Friday, September 04, 2009

Back to school speech

I find it particularly disturbing that some schools are choosing not to show President Obama's 'Back to school speech'. The fact that this censorship is even happening before the content of the speech is published is even more disturbing. For Pete's sake. Whatever the message, he is our President. Its right and appropriate that he be able to address his constituents whatever their age. If paranoid over-protective parents wish, they can withhold their children from school or write an excuse. But for this to be twisted and manipulated for political purposes is disgraceful and disrespectful to the office and the nation.

We elected him by both majorities. Whether I agree with his policies or not, I believe that his pulpit gives him the right to address our schoolchildren. I doubt that the speech will be much more than an inspirational pep talk. I feel that its right and appropriate to do so. Its not like the President is going to give a speech on the evils of abstinence or trying to convert them to believe in subversive Democritarinism. Hopefully it will inspire some jaded youths to some higher calling.

Is he really that divisive a figure that we are willing to disrespect our highest office to spite him. What have we lost? What happened to patriotism, to loyalty? Are we that afraid of an alternative opinion that we must sequester our children from their whispers? The truth should be able to stand for itself. 'The height of silly season' seems a proper characterization.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Global Warming is full of hot air

I'm tired of global warming. Sure, everyone's tired of global warming. Its bad, everyone knows its 'bad'. Deserts, hurricanes and global apocalypses are undeniably bad things.

But... I am tired of hearing about it.

I am tired of the hyperbole. Tired of the hysteria. Tired of the lack of objective thought. Global warming as scientific study is lost. Global warming is an institution. It is enshrined as fact, not 'theory'. It is not to be questioned. The bogey man of 'Carbon Dioxide' has replaced the iron curtain and nuclear annihilation.

Any story or article on the subject must include the obligatory pictures of traffic jams. (Somehow cars have been singled out even though they are a small part of the 'problem'). Smog ridden skylines grace the covers of glossy periodicals. (Carbon Dioxide is invisible). Strangely, every pictorial must also include vistas of Nuclear cooling towers spewing vast quantities of CO2 into our pristine atmosphere. (Nuclear power generation is emission free). However misguided, these images all serve to enforce the meme that the industrialized civilization is the destructor of the planet.

It goes without saying that predicting the future climate is difficult. Ever notice that the 5 day forecast are either partly cloudy in the winter and partly sunny in the summer? Way to hedge your bets.

Forecasts cannot even get next week right, let alone next decade or century. Climates are massive complicated things. Whats the effect of solar radiation? Of methane? Of volcanoes? Of cloud cover? Why is there so much variability in global prehistoric temperature that can't be correlated to CO2 levels? If there are so many questions, why is it 'established' that CO2 and by proxy mankind are responsible for short term trends? Why is it that 30 years ago we were concerned with global cooling? Is global warming simply an outcrop of human temporal bias?

Now I don't believe that emitting noxious vapors into the atmosphere is a good thing. I remember what the 70s in the city used to smell like. It still smells like that in countries with little or no emissions control and lots of cars. I think that a car that emits nothing but H20 and CO2 would be GREAT! (in comparison to what they emit now). Nor do I disagree that alternative fuels, conservation, and efficiency are great things for the security of the United States. However bad these things may be for Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Islamic terrorists, Exxon Mobile etc.

I just lament that the scientific study and public debate on the subject is focused on enforcing the status quo. Its become a 'self-licking ice cream cone'. Anthropogenic global warming currently has the consensus support of 99/100 scientists. Consensus is a powerful thing, but it makes for bad science. Ether, Miasma, Humourism, and the geocentric model also enjoyed consensus and dogma for that matter.