Global Energy Rationing

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Media
hysteria and propaganda promoting "human-caused global warming"
have hit a new high this month, just as the previously most successful
campaign of world technological genocide — the demonization of DDT
— is passing from the scene. After eradicating malaria from the
entire developed world, DDT was banned by the United States, the
United Nations, and their retainers. The result has been the deaths
of more than 50 million children, mostly African, and chronic ongoing
illness from malaria for more than 500 million adults — 10% of the
human race.

There
was never a shred of credible scientific evidence that DDT was harmful
to the environment or to animal or human health. Even the scientific
review board of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the agency
that initiated the DDT ban, found DDT to be entirely safe and environmentally
beneficial. Before the ban, DDT saved hundreds of millions of human
lives, and its originator received a well-deserved Nobel Prize.

Based
on Silent
Spring
by Rachel Carson, a book that was demonstrably false
from cover to cover, and promoted by self-interested ideologues,
including Al Gore, the anti-DDT pogrom reached an intensity comparable
to the current campaign against energy.

Use
of DDT against malaria is now being advocated by the US and the
UN. Why has DDT been rehabilitated? The reason is that malaria has
been killing mostly black children, and black political power has
finally reached a point where this can no longer be overlooked.
So, those in the culture of human death have lost the ban of DDT,
but they managed to kill a lot of people while it was in force.

Banning
DDT, however, is child’s play compared with banning energy — the
most genocidal action ever attempted in human history.

The
campaign against inexpensive and plentiful energy resources for
human technology is not new. It began on college campuses in the
1960s. The same left-wing radicals who controlled those campuses
are now in control of many American political institutions.

Their
target was and is energy — in any form that is industrially robust.
Their primary demons have been nuclear energy and hydrocarbon energy.
Solar energy, biofuels, and wind energy will be acceptable to them
only so long as they remain industrially impractical for the generation
of large amounts of inexpensive energy.

Evidence
for this is found in hydroelectric energy, which has actually been
classified by our government as a "non-renewable" resource
and demonized by the anti-technologists. Its sin — it produces large
amounts of inexpensive entirely renewable electrical energy.

In
the 1960s the cry arose for people to reduce their use of hydrocarbon
energy from coal, oil, and natural gas. The initial claim was that
we were running out of these "precious and rare" commodities.
The truth, however, is that the United States especially and the
world in general has plenty of hydrocarbon energy supplies for the
next several centuries — a truth that soon asserted itself in the
market price for hydrocarbon fuels. Oil itself is plentiful. Moreover,
coal and natural gas can be easily converted into oil. There is
no natural shortage of these commodities.

Political
actions in the 1970s and thereafter, however, created shortages
in the United States. Taxation, regulation, and litigation placed
such onerous burdens on hydrocarbon production inside the United
States that new production was instead developed abroad — and Americans
were gradually forced to buy more and more of their hydrocarbon
energy from often unstable foreign countries, especially those located
in Muslim regions.

An
alternative was available, however, in nuclear electric energy.
While hydroelectric energy was peaking because most good hydroelectric
sites had been developed, about 100 nuclear power plants were already
supplying 20% of America’s electrical energy. More such plants could
have substituted for diminishing hydrocarbon supplies and maintained
the energy independence of American industry.

So,
a vast, unprincipled, falsehood-filled propaganda campaign was launched
against nuclear power — and it succeeded. Not one nuclear power
plant was built in the United States after the 1970s. The safest,
least expensive, most environmentally benign source of industrial
and domestic energy was essentially banned from further development
in the United States — a situation that continues today.

As
reported in The Wall Street Journal OnLine, February
24, 2007, an estimated 251 nuclear power plants are in various stages
of planning and construction throughout the world, but there is
not a single such plant under construction in the United States.

Without
nuclear energy and without development of sufficient domestic hydrocarbons,
Americans powered their country with imported hydrocarbon fuels.
These, it turned out, were not in short supply as had been claimed.

Therefore,
the anti-technologists tried another lie. Noticing that global temperatures
were in a mild downtrend, they screeched that "global cooling"
would soon engulf the planet. This, they claimed, was being caused
by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. If we did not stop using hydrocarbons,
they asserted, we would all soon freeze in the dark. The global
cooling campaign met its end when temperatures began to rise naturally
and when Carl Sagan predicted that, if Iraq burned the oil fields
of Kuwait, the resulting global winter would cause world-wide devastation.
Iraq did set fire to the Kuwait oil fields — and no global cooling
took place.

