I guess I’ll have to respond to my friend and colleague Marty, since he dedicated his last post to me. I’m supposed to write about technology at utilities, but without electricity, there isn’t going to be much technology.

 

I have no problem acknowledging an increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the percentage of increase still is very, very small in the overall makeup of the atmosphere. There also is no incontrovertible proof that man has caused this increase. There are responsible scientists who maintain there likely are other causes for this increase including sunspot cycles and other naturally occurring phenomena.

 

I have some problem with the idea that unnatural Global Warming is occurring at all. Temperature measurement is an inexact, recent science and the placement of sensors has an effect on measurement. There is some evidence that while warming is occurring in cities and some parts of the world, average temperatures in other parts of the planet actually are declining. A number of alternative causes for this apparent warming have been postulated by reasonable, responsible scientists. It likely is a naturally occurring cycle.

 

There isn’t space or time in this blog to cite all the contrarian evidence that tends to dispute Global Warming advocates, but is there, it is real, and it is compiled by responsible, respected scientists and it isn’t hard to find for those whose minds are not already made up.  For one contrarian viewpoint, Marty, I would suggest something Steve sent me: http://www.greatswindle.com/

 

I do have two major scientific problems with Global Warming advocates. First, the scientific evidence is not conclusive and, secondly, projections of apocalyptic change are based on computer modeling. 

 

I am not a scientist, though I have been fascinated by, and followed, science throughout my life. I know the difference between a theory and a proven fact. From a scientific standpoint, mankind-caused Global Warming is not a fact, it is a theory that is not endorsed unanimously by the scientific community. It is unanimously endorsed on one end of the political spectrum, however.

 

I have been earning my living with and around computers most of my adult life. Some people consider me an expert in certain aspects of computer science, especially on the software side. There is one salient fact about computers summed up in the old saw: garbage in, garbage out. Computers are not (yet) thinking machines. Computer modeling is highly dependent upon input. Models can be, and are, constructed to prove any point. A similar model also can be constructed to disprove the same point.

 

Therefore, at this point, I believe Global Warming to be a political movement, based upon self-serving modeling, rather than a scientific fact. One need only look at its principal advocates to determine that it is a political movement with its impetus from one side of the political spectrum.

 

The problem with all this is that it is a political movement that seems likely to devastate economies worldwide, especially in the United States. There just isn’t enough money to precipitously abandon fossil fuel. Shifting from a fossil-fueled worldwide economy to alternative forms of energy will be a decades-long process—an admirable goal, but not something that can be done in the timeframe being advocated by the Global Warming political movement. We will not be able to keep the lights on in the United States, and unless the left is prepared to move back into caves and forego torches for lighting (they also generate carbon dioxide), economic and social dislocation is going to be widespread globally. Contrary to leftist belief, there is not an unending supply of money, something good has to happen on the private side to generate wealth for governments to tax and spend. Governments that own everything have not in recent history proven to be viable over the long term.

 

If you bring down the economy of the U.S., that will affect the rest of the world. The U.S. economy, and that of Europe, already are tottering under the cost of social engineering. I believe collapsing the economy of the world is too high an insurance premium to pay against something that is not yet proven real, or if it is real, the real causes behind it, which may not be man-made.

 

Fortunately, I am of an age where I can continue to puff my briar pipe in the sanctity of my own home, where I work, and outside most other places, at least for now. Despite all the social engineering propaganda of the modern age, I don’t intend to quit. But I really hate for my children to have to pay the premium of this social engineering propaganda based on a political movement determined ignore contrarian scientific findings. 

 

The left may come for my pipe, too, one day. But they’ll have to deal with the teeth of this old tiger, because they haven’t succeeded in taking away my guns yet, either. Of course when they do, I’ll have the tactical advantage that it likely will be dark inside my home because there probably won’t be any electricity.  When I am forced to make a stand in my home against social engineering, I guess my collection of briars is as good a cause as any.

I'm afraid they're going to win this battle.  Too many people are surrendering, including even George Bush, though his surrender is tactical in nature, trying to forestall the inevitable.  Your friend Al Gore likely will have his revenge, Marty.  But revenge is not a very admirable motive for devastating an economy and a way of life.