Anecdotal Irony

I was sitting in my reclining chair last night watching the third coldest football game in the history of the NFL on FOX feeling that perhaps the Global Warming zealots had suffered a serious blow to their religious beliefs when I decide to check CBS during a commercial time out. Apparently, the true believers at CBS just can’t be dissuaded by actual weather since they decided to air a rebroadcast of their show “The Age of Warming”. Did CBS get purchased by the Comedy Network when I wasn’t paying attention? You can’t make this stuff up. Even the fellow believers at NBC had to admit this morning on the Today Show that a larger percentage of the United States was below 10 degree Fahrenheit than ever before.

Of course anecdotal evidence like a football game in Green Bay in the middle of January doesn’t disprove the current theory of man-made Global Warming. However, anecdotal evidence like a retreating glacier in the Andes Mountains of Peru doesn’t prove the theory of man-made Global Warming either. Glaciers have expanded and retreated throughout History and always will. Football games in Green Bay in the middle of January have produced some great athletic spectacles throughout NFL history and always will.

Nobel Peace Prize

Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Update: Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Tolerance at Columbia

I am often amused, and sometimes frustrated, at how the word “tolerance” rarely actually means tolerance to those who call for others to be more tolerant. The loudest advocates of tolerance are some of the most closed minded members of our society. Disagreement is an essential attribute of tolerance, yet the staunchest advocates of tolerance demand that others agree with them.

For example, a heterosexual who believes there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not capable of being tolerant because this person does not have a disagreement with the homosexuals who feel the same way. The only heterosexuals who are capable of being tolerant to homosexuals are the heterosexuals who believe there is a moral difference between the two lifestyles, yet chooses to treat homosexuals the same as they treat heterosexuals.

Self government and democracy are most often credited for the greatness of America. As I observe the world, I’m not so sure. I see a lot of democratic organizations and democratic governments that aren’t so great. Majorities can be just as tyrannical as a single tyrant. I believe America became great because early on in our history the leaders decided that Americans had a right to be left alone. Diversity and true tolerance are a part of our historical fiber.

Many American Universities claim to support and allow tolerance, but few actually allow disagreement or divergence from political correctness in state schools or orthodoxy in private schools. Opponents of human caused global warming, evolution, or affirmative action are labeled ignorant or hateful and are never tolerated.

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger is practicing tolerance if President Bollinger does not agree with the views of the Iranian President. I would like to believe we are witnessing tolerance at the University level, but I suspect we are witnessing a University and a University President who are intolerant of those of us who want to defeat radical Islam.

Glass Houses

I am amazed [not really] that this story about Glass Houses was never picked up by the national media.

Climate Facts

High price for load of hot air

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

Environmental Optimization

In my last piece, I argued for optimization over preservation, as my preferred goal for environmental stewardship. This goes against the traditional view of environmentalism. Preservation, the traditional goal of environmentalism, is a mostly mindless exercise. Protecting nature achieves the goal, while changing nature violates the goal. Preservation is simple to understand, simple to enforce, and simply wrong for the advancement of humanity.

The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.

Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.

Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.

Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.

Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?

Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.

The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.

Preaching and Practicing

Big families need big referees. The Walton’s make for nice family television, but in real life, lots of siblings means lots of fights. Asking my dad to resolve a fight meant needing a good answer when he asked us if we practiced what we preached. He didn’t have sympathy for any of us who were complaining about something we had previously done to a brother or sister or if we expected a sibling to do something we wouldn’t to do ourselves. My dad wanted the actions of his children to be consistent with the words of his children. He wanted us to learn and practice integrity.

Another question that was common when I was growing up was, “Do you put your money where your mouth is?”. People who sold Chevy’s were expected to drive Chevy’s. People who talked about Church were expected to support Church financially. Tough guys with big stories and no witnesses were expected to accept a bet they couldn’t repeat their claimed accomplishment and then pay the bet if they didn’t repeat it.

Putting your money where your mouth is and practicing what you preach are two ways of saying the same thing. Are your actions consistent with your words? Do you have integrity? Do you really believe the claim you are making?

Does Al Gore really believe CO2 is destroying the earth when his own house uses 20 times the energy of the average American house? Does Bono of U2 really believe tax money from the free world should be used to stop poverty in Africa when he pays a team of lawyers to practice tax avoidance strategies with his own money? Do Diane Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger not know their private jets are spewing CO2 all over our atmosphere? Did Rush Limbaugh think organized crime only sold herbs? Does Cingular Wireless really believe their customers are receiving quality service by waiting on hold for thirty minutes to talk to a customer service representative?

Integrity is mostly a matter of character and morality, but it also has another interesting attribute. Integrity increases effectiveness. People who “practice what they preach” and organizations that “put their money where their mouth is” are much more likely to be successful. Integrity attracts like minds and produces a full commitment from others. Hypocrisy, however, repels everyone except blind followers.

CO2 haters took a hit this week. I always love a happy ending.