So,
now that temperatures were rising, the ever-resourceful anti-technologists
tried a third time. Now they claimed that "human-caused global
warming" is the threat — again only to be stopped by rationing
the human use of hydrocarbon energy. Global taxation, global energy
rationing, global technology reduction, and human genocide are their
goals and, given their record of success so far, these merchants
of fear and death may be very close to succeeding.

Their
weakness is in science. Their claims of warming due to human production
of carbon dioxide are entirely without scientific merit. So, they
refuse to debate the science, falsely claiming that a consensus
of scientists — which does not exist — agrees with them.

"CONSENSUS
SCIENCE" 

Science
consists of making experimental observations of the physical world
and organizing those observations in rational ways. In combination
with the discipline of mathematics and a systematics that subjects
hypotheses to rigorous experimental tests, scientists have obtained
sufficient information about the physical world to make possible
the wonderful technology that we enjoy today. 

Science
is essentially a search for natural truth — to whatever extent that
the human brain is capable of discerning that truth. Often scientists
prove to be wrong. They develop hypotheses that are consistent with
the known experimental facts only to find additional facts that
invalidate their hypotheses. This is a continuing process that is
so pervasive that most truly outstanding scientists exhibit substantial
humility toward their work. 

Perhaps
the most eloquent expression of this humility was by Isaac Newton,
indisputably the greatest physical scientist who has ever lived,
who said near the end of his life, "I do not know what I may
appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like
a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then
finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while
the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." 

Albert
Einstein wrote, "In order to put his system into mathematical
form at all, Newton had to devise the concept of differential quotients
and propound the laws of motion in the form of total differential
equations — perhaps the greatest advance in thought that a single
individual was ever privileged to make." 

Notice
the profound humility in both statements. Yet these two unequaled
physicists never departed from the principle that their hypotheses
and theories must be verified and constantly tested by all of the
experimental information available. They studied the truth, not
the opinions of other people. 

Benjamin
Franklin discovered the electron and gave us the + and — signs on
our batteries, but the overwhelming consensus of scientists during
the following 100 years was that Franklin was wrong about the existence
of the electron. 

All
scientists are guided by the principle that their hypotheses must
be verified and tested by observations of the physical world. If
they are not so guided, they are not scientists. Scientific truth
is not determined by opinion polls or "consensus" decision-making. 

The
proponents of human-caused global warming are without humility and
without interest in experimental information. They predict the weather
100 years in the future with unverified computer models and then
state with absolute certainty that they must turn off half of humanity’s
energy supplies and heavily tax the remainder. This is neither science
nor environmentalism. It is fraud. 

THE
 GLOBAL  WARMING  CONSENSUS 

The
global warmers are not interested in humility or experimental verification.
Consider the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming"
and the concomitant hypothesis that warming of the earth will soon
result in vast environmental damage — the two hypotheses now being
promoted under the banner of an alleged "scientific consensus"
and a need for worldwide energy taxation and rationing. 

First,
there is not a single experimental observation — not even one —
that verifies either of these hypotheses. The first hypothesis is
supported solely by computer extrapolations of future earth temperatures,
using mathematical models with so many adjustable parameters that
they can be made to predict virtually any conclusion. At best, this
is a computer-modeled hypothesis that has never been validated by
any experimental test whatever. The second hypothesis does not even
have a computer model that suggests it, and, like the first, has
not been verified by any experimental test. 

Carbon
dioxide is actually a very weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much
stronger. The computer models predict that a very small amount of
warming from carbon dioxide will set off a cycle of increased water
evaporation from the oceans, thus causing a catastrophic temperature
rise. We know, however, by experiment that this is not correct.
The historical temperature record as shown in Figure 2 below reveals
many periods when temperatures were much higher than can be achieved
by carbon dioxide warming. Yet, no water-mediated or other cycle
of extreme warming took place. 

Contrary
to the endless claims by Al Gore and his retainers, there is not
and has never been any consensus among scientists in favor of either
of these hypotheses. Some years ago, my colleagues and I circulated
a petition among American scientists. In less than a month, with
very limited resources, we obtained the signatures of 18,000 Americans
with university degrees in physical science to a petition which
states: 

"We
urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997,
and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse
gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science
and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 

"There
is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there
is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural
plant and animal environments of the Earth." 

