questions should be answered before we can justify taking action.

So here are my questions.

1. Is it unusual?
2. Is it entirely or mostly human caused?
3. Is it evil or bad?
4. Can human action reverse or slow it?

Unless each and every one of these questions is answered "yes," there is no moral need to confront global warming. We will return to that moral need in a bit.

Perhaps the biggest disservice that the global warming movement has done is convince people that our weather is unusual. Weather is a natural cycle and natural cycles change all the time. For example, I live not far from the Grand Canyon and the Petrified Forest. Both are the result of geological changes taking place over thousands of years.

Specific weather is not predictable, especially not long range. You can't tell me what the exact temperature will be next June 3 at 9:07 in the morning. You can told me the probable range, and that will get better as we get closer to the date. Even then, it's only one spot on the globe. The weather in Newark doesn't have any relation to the weather in Houston. Ontario will have different weather than Cairo.

You can't tell me what next year's precipitation is going to be. I am willing to lay odds you can't tell me last year's rainfall, or how that compares with the average.


So why is there all this bad weather?

The simple answer is that there isn't. Two things contribute here. We're plugged into more information and more information sources than ever before. A cascade effect is pretty common, where the same information (right or wrong) hits you from several channels at once, making it seem more important or more widespread than it actually is. That is why the number of channels is not nearly as important as the diversity of channels.

Also, you've been conditioned to look for unusual patterns, even if none exist. If I told you that your grandmother was coming to visit you and she would be in a blue car, you'll pay more attention to the blue cars that pass than you will the other colors.


What about the temperature readings?

I'm glad you asked. The readings aren't entirely accurate, depending on where the weather station is placed, how things have grown up around it, if it has been moved, if the building has been altered, and so forth. Just because there is a written record of temperature doesn't mean it is totally accurate. In fact, many stations have their number "adjusted."

Here is a project to survey all the American weather stations, and here is an explanation of some of the obvious problems with the raw numbers. Thanks to this Coyote Blog entry for cluing me in on the measurement problems.


But don't most scientists believe in global warming? Who are you to say they are wrong?

Here's what I keep stressing. Science is not about what people believe, it's about what can be proven. Yet almost every time lately I see an argument claiming human caused global warming, they always bring up something like "this is what most scientists believe."

Science is not about consensus. Science is about what can be proven because it can be measured and predicted.

By some counts, approximately 75% of Americans are Christian. Certainly an "overwhelming majority," but in and of itself that's hardly proof that Jesus Christ existed. Christianity only comprises about 33% of the world population, which means that an "overwhelming majority" doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, but that is not definitive proof he didn't exist.

Belief does not equal fact.

I can prove that there are Christians but I can't prove Christianity. Just because there are Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is factual, any more than the existence of Buddhists proves that Buddhism is factual. Neither can I prove the case for atheism, nor the case for my own version of Paganism. I can count the number of people who believe, but I can't use that number to prove the case. Beliefs aren't a problem unless someone else demands I change my behavior because their beliefs are absolutely factual and never to be questioned under any circumstances whatsoever. That case demands proof because it depends on objective measurement instead of subjective experience. Only when there is tested proof can we move beyond belief to fact.

Proven science means that the theory must not only account for past and present observations, but can predict future conditions. Here's where the global warming theories fall down. No one can take the numbers from five years ago and produce numbers that show what is happening now. That means that future conditions can't be predicted from the theory, which in turn means that there is no science behind the theories of human-caused global warming.

Unless and until global warming can be verified, it is a belief system that must be taken on faith.

In other words, a religion.


How can you say that carbon dioxide doesn't cause warming? I read about this study that says it does!

It's a statistical anomaly. At first glance there seems to be a strong link from about 1975 to 2000, a less strong link from 1950 to 2000, and a weak link from 1900 to 2000. But no one has managed to show a link between carbon dioxide and temperature outside that century. Since 2000, human caused carbon dioxide has increased but the global temperature hasn't.

That's a pretty good guess that something else is responsible.

Our best guess right now is that solar activity is the cause, especially since the polar ice caps on Mars have been retreating for about the same period.


But what about the glaciers falling off into the ocean?

That is what glaciers do. Better to measure the temperature and thickness away from the coast at the interior. Those show no significant change. Neither does the Antarctic interior.


What about the polar bears?

There is a problem there and it is partially caused by warmer temperatures. It looks like the solar activity will die off and the planet will get cooler for a while.

The other major cause for the polar bears dying off is human encroachment and shrinking habitat. Humans and bears occupy about the same ecological niche.

Now we need to consider the political theories.


So what are the political theories?

First, that we can "decarbonize" industry without major economic and political implications.

Second, that government can do a better job at controlling economic actions than the free market.

Third, that a group of elites is better equipped to decide what people need instead of what people want.

Fourth, that humanity's progress in science and technology during the last century or two is tainted and any economic gains because of that progress is EVIL.

There are others, but those are the major ones.


Can we "decarbonize" industry?

No.

In the U.S., a good portion of the power is generated by coal plants or natural gas plants. Shutting those plants down would mean no power and no jobs. There isn't a place in the country that wouldn't be devastated.

Reliable wind and solar power on that scale is years away, maybe decades.

Hydroelectric might be able to pick up the slack, but it would mean damming every river on the continent, probably several times. There would be a huge and probably irreversible environmental impact. Many public lands would be gone. Not to mention the cost of paying for all those dams.

The only known technology that could be scaled up with off the shelf parts is nuclear power, and somehow I don't think that would be tolerated.


Can we at least "decarbonize" transportation?

No.

Ethanol still produces carbon dioxide. It also produces less power than an equal amount of gasoline. Without substantial government subsidies, ethanol costs significantly more than gasoline.

Remember that, ethanol costs more but delivers less.

Government subsidies of ethanol research are driving world wide corn prices up, because as of yet no one has figured out how to use plant waste instead of food crops on a large scale. As of May of 2007, these subsidies have caused corn shortages in Mexico, much higher prices for corn products (especially corn syrup) in the United States, much higher cattle feed prices in the United States, higher milk prices in the United States, and a world wide shortage of milk and milk products for the poor. Beef prices are now going up as well.

Electric cars have a limited range and speed. To increase both, the cars have been pared down to the absolute minimum. There is some evidence that pure electric cars aren't as safe in an accident. Because the range is typically under a hundred miles and the cars take several hours to recharge, pure electrics are useless outside of city driving.

Hybrids are better, but still rely on gasoline for long trips.

And when it comes to freight, well, no one has managed to build the electric equivalent of an 18 wheeler. Without freight services, prices away from seaports would skyrocket.

At this point, an electrical plane is extremely impractical.


Can't government do a better job controlling the economy?

You mean like they did with the ethanol subsidy? Or the Medicare drug plan? Or the gas crunch of the 1970's? Or Social Security? Or the Federal budget?

No, they can't.

A controlled, centralized economy will create high prices and shortages. Not to mention a black market and rampant crime.


Can't some elites decide what is best?

And would those be Republican or Democrat elites?

If it's the side you don't agree with, would you be willing to live under those rules?

What makes the elites so qualified anyway?

Who gets to pick the elites?


What about the environmental issues?

This is probably my biggest problem with the human caused global warming movement. Everything environmental has become secondary to "fixing global warming." You can't talk about pollution without being told that global warming is a higher priority. Water shortages and dropping water tables take a back seat. Forest management to control wildfires is frozen by lawsuits.

I do believe that we humans should take a hard look at the planet and what we are doing to it. Just as one suggestion, why can't we locate more of our industry underground and then build parks above them?

Humans should take an active role, and that means doing something more than it would be "naturally."


What about that moral need?

In times of emergency, people can sometimes be convinced to put aside their needs for the greater good. Our culture recognizes this as noble and honors the sacrifice. But it requires a clear moral need. The question of human caused global warming fails this test because the conditions that demand the moral need must be taken on faith. Unless human caused global warming can be proved, there is no moral need for sacrifice and no "greater good."


As I said, this is a work in progess. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Last Updated December 2, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by NeoWayland

Posted Fri - March 2, 2007 at 05:35 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - July 20, 2006

FAQ - Does NeoWayland have any relationship to the word neoconservative?


The short answer is no.

The long answer is that I was using NeoWayland online long before George W. Bush was elected to office. I was also using it before The Matrix was released, so it has nothing to do with that either.

While it is not my only online identity, it is my primary one and the one that I use in many Pagan forums.

The prefix neo means new. Wayland (sometimes spelled Weyland) was a legendary smith. I prefer to work with ideas and words rather than metal, but the idea is the same. New Idea Smith = NeoWayland. It has other meanings to me, but those are rooted in esoterica and I don't think I could explain well.

Despite my reluctant support for the War on Terror, there really isn't that much else I share with the average neoconservative.

Posted Thu - July 20, 2006 at 07:41 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - June 6, 2005

FAQ - KYFHO: Keep Your Freakin' Hands OFF!


What is KYFHO?

KYFHO is an abbreviation for "Keep Your Freakin' Hands OFF!" only the popular version doesn't use the word Freakin'.

It is concept, a philosophy, a political platform, and a warning, but only if you are willing to back it up.

I first ran across the word KYFHO in a collection of stories by F. Paul Wilson. I've embraced it ever since as a practical philosophy and personal goal.

There are three assumptions that KYFHO rests on.

First, nobody owns you except you.

Second, others have no right to do things to you without your consent, or take the things you value without your consent.

Third, if anyone does try to do something to you without your consent, any and all resistance is justified.

Notice how this matches the so-called "Jeffersonian ideals." Those same ideals of minimum government (or ANY) interference in your life became unpopular with the Great Depression. We've been paying the price ever since.


But didn't the Great Depression show how those Jeffersonian ideals don't work?

The Great Depression was caused in part by a government attempt to control the price of gold. Bet you weren't taught that in history class.

It was prolonged by government interference in the stock market and banks. Without World War II and increased industrial activity, it could have lasted indefinitely.

Industries do best and grow fastest when they are regulated least.

Economic actions depend on the flow of capital. Restrict that, and you restrict your economy.


But don't people deserve to be protected?

From what? Their own mistakes and misjudgments? And I should be required by law to pay for that?

Shield people from the consequences of their own actions and not only will they ignore the consequences, but the costs will be catastrophic. It happened with the savings and loans. It's happening now with the major pension plans. But eventually someone has to pay the bills.

If I choose to give something, that is charity. If it is taken from me by force and given to someone who I didn't choose, that is extortion.


Extortion? That's a little harsh, isn't it?

Is it? If it were anybody but the government doing it, that is exactly what you would call it. Does having the "legal authority" somehow make the action morally correct?


Is KYFHO only economic?

No. KYFHO is self-ownership and responsibility. If you don't harm another, there is no reason for them control you. Government and your fellow citizens have no justifiable interest in your decisions. It shouldn't matter to them what brand bathroom tissue you use, or if you like cold showers or hot baths, or what color your shelf paper is. These are decisions you are perfectly capable of making yourself without some officious bureaucrat sticking their nose in and making those choices for you and without consulting you.

If you let the government decide, from that point on that government agency will always be involved. It doesn't matter if it is marriage, employment, what you eat, what you wear, or what pharmaceuticals you might use. Choices that should be yours are now made for you, always "for your own good" of course. It doesn't matter if you disagree with those choices, you are no longer allowed to make them.

L. Neil Smith made a great point in one of his novels, he thought that insurance companies would be better equipped to give and rescind drivers licenses.

Most business, health, and zoning regulations are designed to benefit the people already there and make it difficult for new people to move in.

Beyond equally protecting the lives, property, and rights of it's citizens, a government has no compelling interest. The rights of the majority do not supersede the minority. The rights of an individual do not displace the rights of another individual.

Give the government power today, and don't be surprised if tomorrow that power is used against you.


Using KYFHO, what do you think should happen?

Start by eliminating all laws that regulate behavior if the behaviors do not cause measurable harm to others That would eliminate most of the existing laws.

You could get drunk and nothing would happen. But drive while drunk and cause an accident and you are in deep deep trouble.

You could own a gun of any kind you like. Use if for anything other than self defense and you will be in deep deep trouble.

You could put anything you want on land you own. But if that anything affects someone else's property by poisoning the water table or polluting the air, you are in deep, deep trouble.

Then make tort and compensation laws practical. Then you could do away with health and building codes.

The idea is that you are free to do exactly what you choose, provided you don't take that freedom from anyone else.


Do you think it will happen?

No. Not yet anyway.

The progressives would have to give up the power to compel economic behavior. The conservatives would have to give up the power to compel moral behavior. The pacifists would have to give the power to compel non-violent behavior. The arms merchants would have to give up the power to compel war. And so on and so forth.

But here is a secret. The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.

Posted Mon - June 6, 2005 at 09:39 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - May 12, 2005

Pagan•Vigil FAQ


What do you mean by "libertarian?"

Let's break this down a bit. "Libertarian" is the modern American name for "classic liberal." In America, the label "liberal" got hijacked in the early 20th Century, although it still tends to be an accurate description in Europe.

A modern liberal can range from what used to be called a "progressive" to socialist. Roughly speaking, a modern liberal is all for personal freedom but feels that economic freedom and opportunity should be controlled by government action so that everyone "benefits equally" in the name of "social justice." In it's more extreme forms, it can mean that good intentions and lofty goals are judged over results.

A conservative tends to value economic freedom over personal freedom. Usually this means removing government obstacles to business while advocating a common moral belief system to join people together, even if someone has to sacrifice in the name of that system. In it's more extreme forms, that can mean dictating the personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs) of individuals through government actions. The bottom line and results take precedence over feelings.

American libertarians want both personal freedom and economic freedom, and they know that always comes with responsibility. Libertarians also believe that the biggest threat to personal freedom and economic freedom is a large government with expanding powers.

There is a very important distinction between a "classic liberal" and a "modern liberal." A "modern liberal" believes that rights are defined by a group and granted to individuals by virtue of their membership in that group. I call this the French model of rights because it's assumptions made the French Revolution possible. A "classic liberal" believes that individual rights exist even if they haven't been defined, and the only restriction should be to prevent an individual from interfering with the rights of another. I call this the American model of rights because it made the United States possible.

You can find more information on the model I used here at the World's Smallest Political Quiz .

If there is a single rule that American libertarians follow, it is "Thou shalt not initiate force." Both conservatives and modern liberals see force as an option if it is for the "greater good."

We libertarians also tend to be idealistic.

I'm not a member of the Libertarian party, so I usually don't capitalize "libertarian" except at the beginning of a sentence. When I say libertarians, I really mean a group unified only by their beliefs, we aren't really organized or anything.

If you think I am off base in my definitions or if I have overlooked something, please let me know .

Just to make things more confusing, the word "libertarian" had completely different meanings up until about the mid-Twentieth Century.


Doesn't that make you a moderate? Aren't you picking and choosing which ideas you like and which you don't like?

No and nope.

Both the modern liberal and conservative movements want an ever increasing government to control individual action, just in different ways.

I don't want the "bad choices" removed "for my own good." I believe that act of choosing helps people to recognize the consequences of their actions. I think that competing with the "bad choices" results in improved benefits in the "good choices."

A libertarian wants the government to leave him and his alone. The only thing that really unites libertarians is their desire for freedom for themselves and their property.

A libertarian wants the government at all levels to be smaller than absolutely necessary.

If I and others like me are anything, it's anti-statist.


What's this I've heard about libertarians and the "Zero Aggression Principle?"

Both conservatives and modern liberals will use force if it is for the "greater good." One problem is deciding just who controls that force, especially when and how it's applied. But the bigger problem is picking the people who decide that "greater good."

Most American libertarians follow the Zero Aggression Principle. "No human has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another." Many libertarians insist that the ZAP is the sole defining characteristic of libertarians.

Prior to the 1960s, I can't find evidence that the Zero Aggression Principle was THE defining characteristic of a libertarian. Yes it was mentioned, but always deriving from other principles. I'm still amazed that I missed that until I started looking closer. Considering some of the other things that were happening in American culture and in the liberty movement, it does make sense in context. If the ZAP wasn't THE defining trait of libertarians in the 1950s, or of (classical) liberals in the 1900s, then obviously the ZAP isn't as central to freedom and liberty as some libertarians say.

I used to sum the ZAP up as "Thou shalt not initiate force." It was practically the only dogma I allowed myself.

But there are exceptions to every rule. Exceptions that you can only invoke at your own peril and at the risk of undoing everything that you believe is right and just. There are times when playing by the rules just invites your own destruction. There are times when certain people game the system, just so no one can honorably oppose their moves.

The Zero Aggression Principle only works as a guideline, not as an absolute.

Depending on circumstances, I'm no longer willing to rule out initiating force. But I'm still smart enough to accept that initiating force could (and probably will) invite total catastrophe.

With apologies to movie purists, "be nice until it's time not to be nice." Tit-for-tat. That's a choice that can only be made by an individual. That's a choice that will always have drastic consequences. Sometimes that's the choice that will support liberty and freedom.

Ultimately, that's the goal, not non-aggression.

The Zero Aggression Principle works when everyone is willing to play the civilization game. But it's not universal. And that is the issue.


Doesn't a government "smaller than absolutely necessary" mean that the government couldn't do it's job?

Exactly. That is a bad thing how?

KYFHO. As in Keep Your F***ing Hands Off!



What's with this pagan nonsense?

It's capitalized, Pagan, just as Christian is capitalized.

I could just as easily ask "what's with this Christian nonsense?" or "what's with this Muslim nonsense?" or "what's with this atheist nonsense?"

Let's just say that I choose to perceive and acknowledge Deity in a different form than you do and leave it at that.



Does that mean that you're one of those Wiccans who runs around claiming to cast spells?

Persistent, aren't you?

I'm not Wiccan.

The "scholarly" description for the path I follow could be described as Celtic Reconstructionist-influenced eclectic solitary. That leaves a lot out. Does that tell you any more than you knew before?

I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just part of the disassociation between a revealed faith and an experienced one. Think of it as the difference between riding a roller coaster and listening to someone tell you about riding a roller coaster. Or reading about someone telling someone else about riding a roller coaster. That doesn't make either more true, but each has it's own characteristics.

As for spells, yes, some of what I do could be considered spells. So could prayer from hundreds of other religions, including all prayers from members of the Big Three monotheistic faiths.

However, none of that has any real bearing on this website EXCEPT that as a member of a minority faith group, I'm sensitive to religious freedom issues. Oh, and technically I am a "person of faith," even if it is not a usual one.

Incidentally, I mean "minority faith group" in the same sense that I mean "libertarian." Neither has any formal membership or hierarchy, those in the group just share common ideas, perspectives, and concerns. Pagans and libertarians are about equally hard to organize, and for about the same reasons.



Who are your gods? What are their names?

Sorry, that is a private matter between me and Them.



You do know that you are going to burn in Hell for worshipping Satan, don't you?

*sigh*

No more than you will be condemned to Tartarus for worshiping the "false" Christian God.

It's not my faith, so I can't really be bound by it's beliefs, can I?

If you won't let me dictate the form of your religion, why should I let you do that to me?

And no, Tartarus is not part of my beliefs.

So let's move onto something other than religion and faith.



What do you mean by part-time trouble maker?

Three things. First, I try to tell the truth and be honest about how I feel when I am asked a question. This can upset people who are only used to hearing unqualified support for their chosen dogma. The chosen dogma isn't always religious.

Second, when someone is passing themselves off as something they are not in order to gain influence or power over, I will stick out my metaphorical foot to trip them up.

Third and most importantly, when something threatens either individual freedom or personal responsibility, I will do what I can to stop it cold.

Now, those things don't pay the bills, so I can only afford to do it part-time.



Individual freedom or personal responsibility?

You really can't have one without the other. Each one alone is limited. I think that is the mistake that both modern liberals and conservatives make.

Many promote their own freedom, but only at the expense of someone else. Others don't want to face the consequences of the things that they have done.

You should be free to choose as long as your choice doesn't interfere with another, BUT you should accept responsibility for your actions and words.

Put individual freedom and personal responsibility together and the result is an incredibly potent catalyst that has been known to shake nations.



But doesn't everyone do that already?

Not by a long shot.

Take out the people who are convinced they have the only method to utopia while destroying everything else in the process, the people who are only looking to scam a better angle on the game, and the people "beaten down by the system," and there is only a remarkably small portion of the population left.

The people "in charge" don't want anyone else to know about freedom joined with responsibility because the combination is "too dangerous" and could threaten their personal power base.



Aren't you overreacting and exaggerating?

*shrugs* Suit yourself.

But you might want to ask why so many of the present laws and regulations in the U.S. and worldwide protect either individual freedom or promote personal responsibility, but seldom do both at the same time. And why does the cost to one usually more than offset the benefits to the other?



What are you doing about it?

This blog, among other things.

I'm not looking to establish my own utopian pagan paradise. I just know that if enough people know enough of things that happen, there will be changes. I have no idea what form those changes will take or what the effect of those changes will be on me personally. I just know in the long run, those changes likely will be beneficial.

That's why I am keeping vigil. Watching out for both the Left and the Right, those with faith and those without, those nationally focused and those globally focused. Alone, any one group is a disaster waiting to happen, With each struggling for attention, all sides together keep any one side from absolute dominion and the competition forges answers beyond the capabilities of any single group.

I have this crazy idea that the internet can help do that.



What qualifies you to keep vigil?

Other than the things I've already listed, not a lot.

But remember, some "experts" already made the choice for you that put us in this state of affairs, and the modern version of those experts don't want you to look too closely or you might see things that you don't like.

I'm not looking to "lead a revolution" with this blog. I just want to help people connect with each other and with the information they need to make a difference.

It's more than just black and white.

Last updated Tuesday, April 7, 2009
© 2005, 2006, 2009 NeoWayland, All Rights Reserved

Posted Thu - May 12, 2005 at 06:56 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved