interceptor

Novas mensagens, análises etc. irão se concentrar a partir de agora em interceptor.
O presente blog, Geografia Conservadora servirá mais como arquivo e registro de rascunhos.
a.h

Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Amputando a variabilidade

Vejamos como Al Gore retratou o aquecimento global:


Considere o período de 1880 em diante.


E como o NOAA o representou:

A diferença entre os gráficos é que o de Al Gore – o 1º - mostra uma estabilidade muito maior até o inicio do século XX, enquanto que o da NOAA não, evidenciando uma variabilidade maior e um aquecimento bastante recente a partir dos anos 80.


Se voltarmos mais de 1.000 anos, a temperatura teria sofrido aumentos similares ao atual – 2.500, 4.000, 5.200, 8.700 e 11.000 anos atrás. Lonnie Thompson em seus estudos sobre glaciares identificou muitos desses períodos quentes: http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf .

Sem falar na linha reta genérica que Al Gore retrata para o milênio passado. Irreal, para não dizer picaretagem...

Monday, February 25, 2008

Banho frio


Segundo uma nota de Phil Brennan publicada no Newsmax e no Front Page Magazine, "So Much for Global Warming", a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) informa que todo o gelo marítimo "perdido" do hemisfério norte voltou. Os níveis, que tinham baixado de 5 milhões de milhas quadradas para 1,5 milhão de janeiro de 2007 a outubro do mesmo ano, já são quase os mesmos de antes. E na Antártida a camada de gelo cresceu um terço acima do seu nível normal.


Isso deve esfriar um bocado o entusiasmo aquecimentista da própria NOAA, senão também o do sr. Al Gore.

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080225dc.html
________________________


Enviado por Ernesto Ribeiro Barboza de Oliveira

Monday, December 10, 2007

Construtora paralisa obras no Pará após invasão por integrantes do MAB

A construtora Camargo Corrêa, responsável pelas obras das eclusas de Tucuruí, no Pará, paralisou as atividades no local depois que cerca de 300 militantes do MAB (Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens) ocuparam na madrugada de quarta-feira o canteiro das obras. Segundo nota da construtora, a invasão coloca em risco a saúde dos invasores e a evolução do projeto. A Camargo Corrêa informou que os integrantes do MAB estão ocupando a central de concreto da obra e ameaçam destruir a fábrica de gelo, que possui um reservatório com 7.500 quilos de amônia, produto tóxico que pode levar à morte. De acordo com a construtora, os invasores queimaram cinco equipamentos da empresa (duas motoniveladoras, um ônibus, um caminhão e um rolo compactador) e mantêm em seu poder outros equipamentos. As eclusas de Tucuruí estão sob responsabilidade do Dnit (Departamento Nacional de Infra-Estrutura de Transportes), com a participação da Eletronorte.
Porto Alegre, 10 de dezembro de 2007 - www.Videversus.com.br - nº 853
___________________________________________________
a.h.
Há vários anos que a esquerda paraense vem atrasando o desenvolvimento do estado, com alegados argumentos "científicos", contra as represas na Amazônia. Lembro bem que em 1988 (+-) um auto-denominado "cientista" do Museu Goeldi, chamado Gorayeb - dito membro do PCB - liderou uma rebelião dos ribeirinhos de Tucurui, contra o plano da Eletronorte de combater com DDT os mosquitos causados pela vegetação na represa. Alegava que o DDT destruiria "gerações e gerações" daquela população, que sofria com o ataque dos mosquitos.
Ocorre que a Eletronorte tinha construido casas para aquelas pessoas, até de alto padrão para a região. As casas tinha telas nas janelas, e portas de tela também, dando proteção total contra os insetos. Porém, como as mesmas estavam a dois ou três km do lago, as pessoas foram aconselhadas, pelo "cientista", a não aceitá-las, pois era um desaforo fazê-los morar "tão longe de onde ganhavam a vida" como pescadores.
Ocorre que o lago estava coberto com uma vegetação que serve de habitat para os mosquitos, e por isso a companhia queria levar a população para longe daquele ambiente, e usar o DDT para limpar a área de insetos. A esquerda porém criou problema, convencendo a população de não arredar o pé dali.
Estive lá, com um grupo do Ministério do Interior, examinando o que ocorria. Os mosquitos eram tantos que até as galinhas tinham dificuldade de sobreviver aos mesmos. Exceto que Gorayeb não propunha nenhuma solução, apenas criava um problema, aconselhando a população a não se mudar. A única solução possível, sugeria, era derrubar a barragem!

O mesmo ocorreu, tempos depois, quando da da proposta da barragem de Cararaô, perto de Altamira (que depois teve o nome mudado, por exigência dos índios). Houve uma reunião de todos os índios da Amazônia, promovida pelo CIMI e por ONG's só Deus sabe de onde. Muito dinheiro foi gasto nesse carnaval, quando a india Taira ameaçou de morte, com um facão, o diretor da Eletronorte. Até índios de outros países latinos vieram, e também do Canada e do Alasca (ditos "índios" canadenses e do Alasca tinham pele branca e olhos azuis, batiam tambores e cantavam um bando de bobagens, em lígua que ninguém entendia).
Foi nesse momento quando o roqueiro Sting entrou nessa dança, levando um índio para a Europa, e passeando com ele por lá, fazendo campanha contra o desenvolvimento da Amazônia, que "pertence ao mundo", de acordo com o roqueiro cientista.
Aliás é o mesmo argumento de Al Gore, ex-vice-presidente dos EUA, que agora ganhou o Prêmio Nobel, pelo alerta "científico" de que o mundo está aquecendo através da ação do homem. Pelo menos o idiota do Museu Goeldi era um pesquisador, ainda que de menos importância. Já Al Gore, esse levou pau em todos os cursos de ciência que tomou nas universidades que freqüentou, e sabe tanto de ciência quanto eu sei do chinês mandarim.
Provavelmente essa tal de MAB deve ser uma organização advinda do grupo de Gorayeb, que cresceu ao longo dos anos. Anteriomente não passava de uma meia dúzia de descontentes, liderados pelo "cientista" do Goeldi.
A Amazônia é um saco de gatos, e sempre foi um problema para o Brasil. Não digo que a mesma seja devolvida aos índios, pois esses não têm capacidade de administrá-la. Mais ainda, se isso acontecesse as ONGS estrangeiras entrariam lá com toda a força, o que aliás já estão fazendo, mandando e desmandando no lugar, como se fossem donos dele.
A solução seria parecida com o que proponho para a França, esculhambada pelos islamitas: "Ou est Charles Martel?"
Ou seja, a Amazônia precisa de uma mão forte, como a França precisa de um outro Charles Martel. Isso só os militares brasileiros poderiam fazer, mas eles hoje estão amedrontados e com o rabinho entre as pernas. Quem os salvará?
dgv

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

A religião dos ateus urbanos

http://jewishworldreview.com/0307/blankley030707.php3




Jewish World Review March 7, 2007 / 17 Adar, 5767
Al Gore's remission of sin
By Tony Blankley


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why amongst even the French — the most secular culture on Earth — only 25 percent claim to be atheists, and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.


This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London professor Dr. David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.


While I suspect that most global warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World." (Columbia University Press).


As Professor Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."


Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:


"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism … a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech … Michael Crichton … closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists … a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."


Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.


And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is — a religion. The trouble with global warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science — not religion.


And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks — the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.


At the Academy Awards last month, their spokesman proudly announced that this year's show was "the first green Oscars." These vast consumers of energy — in their 30,000-sqare-foot houses, their Gulfstream jets and even in their high-energy consumption film production process — claimed green remission of sin by virtue of driving the last hundred yards to the Kodak Theatre in Priuses and by buying carbon credits.


Likewise, when Al Gore was revealed to be using high quantities of energy to heat and cool his large home, he claimed it was OK because he had purchased carbon offset credits. Substantively, these offsets are of dubious environmental value (see Daily Telegraph article: "Is Carbon Offsetting a Con"; BBC's "U.K. to Tackle Bogus Carbon Schemes"; Wall St. Journal's "The Political and Business Self-interest Behind Carbon Limits.")


But as, what the Catholic Church calls "indulgentia a culpa et a poena" (release from guilt and from punishment), paying carbon offset fees makes perfect religious sense. The Christian sinner pays the church for "a remission of the temporal punishment due, in G-d's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the church in the exercise of the powers of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive." (Catholic Encyclopedia)


In the animistic church, any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners — such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman.)


In the neo-animist church of global warming — as in all religions — the truth is acquired by faith — not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans.


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking
here.
Archives

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Ponder the Maunder


Facts and Fictions of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Introduction
After Ponder the Maunder was first published, I received many emails from parents whose kids were required to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” They were worried because Al Gore was a politician, an occupation that people just don’t trust.


I’ve watched his movie many times and researched most of his claims. The following essay is a summary of what I learned. I hope it helps.


Kristen Byrnes


Facts and Fictions of Al Gore’s
"An Inconvenient Truth"
By Kristen Byrnes






We all know Al Gore, “the ex-next President of the United States,” the man who scarcely lost his election to George Bush in 2000. Most people also know that he served as Vice President with Bill Clinton for 8 years. What you might not know about him is that his father also was a politician; he was a U.S. Representative and senator of Tennessee for 32 years. With his father’s busy life, Al Jr. was born in Washington D.C, but also spent a lot of time being raised in Carthage, Tennessee on his family’s farm. He went to college at Harvard and graduated in 1969, soon after he volunteered to go to Vietnam as a news reporter for the U.S Army. After he came back from Vietnam he attended Vanderbilt University Divinity and Law School, but won a seat in Congress before he got a degree. As for his political life, I can imagine that you know the story.
Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth does indeed have some correct facts, but as he even says himself, sometimes you have to over-exaggerate to send the message to people:
Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ (Interview with Grist Magazine’s David Roberts and Al Gore about An Inconvenient Truth)
Al Gore said this, so how are we supposed to know fact from fiction in the global warming debate? The following paragraphs will inform the reader of the false claims, the facts, the selective facts and tactics to scare and advertise.
Throughout the film, he made inferences to his personal and political life, which has nothing to do with global warming. When he wasn’t lecturing about his personal life, he was lecturing about how global warming is man-made.
With these lectures he only considered one point of view, and did not consider the other side of the story (warming being natural), which would have made his movie a little more believable. Not only did he not look at both sides, he always assumed that every harmful phenomenon (extreme weather, rising sea levels and horrible diseases) was correlated or associated with global warming and due to “man made” emissions.
Now, lets start at the beginning of the movie, and see what has and has not been misinterpreted.
Beginning with Gore’s introduction of the film, he sounds calm, eloquent, and gloomy. His voice and tone in the introduction grabs the watchers attention. It also makes him look as if he loves nature, and that he really wants to protect his “only home.” Message: Al cares. I believed that Al cares until I learned that Al Gore’s home did not have any solar panels, windmills, geothermal system or any other “green power.” His utility bills for his home and pool house were $29,268 last year when he released his movie.

Not too long after he presents a picture of “Earth Rise,” he claims that 18 months after this picture was taken, the modern environmental movement began. Greenpeace did open their club in 1971. But in “1892 - Sierra Club founded on May 28 with 182 charter members. John Muir elected first President. In its first conservation campaign, Club leads effort to defeat a proposed reduction in the boundaries of Yosemite National Park.”
“June 30, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill granting Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias to the State of California, as an inalienable public trust. This was the first time in history that a federal government had set aside scenic lands simply to protect them and to allow for their enjoyment by all people.”
Al does not seem to consider that his generation was not the first to love and want to protect the Earth.
Farther into the movie, Al explains the greenhouse gas effect. He presents a graphic that shows the sun’s rays heating the Earth’s surface resulting in infrared rays going from the Earth’s surface and back into space. His graphic suggests that some of the outgoing radiation is reflected from the top of the atmosphere and back to Earth. This idea is the basis of anthropogenic (man made) global warming theory. He fails to mention that this effect has never been measured, only calculated, and by scientists on one side of the debate. This is one of the most hotly debated issues in the global warming debate. Not only does this issue involve complicated theoretical quantum physics, but water vapor absorbs infrared radiation. As is often the case in global warming presentations, he forgets that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas; 3 to 4 percent of the atmosphere. And this is important because at most, man-made greenhouse gases are 1/ 10,000 of Earth’s atmosphere.
With his description of greenhouse gases he presented a cartoon clip of the innocent sunrays being beaten up by the Greenhouse Gasses. But is water vapor really a bad thing?
Al also discusses the late Charles Keeling, a scientist who measured atmospheric carbon dioxide for many years. Al accurately describes how the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises and falls with the seasons and why. He shows how Dr. Keeling measured a steady rise in carbon dioxide as the years went by, a trend often called the Keeling Curve. While some people still dispute the levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I do not. For many years, carbon dioxide has been measured in many places and by many means; the results are almost identical in almost every instance.
Next, Al gets right to business showing some of the worlds receding glaciers. According to the national Snow and Ice Data Center, most glaciers around the world are receding. But when you look at scientific studies on individual glaciers you begin to understand that temperature is not always the cause and that all of the glaciers that Al mentions have been retreating for over 100 years.

Let’s start with Al’s first example, Mt. Kilimanjaro. Al might be benefited by the knowledge that Kilimanjaro began receding in 1880 before CO2 began increasing in the atmosphere (Molg et al. 2003a). Also, local temperature records show that there have not been increasing temperatures in the last 100 years (King’uyu et al., 2000; Molg et al 2003, Hay et al., 2002). Additionally, the temperature on the mountain near the glaciers never gets above the freezing point (Georges and Kaser (2002). The glaciers on Kilimanjaro and other mountains in the area are shrinking due to a change in local precipitation. In 1880 the climate in the area changed from a very humid to a very dry climate resulting in less clouds and more direct sunlight. (Kaser et al. 2004).

Al’s second example is Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park. In this case, when you look at the pictures of receding glaciers, it is easy to say that a warming climate is causing the glacier to disappear. But like Kilimanjaro, these glaciers started melting over 100 years ago.
Grinnel Glacier, Glacier National Park. Dates and arrows show melt since 1850
Himalayas - Glaciers have been found to be
in a state of general retreat since 1850 (Mayewski & Jeschke 1979).
In this section he also claims that 40% of the worlds population gets half of their water from streams and rivers that are fed by glaciers. This is an easily confused claim. Rivers that are fed by the Himalayas get most of their run-off from the spring snowmelt. They also have many dams that ensure that water will be available during dry months.

Italian Alps -Since the end of the Little Ice Age (about 1850), the hanging
Glaciers and firn fields have retreated continuously.
Swiss Alps - Abstract. Since the culmination of the Little Ice Age,
Alpine glaciers have been in a state of general retreat.
Peru – The current warming that is melting the Quelccaya glacier in Peru began in 1830 according to Al Gore’s friend, Lonnie Thompson (Thompson 2006) * NOTE: The recent data from this ice core may be contaminated by rainwater that seeped into the top 20 meters of the ice.
And the same is true for all of the glaciers he mentioned. They all started retreating at the end of the Little Ice Age. Most glaciers around the world are retreating while some are not, mainly due to changes in storm tracks. Many of the glaciers around the world slowed or reversed their retreats during the cooling period between 1944 and 1976 and began retreating again after that. Many glacier retreats have accelerated in recent years.
Al then begins a presentation about how temperatures during the last thousand years were relatively stable until the last one hundred years using a graph that looked like the one below:
The data for this graph is from a 2003 study by Al Gore’s friend, Lonnie Thompson, a well-known scientist who studies glaciers. The graph itself has the look of what is known as a “hockey stick” graph. It usually demonstrates that temperatures were stable for the last 1,000 years but suddenly rose in the last 100 years. While this particular graph is used by Al Gore to represent global temperature for the past 1,000 years, the data is only taken from 7 locations in three mountain ranges. In fairness to Al, there have been several studies by scientists who used tree rings etc. from all over the world who have come up with the same general trend.




Now let’s look at two things that Al, and all the scientists who have provided those “hockey stick” graphs never seem to mention. First, if you go back farther than 1,000 years, there were temperature increases similar to today 2,500, 4,000, 5,200, 8,700 and 11,000 years ago. Lonnie Thompson himself in his glacier studies has identified many of these warm periods.

Second, they do not include solar activity, which is at an 11,000 year high. The graph below (Solanki 2006) shows solar activity for the past 12,000 years. In this graph you can see that there was an increase in solar activity during the same warming periods listed above.


Al’s presentation on carbon dioxide quickly falls into the biggest trap in the global warming debate. He accurately tells how scientists measure past levels of carbon dioxide from air bubbles in ancient ice from glaciers. He accurately discusses how scientists can examine isotopes of oxygen in the ice to figure out what the temperature was when the ice formed. He also uses the Vostok ice core graph to show how, over the last several hundred thousand years, temperature and carbon dioxide are closely correlated. He interprets the data, as, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” The graph below is similar to the one used by Al Gore, the blue line is temperature and green line is carbon dioxide going back 450,000 years.

What Al Gore did not mention, and what is very well known throughout the scientific community, is that higher resolution studies of the same ice cores revealed that the temperature changes came first then were followed by changes in CO2. (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004)
During this part of the presentation Al says that when you look at the ice core that you can see the year that congress passed the clean air act. This one makes a lot of people laugh.
For instance, Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington with lots of experience in ice cores and an ardent supporter of Al Gore’s side of the debate said, “At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow.”Al then shows global temperatures for the past 100 years using a graph similar to the one below. “In any given year it might look like it’s going down but the overall trend is extremely clear” I’ve added the green line, which is CO2. What Al does not show you is that most of the warming started before the CO2 increase. He also fails to mention the cool period between 1944 and 1976 does not correlate with greenhouse theory; the globe should have been warming at that time.
Now let’s stop here for just a moment and look at the graph below. We have all heard of El Nino. During El Nino years you see reports on the news about flooding in California, but El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) also has a relation to global temperatures.
The blue shaded areas on the graph show La Nina or ENSO negative conditions (cooling) and the red shows El Nino or ENSO positive conditions (warming). Notice how there is a shift of more ENSO negative conditions before 1976 and ENSO positive conditions after 1976. Remember the year 1976, because it is an important year in later parts of this essay.


When you consider the effects of the 11,000 year solar high and the very positive phase in the ENSO in the past 30 years, you should start to see the real trend and exactly why temperatures changed the way they have in the past 30 years. And before anyone tries to say ENSO conditions are related to global warming or CO2, the NOAA says no it does not. Also, the only person I am aware of who predicted ENSO events several years in advance used a model of solar changes with a hit rate of almost 90%. Al Gore never puts into consideration El Nino’s or solar variation as a part of global warming which is one of his most crucial mistakes.
Al then discusses how many of the worlds cities have broken their temperature records in recent years. This maybe true but much of this is caused by “Urban Heat Island Effect.” Urban Heat Island Effect is when the masses of concrete in cities absorbs heat and holds it longer than vegetation in the countryside. Also, storm drains carry water away that would otherwise evaporate and thus cool the area. One of the problems with surface temperature data is that many of the thermometers are located in cities or airports. As cities grow, the temperature gets warmer. When you look at global temperatures where only data from the countryside is considered, about one third of the temperature increase of the last 30 years disappears.
In the next section Al discusses computer models, which predict future climate. In my view, predicting future climate with computers is a joke. I am not talking about how weather cannot be predicted accurately two weeks in advance; I am talking about predicting climate 50 years in advance. Three big things in nature that affect climate, solar variation, volcanoes and El Nino Southern Oscillation, cannot be predicted 50 years in advance. For example, a strong volcano and two years of La Nina conditions would be enough to eliminate all of the warming of the last 30 years. Also, computer models are not yet updated enough and the effects of many different things that affect climate such as clouds and water vapor are still not understood.
Al then starts his section on weather. He begins with hurricanes. Most people don’t think of El Nino’s being an important to weather patterns, but it is. For instance, not many people would think that El Nino’s suppress hurricanes. Dr. William Gray, considered the world’s best hurricane forecaster, said, “Al Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Dr. Gray forecasts hurricanes in large part with consideration of the El Nino Southern Oscillation.

According to the NOAA,“The primary explanation for the decline in hurricane frequency during El Niño years is due to the increased wind shear in the environment.”


“In El Niño years, the wind patterns are aligned in such a way that the vertical wind shear is increased over the Caribbean and Atlantic. The increased wind shear helps to prevent tropical disturbances from developing into hurricanes. In the eastern Pacific, the wind patterns are altered in such a way to reduce the wind shear in the atmosphere, contributing to more storms.”
Using El Nino data from the NOAA and hurricane tracking information from Unisys I averaged out hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic from 1975 to 2006. I separated them by El Nino, La Nina and neutral years and found that Dr. Gray was right. During La Nina years there was an average of 9 hurricanes and 14 tropical storms with an average hurricane category 2.4. During El Nino years there was an average of 4 hurricanes and 4 tropical storms with an average hurricane category 2. During ENSO neutral years there was an average of 7 hurricanes and 14 storms and an average hurricane category 2. There were no trends that show increasing numbers of hurricanes, tropical storms or strength. The only unusual year was 2005 (ENSO neutral) where there were 15 hurricanes and 28 tropical storms.
In the next part of Al’s weather section he says that tornadoes are getting worse. Al’s claim that global warming is increasing the number of tornadoes is also misleading because new radar and satellite technology allows us to see more of them. The numbers of severe tornadoes, the ones we have been able to track, are decreasing. The graph below is from NOAA and shows the number of strong tornadoes since 1950.

Al then says that Japan set an all time record for typhoons in 2004. This was true except he failed to mention that these were only the typhoons that actually hit the coast of Japan. In reality, the highest typhoon seasons ever recorded were 39 typhoons in 1968 and 33 in 1972 and the 2004 season was normal with a total of 29 typhoons.
(Matsumura et al. 2003 with updated data from Dr. Matsumura 2006)

Al then discusses the first hurricane in the South Atlantic that hit the coast of Brazil in 2004. This was not from global warming, the sea temperatures that year were slightly cooler than normal but the air temperature was very cold causing the kind of temperature difference between surface and air that it usually takes to create a hurricane
In the last part of his hurricane section Gore talks about Hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans in 2005 and was the most expensive natural disaster in American history. Al asks, “Something new for America. How in gods name can that happen here?” I can answer that question for him.

New Orleans is a coastal city that is mostly below sea level. The protective levees around New Orleans were designed to protect the city from category 3 storms. This means that the people that built the levee system were taking a chance. When Katrina hit New Orleans it was a category 4 to 5 storm.
Next, the canal walls that broke down were not being maintained. “But with the help of complex computer models and stark visual evidence, scientists and engineers at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers. That would make faulty design, inadequate construction or some combination of the two the likely cause of the breaching of the floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals -- and the flooding of most of New Orleans.” The Washington Post
Finally, the human toll was a result of people who did not evacuate when they were supposed to and poor planning by individuals who were responsible for evacuating people under their care.
Al then talks about how the insurance industry pays out more money to flood and storm victims. This may be true but is because more people are building expensive beach houses right where the storms hit.
Al continues by showing that there were large flood events in 2005. He also shows that there were more droughts in 2005 in areas not too far from the flooding. He says it’s because global warming is relocating the precipitation. As evidence of this he uses Lake Chad in Africa. Here again, the experts disagree and point to natural climate change. “Fluctuations are not new to Lake Chad. About 10,000 years ago Lake Chad almost filled its present drainage basin, and spilled southwest out the Benue River to the Atlantic. In the last 1,000 years, according to fossil evidence, the lake probably dried out a half-dozen times. (Most of its fish are river-adapted species.) Geologic data, climate data, historical accounts and reconstructions all indicate a higher long-term variability than the relatively short period we have actually measured.”
Next in the movie, Al Gore made several references to temperature increases in Alaska; he showed a picture of what he called “drunken trees.” He discussed how trucks that service the Alaskan pipeline can drive on permafrost roads fewer days of the year and he discussed how some homes and buildings are having structural problems because the permafrost that they were built on are melting. The graph below is a global map that shows warm weather relationships during El Nino winters. This graph shows that Alaska warms up during El Nino winters. So you would expect some melting of the permafrost in Alaska as if spring came earlier or fall came later. The weather patterns in Alaska are controlled by an ocean phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is linked to ENSO.


http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/impacts.html

The graph that Al uses to show the number of days that trucks can drive on the permafrost correlates with the ENSO phase shift explained above.

On the same point Al uses records from nuclear submarines that measured ice thickness, once again the ice begins to thin at the same time that the ENSO phase shift began.

The graph below is temperatures in Alaska for the since 1950. Note how
temperatures changed in 1976.

Al then starts to show how melting ice can accelerate water temperatures in the arctic. The ice reflects sunlight, but after the ice melts the ocean absorbs the sunlight that would otherwise be reflected. This is correct and is called albedo feedback.
Next, Al makes the point that melting sea ice is not good for polar bears. He claimed that polar bears were drowning for the first time according to a scientific study. What he failed to mention was that this was a one-time occurrence. The polar bears drowned because they were caught in a storm while swimming in the ocean.
Polar Bears; Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Seattle, Washington, USA

Al then presents how the Earth moves heat from the equator to the poles using air and ocean currents, this is correct. The temperature at the equator would change very little, and the average increase in temperature for the hemisphere is 1/8 of the temperature increase at the poles.
Al then turns up the scare tactic. Al explains what is known as the Younger Dryas Event. This happened at the end of the last glaciation. The ice sheet on North America was about a mile thick and extended down to a line from Seattle to Indianapolis to New York. Rather than slowly melting and running off, a large lake developed in the middle of the ice sheet about half of the size of Canada. When the ice dam at the edge of the lake burst a huge torrent of water ran off the continent and shut down the North Atlantic Drift current, which provides warmth to Europe and much of Asia. The result was an immediate return to ice age conditions for over a thousand years. With the exception that the Younger Dryas drained through the Mississippi rather than the St. Lawrence, Al did a good job showing this event and it’s effects. But then he moved the focus to the possibility that Greenland might repeat the same kind of abrupt climate changing event. He leaves the audience hanging and says he will get back to that subject in a minute. But I will not. There is no evidence that the ice sheet on Greenland could cause a similar event. This would require the center of Greenland to melt, form a large lake then dump into the Atlantic Ocean all at once, something that the surrounding ocean will not allow to happen. The warmer ocean water surrounding Greenland evaporates then precipitates on the center of Greenland building up the snow pack there. This is already happening and has been observed by NASA. History also tells us something about this not being able to happen. 125,000 years ago the Earth was 3-5 degrees warmer that it is today (IPCC 2007) but ice cores from Greenland date several hundreds of thousands of years farther back. The lesson here is that Greenland could only melt slowly and not dump a huge amount of water into the ocean in a short period of time and create another Younger Dryas event.

After a brief political segment, Al continues with how species are being forced to adapting to climate change. He spoke of migratory birds in the Netherlands and Pine beetles and spruce trees in Alaska. This is true, but there is something you might learn here that Al did not intend to teach you. It is how climate change pushes evolution.

Al then speaks about how invasive species are coming into new areas and competing with native species. We have a similar problem here in Maine. Our lobster and crab industry is very important to our economy. We have two invasive species of crab, the European Green Crab and Asian Crab. But these crabs did not come here by walking across a global warming ocean bottom. They were brought here when they attached themselves to the bottom of boats hundreds of years ago. The same thing is happening to species all over the world; humans are moving them.

Al then gets into the health effects of global warming by claiming that global warming is spreading diseases and the vectors that carry them. He starts with the mosquito lines in Nairobi, Kenya and how the mosquitoes were moving to higher elevations because of a temperature increase. Mosquitoes will not move to higher elevations because of temperature increase. Mosquitoes live in areas where there is water; they are mostly found in shallow streams, ponds, or swampy areas. Another fact about mosquitoes that conflicts with Gore’s statement is that they don’t like to travel, but instead they stay about 1 mile within their breeding area.

The people who researched the malaria problem in Nairobi do not agree with Al.
“Medical researchers Amy Korman and Juma Makasa are investigating the outbreak. The research team suspected that the massive migration from the countryside was linked to the spread of malaria.
Urban gardens are breeding grounds for mosquitoes
And that is exactly what researchers discovered. The Anopheles mosquito was present in Nairobi because the environment was changing. Typical of many newly arrived slum dwellers, Paulina Karugo grows vegetables on a small plot of land behind her home.
Urban gardens are breeding grounds for mosquitoes

But in the process, she and hundreds of others have unknowingly created the perfect breeding ground for the Anopheles mosquito — a hot zone of infection.”

http://www.pbs.org/journeytoplanetearth/hope/nairobi.html


Bats – Most bats eat fruit or insects but a few species suck blood and spread diseases such as rabies. These bats are coming into contact with people due to deforestation and because humans are moving into areas where bats live.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4400000/newsid_4401200/4401264.stm

Fleas—Are the only vectors that can spread due to global warming because they prefer warm, moist climate. The disease that it spreads, bubonic plague, is not on the rise. According to the CDC “in the United States, the last urban plague epidemic occurred in Los Angeles in 1924-25. Since then, human plague in the United States has occurred as mostly scattered cases in rural areas (an average of 10 to 15 persons each year).”

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/index.htm

Lice- Al Gore’s claim that global warming causes the spread lice is a joke, because what actually spreads lice is contact with a person who is infested with the parasite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediculosis

Algae- (harmful algal blooms, HAB) According to the NOAA there has been an increase in harmful algal blooms in the oceans off of North America. NOAA says the cause of these blooms is unknown. Harmful algae produce toxins such as domonic acid; these toxins accumulate in shellfish that are eaten by humans. When people eat these infected shellfish, they usually experience mild side effects, but in extreme cases people have died.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/hab/research/nwfsc_research/algal_growth/index.html

Snails – Can spread several diseases, one such family of diseases is related to “rat lung” or “roundworm.” This disease is spread back and forth when rats and snails eat each other’s feces. There is one confirmed case in the United States that happened when a boy ate a snail “on a dare”. The boy suffered flue-like symptoms for about two weeks.

This family of parasites is more common in Asia and the Pacific Islands and usually is contracted when people eat undercooked snails, but also undercooked crabs and freshwater shrimp.

Katayama’s Fever is another disease spread by snails in tropical countries. Some locals call this infection “swimmer’s itch,” you may have seen movies where people in the jungle were told not to urinate while swimming, because “the bugs will swim up your ding-dong.” Katayama’s Fever usually results in severe urinary tract infections, but some forms of the disease enter the nerves system where they lay eggs in the brain. While this disease has a low mortality rate, life for the infected human host is usually extremely uncomfortable. There are many species of snails all over the world, I have found several articles on the Internet about snails and global warming and they all talk about global warming killing snails, not spreading them. Nevertheless, if you do not want a disease spread by snails, then be careful of what you eat and what you do when you swim at the local waterhole.

http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/angiostrongyliasis.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/angiostrongylus/factsht_angiostrongylus.htm#infectedsnails

In what was another laughable scare tactic, Gore noted global warming worsens various diseases. Below is a list of each disease, their causes and some tips on prevention.



· West Nile Virus – Al gore showed a map of the United States, and how quickly the West Nile Virus spread across the country. Mosquitoes first brought the West Nile Virus to the United States aboard airliners that were not treated with insecticides. Once in the United States the disease spread quickly by native birds and mosquitoes that are plentiful in the United States.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm

· Dengue fever- A disease spread by mosquitoes, and was a serious problem until the 1950’s. Between 1950 and 1970 a worldwide eradication program significantly reduced the disease by killing the mosquitoes until the use of DDT was stopped in the 1970’s. Dengue fever has been on the rise ever since, and again is becoming a serous problem worldwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/

· Ebola virus - Contracted by eating or coming into contact with infected monkeys. Avoid local delicacies when traveling abroad.
Planet Ark : FEATURE-Monkey brains off the menu in central Africa

· Aona virus- Contracted by inhaling dust particles related to the feces of rodents.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/arena.htm

· Hanta virus- Contracted by coming into contact with mice droppings.
Mousetraps, pet cats and precautions when camping.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hanta/hps/noframes/prevent6.htm

· Pulmonary Syndrome- The only listing I could find was for Hanta Virus Pulmonary Syndrome so I guess Al was slightly repetitive.

· SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)- A respiratory/ gastrointestinal virus that spreads like the common cold. In 2003 the outbreak began in Asia when two lab workers contracted the disease after handling laboratory urine and stool samples. Eight people in the United Stated were infected with this virus after traveling to other countries where there was an outbreak of the virus. There are no known cases of the disease in the world at this time.
CDC Fact Sheet: Basic Information About SARS

· Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis- Caused by inadequate treatment or improper use of the anti-tuberculosis medications.
If you get TB, do what your doctor tells you to do.
http://www.who.int/tb/dots/dotsplus/en/

· E. Coli- Caused by poor food handling and eating uncooked meat.
The best prevention is education and practice of safe food handling and cooking as suggested by public health professionals.
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/december/index.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/september/index.htm

· Lyme Disease- Spread to humans by ticks. More people are becoming infected because more people are moving into the wooded areas where ticks live. Lyme Disease is also common among hikers and people who spend time in the outdoors, especially those people who do not take the proper precautions. If you live in a wooded area or spend a lot of time in the outdoors, take precautions and educate yourself about the symptoms of Lyme Disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/index.htm

· Avian Flu- The outbreaks of avian flu that have been recorded have mainly been started in China. Most people in developed countries buy chicken that is packaged and processed, but in China, people usually buy their chickens live and process them at home. This is how avian flu usually gets started; when an outbreak of avian flu is detected the Chinese government quarantines the sick people, then kills millions of chickens in markets and on farms. Avian flu is also spreading around the world by birds and has nothing to do with climate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4400000/newsid_4401200/4401264.stm


Al brought up the coral bleaching issue, an issue that is often cited in global warming debates. Coral has an interesting relationship with algae that is required for coral to survive. Coral does not actually bleach, the colorful algae dies causing the coral to die.


Researching the coral bleaching was interesting. When reading reputable sites, I noticed that coral bleaching due to global warming normally followed words such as “maybe,” “possibly,” “potentially,” “could be” and “might be.”


Now let’s see what was actually observed.


“Coral bleaching events worldwide have been attributed to sea surface temperatures (SSTs) rising and staying as little as 1°C higher than the usual average monthly maximum SST during the hottest months of the year (Goreau and Hayes 1994). In Jamaica, significant coral bleaching and death occur when SSTs remain at 29.3°C or higher for one month (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999).” NOAA


“Until the 1980’s, the only coral bleaching event recorded was due to flooding from Hurricane Flora that resulted in a large drop in salinity that bleached and killed many corals in Jamaica (Goreau 1964).” NOAA


“Mass coral bleaching was first recognized on the Pacific coast of Panama following the 1982-83 El Nino event (Glynn 1984). The warm SSTs associated with the El Nino event were identified as the cause of death of over 99% of corals and the complete loss of reef structures in the Galapagos Islands and the death of over 50% of corals in Panama (Glynn and D’Croz 1990; Glynn 1993).” NOAA


“The 1997-98 El Nino event is the strongest on record to date, resulting in unprecedented coral bleaching and death across the globe (Wilkinson et al. 1999).” http://www.coral.noaa.gov/cleo/coral_bleaching.shtml


“The frequency and scale of bleaching disturbances has increased dramatically since the late 70’s. This is possibly due to more observers and a greater interest in reporting in recent years.” Buscheim
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm


I also found that bleaching is related to predation by Acanthasters (sea stars). “Like most sea stars Acanthasters are carnivorous. Their feeding mechanism is almost notorious; averting their stomach outside the body over "poor, defenseless" living coral polyps, doing the old extra-cellular digestion right then and there. Oftentimes Crown of Thorns population explosions/"infestations" are attributed to human removal of predators, most notably the Giant Triton Charonia tritonis L. 1758, as well as "Cod" and some large Groupers. There are stop-gap measures in place in several countries restricting the taking of these controlling influences.”
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/CrnThrnStr.htm


Next, Al talks about the “second canary in the coal mine;” Antarctica. He points to the break up of large ice shelves on West Antarctica. He also warns that if the ice on West Antarctica and Greenland melted there would be sea level rise that would flood many areas of the world. I have already discussed how ice around Greenland is melting near the ocean. This is because of the warm ocean water, but that water evaporates faster and precipitates faster on the center of Greenland and is causing the snow pack in the center of Greenland to increase. But what about West Antarctica? Can you guess why Al only talked about West Antarctica and not East Antarctica? Maybe because West Antarctica is melting and East Antarctica is not. Not only is the larger ice sheet on East Antarctica not melting; it is increasing in mass. This may have something to do with the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that moves water of different temperatures around Antarctica.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16782603

Davis, C. H., et al., 2005. Snowfall-driven growth in East Antarctic ice sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901.
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm

The next segment discusses how China is developing and using more coal to produce energy. I agree. But I think Al missed a chance to show new technologies such as cleaner burning methanol that is made from coal and natural gas. This fuel can run automobiles and power plants and is produced for about 40 cents per gallon.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/63732910-36fa-11db-89d6-0000779e2340,_i_email=y.html

Al talks about overpopulation in the next part of the movie. I strongly agree with him on this subject but I do not agree that it is a problem causing global warming but the other way around. Human population has exploded for many reasons; especially better technology and warming climate. Since the climate began to change over 100 years ago, humans have been able to settle more land. Humans have been able to cultivate more crops in high latitudes than when the climate was cooler.

Many of the problems related to vectors and disease are from over population, not global warming.

Many of the problems he stated such as pressure on water supplies, agriculture and energy are a result of overpopulation. It is important to recognize this point because some day we will experience cold climate, whether it is another little ice age or a major glaciation era. What will happen to all of the people in Canada and Russia who will be pushed from their homes and countries by ice sheets that are a mile high? How many people will starve when another Tambora or Yellowstone erupts causing two to three years without a summer? These are not things that might happen, they are things that will happen, and just like Katrina and New Orleans, it is just a matter of time.

Al Gore is also correct in his next segment about how man can have an impact on the Earth’s surface when we use new technology. Diverting rivers is an easy thing for humans to do, just build a dam and a canal. The results of diverting rivers are controversies all over the world because lakes disappear. But what is important here is that Al does not identify the problem. You will not stop malaria or other diseases by reducing atmospheric CO2. But if you spend all of your resources on reducing CO2 then all of the other environmental problems created by man will not be resolved.

After a brief explanation of how Al Gore and his family moved away from the tobacco business, he spoke about scientific consensus. He says that of 928 peer reviewed articles, none of the scientists disagreed that most of global warming is man made or a serious problem. This is one of the rhetorical tools that Al and his friends on one side of the debate never cease to use. This statement is very carefully worded and intended to mislead. To say that scientists disagree is different than saying they agree. Very few scientists will agree that the science is settled and those are usually scientists who have a political bias.

This brings Al to his next point; that opposition to global warming is a fossil fuel industry conspiracy using the same tactics as big tobacco used in the past. He uses the example of Phillip Cooney, a former oil industry lawyer who was changing environmental science documents until exposed by a government scientist. He also used the example of James Hansen, a senior NASA scientist who was urged by his managers not to make alarming public statements. These instances are both true. But what Gore does not talk about are the many senior scientists who are constantly harassed by Al’s very own political allies. Scientists who do not agree with man made global warming constantly complain of everything from funding cuts, calls to decertify them because they disagree and even death threats. The false accusation that they are being paid off by oil companies is the most common form of harassment.

Al closes by discussing the economic benefits of changing over to green power and how it would create many jobs. This is true. But the changes Al says we should make are not going to solve his problem. More efficient appliances and cars will not cut CO2 emissions; they will only reduce the rate of increase. Building more solar stations will only supply future growing populations. Carbon sequestration such as planting trees will only help a little. The only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 would be to have solar panels on the roof of every house and building, windmills in every yard and electric cars in every driveway. It is something we will have to do anyway because someday the fossil fuels will run out. Doing these things will not require the political will that Al says people need to have. People will be more than happy to convert because it will save them the ridiculous amounts of money that people spend on home utilities and gasoline.

Conclusion

It’s easy to see why Al gore’s movie should not be shown in schools. An Inconvenient Truth is a political commercial that misrepresents a whole area of science. He admittedly uses scare tactics to get people to listen then shows them a professional slide show that blames every thing bad on so called man made global warming.

Al did not make and publicize this movie because he cares; something obvious when you consider his own lifestyle. He did not make this movie to run for president. This movie has grossed over 60 million dollars to date and it hasn’t even made it to cable. Al charges over $100,000 per slide show. But the real money that Al will make is through his new company, Generation Investment Management, a company that seeks to establish the rules and licensing for the new carbon-trading scheme. We have all heard of politicians who lie for money and power; it looks as if Al did not retire after all.

Ponder The Maunder Home

Monday, May 28, 2007

What Is Environmentalism?


Wiki’s definition of environmentalism, which is the usual one, says "Environmentalism is a concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment..." This, however, is far from the truth. Environmentalism is not a neutral, benign concern for the environment, as the Wiki definition would have us believe. This article argues that environmentalism is an activist political movement, with moral and religious overtones, aimed at alleviating perceived and fancied human woes falsely attributed to misuse of the natural environment; a movement which uses the power of state laws to regulate individual economic choice to the diminishment of human values and life. This definition differs radically from the Wiki definition. It defines environmentalism as it is and as it does, giving us a more accurate concept to consider, think about, debate, and evaluate.
We need a more accurate definition because environmentalism is an extremely serious threat to freedom, and freedom is no mere abstraction. Freedom is absolutely essential to the fruition of human lives and to the realization of values within the life of each and every human being. The more that the state enforces the environmentalist agenda, the more that it restricts freedom; and the more that it restricts freedom, the more that it destroys human life. Environmentalism is therefore fundamentally destructive. If we do not understand it as it is and does, we suffer.
I am clearly anti-environmentalism. Will Al Gore then ask me "Mike, do you favor dirty air, foul water, pollution, and energy waste?" Of course not. Most people don’t, but Gore’s question is a straw man debating trick. How so? Because environmentalism does not essentially entail clean air and water, low pollution, and energy conservation; and because these are not the aims of mainstream environmental supporters, even though these items may well be mentioned as environmental goals by environmentalists. In fact, environmentalism is better defined as above: by its immoral and counterproductive means of attaining strategic objectives such as climate control, energy independence, and sustainability, that have only a tenuous connection with maintaining the capital stock of natural resources; and that are incorrectly connected up, in the minds of environmentalists, with the ultimate goal of a better life for themselves and their children. Many execrable movements have high-sounding strategic objectives and ultimate goals; but if the objectives are falsely connected to the goals and the means used to achieve them involve abominable methods, then we are justified in condemning the enterprise. So, Mr. Gore, if my neighbor’s barbecue wafts smoke into my lungs, does that give any level of government the right to make everyone buy expensive smokeless barbecue equipment? Or should I instead have been more careful when I moved next to him? Or should I close the window? Or should I ask him to move it a few feet away from my window? Or is the irritation serious enough to merit a case for a local judge?
Environmentalism does not mean the normal and conscionable human concern for the God-given bounty and beauty of the creation that we have been made stewards of. It does not mean voluntary and free human action to further such concerns. If that were what environmentalism truly meant, I could not and would not oppose it.
In defining environmentalism, we must recognize that it is not a monolithic movement. It contains numerous cross-currents and divergent views. Reasonable environmentalists exist who endorse peaceful and free-market methods to achieve their goals. But these voices are weak and out of the mainstream of the movement. They are not what environmentalism means.
Nor is environmentalism defined at the opposite end by its most lunatic elements, those communist-oriented primitives who wish to reduce the world’s population drastically and return mankind to some sort of (probably mythical) Paleolithic non-industrial life style. Such proponents wish to end the division of labor; and ending the division of labor means ending market exchange and private property, all of which are the major engines that all free peoples use to improve their lives and create life-enhancing civilizations. (See George Reisman’s treatment of these relations and his extended essay on environmentalism in his book Capitalism.) Hear, for example, such words as these from a primitivist: "But my working hypothesis is that division of labor draws the line, with dire consequences that unfold in an accelerating or cumulative way. Specialization divides and narrows the individual, brings in hierarchy, creates dependency and works against autonomy. It also drives industrialism and hence leads directly to the eco-crisis. Tools or roles that involve division of labor engender divided people and divided society."
Such primitivists even come to criticize art, numbers, and language. They routinely use the fruits of civilization, give interviews, and presumably make money while extolling the hunter-gatherer way of life. They could easily drop out of the civilization they despise, fashion a primitive life for themselves, and practice what they preach. They don’t.
We cannot define environmentalism by such primitivist voices without thereby constructing a straw man of our own. Instead we need to locate the mainstream of environmentalism. The mainstream appears in the decades-long environmental legislation that our Congress has passed to make us use ethanol or to subsidize fuel made from garbage or to fund research into hydrogen-powered cars or any number of hundreds of other similar measures. The mainstream appears in the environmental legislation passed by 50 state legislatures and by thousands of cities, towns, and counties.
This brings us to our first conclusion. Environmentalism is a political movement that uses the state’s monopoly on violence as its primary means of action. The existence of Green Parties illustrates this fact. Or consider an organization that epitomizes environmentalism, the Sierra Club. Its web site instructs readers: "Raise Fuel Economy Standards." "Restore the Clean Water Act!" "America Needs a Stronger Senate Energy Bill." "Keep Public Lands in Public Hands." "Protect Our Coasts from Drilling." This is only a sample of a long series of recommended political actions to be put in place by the state. Mainstream environmentalism is profoundly statist.
This means that (everyday) environmentalism is inconsistent with libertarianism, no matter how we might characterize its objectives and goals. It means that libertarian critiques of the negatives of statism apply to environmentalism. If, starting in 1960, the U.S. had made determined efforts to free up markets and create appropriate justice in the face of damages wrought through environmental infringements on private property, rather than doing the very opposite, using statist measures and relying on legislative law, the wealth of the country would have been far above where it now is, and our stewardship of the creation would have been much greater.
We did not follow the path indicated by American ideals of freedom and private property. Instead we entangled ourselves in a thicket of laws and regulations from which there is no easy escape but massive repeal. Surveying all of the state’s environmental regulations at all levels of government reveals an absolutely stunning degree of control by government. It reveals the slow but steady strangulation of freedom. It reveals the death by a thousand cuts of consumer control over products produced and sold. It reveals a retrogressive and destructive anti-freedom and anti-property motion.
To identify mainstream environmentalism, I turn to a mainstream media voice, namely, Newsweek magazine. Let us consider one article about environmentalism published in Newsweek on July 17, 2006. If we closely examine what this article says, as a kind of case study, we will find that it leads us in many illuminating directions and helps us define what environmentalism truly is.
The article’s title is "Going Green." The emphasis is on going. Environmentalism means endorsing "green," it means changing our lives so as to "go green." This is not a matter of attitude, thought, or intellect. It means changes in concrete activities. It means making those changes in behavior, lifestyles, and choices that are included in becoming more green. We discover that environmentalism is an activist movement. This inference accords well with defining it as a political movement. It also accords well with the Sierra Club web site which features the Sierra Club Action Center in which numerous political actions are urged upon supporters.
The subtitle of the article tells us a little bit about what green means: "With windmills, low-energy homes, new forms of recycling and fuel-efficient cars, Americans are taking conservation into their own hands." The emphasis here is actually not upon the environment, or at least not directly. It is not on natural beauty, not on the value of natural vistas, gorges, mountains, stately forests, wild game, bird life, pure air, pristine lakes and rivers stocked with fish, or any other such goods that many of us value, indeed value highly, and that could and would exist in a well-functioning free-market order. Classic appreciation of the bounties and beauties of the creation is not what environmentalism is about.
No, instead the subtitle equates conservation with energy-related activities that typically involve government mandates justified rhetorically by ill-conceived attempts to save energy and prevent air pollution. Consistent with this emphasis, about half of the Sierra Club’s action initiatives relate to energy use (such items as "Tell Congress to Support Legislation to Stop Global Warming," "Tell the Senate to Guarantee Oil Savings!" "Tell Congress to Support a Renewable Energy Standard," and so on.)
The focus on autos and energy goes back to the early environmentalist attacks on automobiles and air pollution, among other things. Environmentalism is simple-minded. The simple-minded "solutions" to such "problems" were lower speed limits, catalytic converters, fleet mileage standards, smaller and less safe cars, reformulated gasoline, ethanol, closing oil refineries, stopping nuclear plants from being built, and so on; and now the equally simple-minded answers to other imagined problems are climate control, sustainability, and energy independence.
But the relations that link energy and resource use with transportation and other facets of the economy are incredibly complex, not amenable to blind interferences with multiplely-connected free market and politically-influenced economic relations. It has never been clear from the outset of the environmental movement who was being damaged by whom and how great the damages were. The so-called problems were ill-defined. Even less clear, but very important, was how much of the perceived problems was caused by the state. The state’s own rules and its own failures to enforce private property justice were and are root causes of resource misuse and pollution.
The individuals in our economy in part take the government framework as given and make their economic decisions within that framework. It is by no means a free market framework. Consider for a moment. Government rules affect transportation (ports, airports, rail traffic, road ownership, road building, automobiles, gasoline), location (property taxes, zoning, industrial subsidies, homebuilding subsidies, building codes), education (school location, taxation), energy supply (nuclear licensing, regulation, electricity regulation, plus much, much more), energy use, banking and insurance, only to name a few items that impact on where people settle, where their work is located relative to their dwellings, where their schools are located, what sorts of cars they buy, and how much they decide to travel and by what means. All of these many state-made restrictions distort economic activity, producing problems of resource misuse. Environmentalism, which involves even more state-made restrictions, goes exactly in the wrong direction and makes these problems worse.
Furthermore, in practical terms, if (for whatever reasons) the state or a hundred Sierra Clubs with a thousand petitions takes aim at the automobile and air pollution, there is no rational way for them as legislators to identify who is responsible for what so-called problems, much less fashion rational solutions. The complexities call for judges who can consider individual cases and fashion remedies where damages are involved.
The legislative solutions that have been imposed are impossible, costly, and one-size-fits-all, making them simple-minded and perverse. A law, for example, forbids a restaurant from using throwaway ware. It does not realize that disposable restaurant ware may be preferable, that it saves time, water, washing, and spreads fewer bacteria. Another law makes ships travel at slow speeds to avoid hitting whales. It does not realize that making ships travel at slower speeds decreases ship maneuverability and increases whale hits, or that stronger bow waves at higher speeds signal whales to get out of the way.
There were (and still are) two rational ways to address any and all conceivable problems associated with energy use and pollution, and neither one involved the state. These were (i) free markets, and (ii) a system of justice that recognized suits for damages caused by pollution and rose to the challenge of adjudicating them and discovering the appropriate law. By free markets, I mean totally free markets. Free markets can handle the immense complexity that stems from trillions of individual economic decisions. Governments cannot.
There is nothing per se wrong with any energy initiatives that Newsweek mentions, be they windmills, fuel cells, ethanol, or electric cars as long as individuals are free to assess them. We cannot argue with anyone who might wish to implement such choices as they personally view the options they face and their costs. Indeed, most individuals regard it as only right, fitting, and proper to conserve resources, especially their own. People do not ordinarily heat the streets or replace their wardrobes each week. Nor do they have to be counseled to conserve or made to do so. There is no need for government subsidies to encourage energy-saving uses, and such state actions destroy wealth.
It is only common sense that free individuals operating in free markets will choose the energy methods that they deem to be cost-efficient and value-effective. If there is anything we are sure of in economics, it is that people tend to engage in economizing behavior. Empirically this does not usually reveal itself as indulgence in vast amounts of energy waste as an item that brings people inherent utility. We do not usually see people leaving their car engines run all night because they enjoy the sound and smell, or leaving their refrigerator doors open all day for convenience or because they like to pay high electric bills. If people find that it pays to build roofs with solar panels, will they not flock to this alternative? Don’t they rapidly flock to other products that provide them with value? Why should energy-related products be any different?
The Newsweek article leads off with an anecdote about a commuter who commutes 24 miles to work. She starts her commute at 5 a.m. and rides her bike for 8 miles. She then takes a bus for the remaining 16 miles. It is not clear why she does this. Maybe she likes to, or perhaps this method is economical. We simply do not know. But when told how little impact that her efforts have on carbon dioxide, she says that she still wants to be "doing something." This suggests an internalized feeling of guilt if she does nothing, or a feeling that it is her duty to do something. It accords with a quote that leads off the article in which Jimmy Carter in 1977 says that energy conservation is "the moral equivalent of war." In other words, environmentalism has gone deeply enough into people’s minds that they (or at least a significant number) do not look upon it as a matter of efficiency, cleanliness, or energy independence, but as a matter of right and wrong. Environmentalism has attained a moral dimension to its adherents. This turns environmentalism into a more potent political force.
The article cites Republicans who are entering the environmentalist fold, being convinced by spectres like global warming, American oil dependence, and modernization among Asian economies. President Bush has encouraged this movement toward environmentalism. President Nixon created the EPA. It is clear that environmentalism is a mainstream American political movement endorsed by both major parties.
Other persons are cited as supporting environmentalism through religious links, concerns over food, and concerns over health, including cancer death. But a more common source of support is said to be people who read about projections of global climate change over the next century and worry over how it might affect their children. This is a case where environmentalism uses false science and/or falsely uses science to gain adherents. If this reporting is correct, and I think it is, then environmentalism is a doctrine that blames various current and fancied human woes on our economic way of life, relating them to the use of natural resources, and promising deliverance from those woes by state regulation and control over resources and economic life. The religious overtones of environmentalism are clear: Mankind is sinning against the environment, being punished for those sins, and redemption lies in environmentalism. Environmentalism is basically a pseudo-religion and a false religion at that.
Next, we learn that sustainability is an environmental concept that attracts people to environmentalism. Sustainability makes perfect sense if a person freely evaluates cost factors and determines that it pays to buy more durable goods or that it pays to eliminate waste by inventive means. But environmentalism precludes such free market thinking. Sustainability goes well beyond rational considerations into the irrational premise that nothing should be used up, which in turn precludes making cost-efficient transformations of resources into more valuable forms. In other words, sustainability is at odds with the basic economics of wealth and value creation. This suggests that environmentalist doctrine is anti-life, anti-value creation, and anti-wealth creation. The earlier analysis of the anti-free market orientation of environmentalism tells us the same.
It is time to sum up. The limited scope of this article was to sketch a few of the defining features of American environmentalism. The main conclusions are as follows:
Environmentalism is a mainstream, activist, political movement, endorsed by both major political parties. It uses and endorses the state’s monopoly on violence as its primary means of action.
Environmentalist doctrine is anti-free market and anti-libertarian. Its doctrine cultivates and has succeeded in attaining a moral dimension among its adherents.
Environmentalist doctrine blames various current and fancied human woes on our economic way of life, relating them to natural resources, and promising deliverance from those woes by state regulation and control over resources and economic life.
Environmentalist doctrine is anti-life, anti-value creation, and anti-wealth creation.

May 29, 2007
Michael S. Rozeff [
send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
Michael S. Rozeff Archives



Find this article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff151.html