The
fact that more than 18,000 Americans with university degrees in
physical science — including many very eminent men — signed this
statement does not prove that the statement is scientifically correct.
Scientific truth is not determined by polling. It does prove, however,
that there is not a consensus of scientists — with only a handful
of skeptics — in the United States who believe the opposite. The
human-caused global warming industry with its billions of dollars
in annual operating funds has never been able to assemble a group
of scientists even one-tenth as large as this to sign a statement
in support of its position. This indicates that, if a consensus
exists at all, it is on the side of this petition. 

Even
now, when we are not soliciting signatures, we have a continual
modest stream of scientists asking to sign this petition. The claim
that virtually all scientists agree that humans are warming the
earth and thereby severely damaging the environment is entirely
bogus. It is a myth generated by a well-funded group of self-interested
elitists for the purpose of avoiding discussion of the science opposed
to their schemes for gaining additional political power. 

What
have the human-caused global warmers said in response to this petition
and the definitive review article, "Atmospheric Effects of
Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by A.B. Robinson, S.
L. Baliunas, W. Soon, and Z. W. Robinson, that was distributed with
it? 

They
have claimed that we were paid by the oil industry to dummy up a
false petition; that the signatories to the petition are bogus;
that the petition has long ago been discredited; that the signatures
are unvalidated; that our laboratory has insufficient computers;
that we are a "campaigning organization"; that the review
article was never peer reviewed; that we falsely pretend to be endorsed
by the National Academy of Sciences; and that the first author of
the review article is a Christian — the ultimate smear in the company
they keep. Isaac Newton was also a Christian. All of these claims
except for the last are definitively and demonstrably false, although
many NAS members did sign the petition. See www.oism.org/pproject
for a copy of the review article and the names of the petition signers. 

What
have the human-caused global warmers not done in response? They
have never replied to any of the scientific data in the review article
upon which the petition is based, and they have never circulated
a petition of their own in opposition to this one. 

The
claimed scientific consensus of the human-caused global warming
industry does not exist. This claim is an outright lie. 

NATURAL
CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING 

While
there is far more evidence of natural causes of global warming than
will fit in this short article, let us review a few of the most
relevant points. First, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere
has been rising as shown in Figure 1. Most of the rise has occurred
since 1940. This rise has not been proved to be the result of human
activity, but this is a reasonable hypothesis. 

Figure
1

Second,
the average temperature of the Earth fluctuates within a relatively
narrow range of about 4 degrees Centigrade as shown in Figure 2.
This is a graph of the fossil surface temperature record of a large
section of the Atlantic Ocean known as the Sargasso Sea. Other experimental
records and also the historical record show essentially the same
temperature fluctuations as seen in Figure 2, especially the periods
known as the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Notice
that the temperature is now a little below the 3,000-year average.
The temperature reached a maximum during the Middle Ages 1,000 years
ago and a minimum at about the time of the American Revolutionary
War.

Figure
2

The
United Nations used a temperature graph very similar to this one
in its earlier publications, but has now switched to a graph similar
to that seen in Figure 3, known as the hockey stick.

Figure
3

Figure
3 is not, however, a graph of temperature. It is a graph of the
rate of growth of long-lived pine trees as derived from tree-ring
data in two regions — a and b — of the United States. Carbon dioxide
fertilization of plants is causing a marked increase in the growth
rate, amount, and diversity of virtually all plant species and of
the animal species that depend upon plants for food. This increased
richness of the biosphere is the primary environmental effect of
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

A
few years ago, a paper was published in which the authors attempted
to derive a temperature curve from tree-ring growth data. Failure
to properly correct for carbon dioxide fertilization and some other
very substantial errors caused their temperature curve to look like
Figure 3. Regardless of these errors, the United Nations adopted
the new graph, which conforms to its claims. 

This
record lacks the characteristics of that shown in Figure 2, which
has been validated by many other temperature studies and by the
historical record of crops grown and other human activities. Nevertheless,
the hockey stick curve is used in many popular human-caused global
warming advertisements. 

Figure
4 shows the 11-year moving average of Northern Hemisphere land-based
temperature deviations in degrees Centigrade as the dark line and
solar brightness as measured by magnetic cycle lengths as the light
line. As the temperature has risen since the little ice age, there
have been four pronounced intermediate fluctuations. In every case,
temperature and solar brightness are correlated.

Figure
4

Data
from the NASA Global Surveyor and Odyssey Mars missions have shown
that Mars is warming just as the Earth is warming, both in correlation
with solar activity. There are no humans on Mars. 

Figure
5 shows the averaged length of 169 of the Earth’s glaciers. Glacier
length maximized at about the time of the American Revolutionary
War. Half of the subsequent glacier shortening was over before the
first automobile rolled off Henry Ford’s assembly line. Three-fourths
of the shortening occurred before carbon dioxide had significantly
risen in the atmosphere, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure
5

Moreover,
the glacier record shows no increased rate of shortening during
the period of atmospheric carbon dioxide rise. In fact, the shortening
rate diminished somewhat during this period. 

The
dark line in Figure 6 shows the global temperature deviation derived
from the glacier record. Notice the two intermediate upward fluctuations,
which correspond exactly with similar fluctuations in solar activity
as shown in Figure 4.

Figure
6

Figure
7 shows the number of violent Atlantic Ocean hurricanes and maximum
hurricane wind speeds between 1940 and 1998. There has been no increase
in number or severity of hurricanes since 1940, after which most
of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase took place. Sea-level
measurements have been similarly benign.

Figure
7

Figure
8 shows the average of 279 published experiments on increase in
plant growth as a function of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extreme
possible eventual maximum in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 600 molecules
of carbon dioxide per 1 million molecules of all types in the atmosphere
corresponds to an increase in plant growth rate of between 50% and
100% depending upon growing conditions. Figure 9 shows the amount
of standing hardwood and softwood timber in the United States. Experimental
studies of tree growth show that some of this remarkable increase
in standing timber is a result of the increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide.

Figure
8

The
Earth is warmed by the radioactivity in its elements and by the
sun. The sun’s warmth is amplified by greenhouse gases within the
atmosphere, principally water vapor, that capture solar energy that
would otherwise be radiated into space. This greenhouse effect is
robust and stable. There is not a shred of scientific experimental
evidence that this stability has been affected by increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide or that it will be so affected in the future. 

Figure
9

Atmospheric
carbon dioxide is markedly changing our environment. Since carbon
dioxide is the key atmospheric fertilizer for plants, its increase
is markedly increasing the extent and diversity of the Earth’s plant
life. Since animals use plants for food, there is also a concomitant
increase in the number and diversity of animals. 

Human
activity is moving carbon above ground and into the atmosphere,
where it is being turned into more plants and animals. This ongoing
enrichment of the biosphere is a wonderful and unexpected gift from
the Industrial Revolution. 

References
to the peer-reviewed research literature for Figures 1 to 4 and
Figure 7 are given in the review article available at www.oism.org/pproject.
The reference for Figures 5 and 6 is J. Oerlemans, Extracting a
Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, Science 308, pp
675–677, April 29, 2005. 

GENOCIDE

The
word "genocide" appears three times in the first section
of this article. Accepted definitions of genocide generally involve
the mass killing of people belonging to a particular group. Selecting
the black people in Africa for misery, disease, and death by deliberately
depriving them of life-saving DDT is, therefore, consistent with
the ordinary definition. 

World
energy rationing affects, however, a much broader socioeconomic
group. This group is perhaps best defined by those who are not in
it. Al Gore, for example, flies about in expensive personal jet
planes, maintains multiple homes that use 10 times as much energy
as those of ordinary people, and rides in gas-guzzling limousines.
He obviously does not consider himself to be in the group who must
submit to energy rationing. 

World
taxation, rationing, and shortages of energy will — assuming that
political stability can be maintained — hurt primarily the poor,
lower, and middle classes sufficiently to markedly increase their
death rates. The upper classes within which the hysteria for global
energy rationing has originated expect to maintain their own lifestyles
with only minor inconvenience. 

While,
therefore, the group of people who have been selected for diminished
lives, suffering, and death from energy rationing and the resulting
technological decline is larger than that ordinarily associated
with genocide, the number of likely deaths is also much larger than
in previous genocides. We think the use of this term is appropriate
and will not be confusing to the reader.

March
8, 2007

Arthur
B. Robinson [send him mail] is
President and Research Professor at the Oregon Institute of Science
and Medicine.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts