Hey there Amigo,
Good to hear from you again. Here in Utah I’ve been up to my eyeballs with both technical and political work. On the political front my current battle is on the “alternative” energy front – our silly governor, who is making TV commercials with Arnold Schwarzenegger to promote their special interest agenda, is trying to impose a renewable portfolio standard on the utilities in Utah. No kidding. I’ve been driven to distraction with so many meetings up at the state capital in Salt Lake City. The proponents of this proposal keep saying that the electric rates in Utah are too low and that they should be artificially raised so that their solar and wind power projects would appear to be economical in comparison. They don’t care about the poor rate payers who are just trying to make ends meet in this current recession (that GWB is denying.) The muni’s are exempt from State law in Utah, and the IOU’s don’t care what their rates are, as long as they can collect their standard rate-of-return, so it falls to the three little piss-ant co-ops in the state to try to protect our members’ interests. It makes my blood boil every time some rich developer talks about taking money out of my little old grandma’s pockets just so he can peddle his products in a command economy situation rather than the free market that we supposedly espouse in this country.
These project developers, who want to set up alternative energy projects on my (and my Grandma’s) nickel, all point to man-made global warming as their justification. They never try to defend their position beyond adopting the Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger line of “the debate is over.” I know that’s what they’d like, since they can’t point to any scientific evidence to support their claims. I’m convinced that the truth of the matter is that I’m the only one in the room up in SLC that has actually read the scientific studies published on the subject, by the IPCC and the individual scientists that make up that panel. The other side seems to be getting their “science” strictly from Hollywood. During the lunch break at the last meeting, I went to eat with the activists from the mayor’s office and the solar lobbyists (including a professor from the U of U) and attempted to engage them in a friendly scientific discussion of the facts. They acted like I was the first person to attempt such a thing – their only response was that we’d just have to agree to disagree. On the facts?! I pointed out that we weren’t discussing religion or who was the greatest rock-and-roll guitarist, but hard cold scientific facts and that there was no room for disagreement, that the facts are what they are. They had no response.
So yes, the facts clearly show that, according to our measurements, the average global temperature has increased in the past 100 years or so, since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the 1800’s. The facts also show that CO2 (a byproduct of fossil fuel fired electric generation and vehicle emission) is a green house gas. However, none of the science (discounting the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers, which wasn’t written by the scientists themselves and which contradicts the scientists’ actual findings) concludes that man’s emissions of CO2 have been significant enough to account for the global warming. In fact, the only correlation that anyone has been able to show with our increasing temperature (which is only increasing in the winter and in the Northern Hemisphere) is that with solar radiation, which is clearly beyond our control. So, what Utah’s and California’s governors are proposing is all pain for no gain.
The article that I sent you may be weak in ascribing motives to the man-made Global Warming alarmists, but I’m sure that the author is just basing that on his personal experience with his own family and friends; but then, that’s what we all tend to do: filter world events through the lens of our own experiences. As for me, I have a hard time figuring out why so many people are pressuring us to take such drastic and expensive measures to try to affect the weather, when the evidence suggests that we can do no such thing regardless of how much money we throw at it. I do know that NBC news is owned by GE and that GE makes many of the “green” devices being touted on the NBC nightly “news” shows. I also know that EPRI depends on external funding to survive and that the technological “solution” to man-made global warming that they’re touting will cost $2T (their figure = 17% of our GDP), a good percentage of which will certainly flow their way at least in the early R&D years. So, if I were to hazard a guess as to the motives behind this movement it would either be TV ratings (and hence, advertising revenues) and/or increased product sales. I have thus far resisted the urge to ascribe the more sinister motives that I’ve heard bandied about, like the resurgence of socialism after their failure in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
I’m not sure that you’re interested in chasing this topic as far as I have, or spending as much time reading on the subject (it is kind of dry), but if you wanted to read the boring details for yourself, I’ve posted all the links and reading lists on my blog.
As for our buddies overseas, like Bangladesh and Bolivia, which are both near and dear to my heart since living and working there, I agree that they have serious environmental problems that need addressing. However, I think we’re diverting funds from proven solutions into early adoption of expensive technologies based on an artificially induced demand. I am, of course, always open to and desirous of continuing dialog – just because I’ve come to a conclusion on the subject based on my reading to-date doesn’t mean my mind is closed to new information.
Well, I’ve gone on much too long. Sorry for the rant – it’s been that kind of month here sunny Southern Utah. You have a great weekend.
Un abrazo.
Note: I took the attached photo on my family trip to southern Chile in 2005. Watching lava bubble and boil was every bit as entertaining as watching ice (glaciers) melt.
Good to hear from you again. Here in Utah I’ve been up to my eyeballs with both technical and political work. On the political front my current battle is on the “alternative” energy front – our silly governor, who is making TV commercials with Arnold Schwarzenegger to promote their special interest agenda, is trying to impose a renewable portfolio standard on the utilities in Utah. No kidding. I’ve been driven to distraction with so many meetings up at the state capital in Salt Lake City. The proponents of this proposal keep saying that the electric rates in Utah are too low and that they should be artificially raised so that their solar and wind power projects would appear to be economical in comparison. They don’t care about the poor rate payers who are just trying to make ends meet in this current recession (that GWB is denying.) The muni’s are exempt from State law in Utah, and the IOU’s don’t care what their rates are, as long as they can collect their standard rate-of-return, so it falls to the three little piss-ant co-ops in the state to try to protect our members’ interests. It makes my blood boil every time some rich developer talks about taking money out of my little old grandma’s pockets just so he can peddle his products in a command economy situation rather than the free market that we supposedly espouse in this country.
These project developers, who want to set up alternative energy projects on my (and my Grandma’s) nickel, all point to man-made global warming as their justification. They never try to defend their position beyond adopting the Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger line of “the debate is over.” I know that’s what they’d like, since they can’t point to any scientific evidence to support their claims. I’m convinced that the truth of the matter is that I’m the only one in the room up in SLC that has actually read the scientific studies published on the subject, by the IPCC and the individual scientists that make up that panel. The other side seems to be getting their “science” strictly from Hollywood. During the lunch break at the last meeting, I went to eat with the activists from the mayor’s office and the solar lobbyists (including a professor from the U of U) and attempted to engage them in a friendly scientific discussion of the facts. They acted like I was the first person to attempt such a thing – their only response was that we’d just have to agree to disagree. On the facts?! I pointed out that we weren’t discussing religion or who was the greatest rock-and-roll guitarist, but hard cold scientific facts and that there was no room for disagreement, that the facts are what they are. They had no response.
So yes, the facts clearly show that, according to our measurements, the average global temperature has increased in the past 100 years or so, since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the 1800’s. The facts also show that CO2 (a byproduct of fossil fuel fired electric generation and vehicle emission) is a green house gas. However, none of the science (discounting the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers, which wasn’t written by the scientists themselves and which contradicts the scientists’ actual findings) concludes that man’s emissions of CO2 have been significant enough to account for the global warming. In fact, the only correlation that anyone has been able to show with our increasing temperature (which is only increasing in the winter and in the Northern Hemisphere) is that with solar radiation, which is clearly beyond our control. So, what Utah’s and California’s governors are proposing is all pain for no gain.
The article that I sent you may be weak in ascribing motives to the man-made Global Warming alarmists, but I’m sure that the author is just basing that on his personal experience with his own family and friends; but then, that’s what we all tend to do: filter world events through the lens of our own experiences. As for me, I have a hard time figuring out why so many people are pressuring us to take such drastic and expensive measures to try to affect the weather, when the evidence suggests that we can do no such thing regardless of how much money we throw at it. I do know that NBC news is owned by GE and that GE makes many of the “green” devices being touted on the NBC nightly “news” shows. I also know that EPRI depends on external funding to survive and that the technological “solution” to man-made global warming that they’re touting will cost $2T (their figure = 17% of our GDP), a good percentage of which will certainly flow their way at least in the early R&D years. So, if I were to hazard a guess as to the motives behind this movement it would either be TV ratings (and hence, advertising revenues) and/or increased product sales. I have thus far resisted the urge to ascribe the more sinister motives that I’ve heard bandied about, like the resurgence of socialism after their failure in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
I’m not sure that you’re interested in chasing this topic as far as I have, or spending as much time reading on the subject (it is kind of dry), but if you wanted to read the boring details for yourself, I’ve posted all the links and reading lists on my blog.
As for our buddies overseas, like Bangladesh and Bolivia, which are both near and dear to my heart since living and working there, I agree that they have serious environmental problems that need addressing. However, I think we’re diverting funds from proven solutions into early adoption of expensive technologies based on an artificially induced demand. I am, of course, always open to and desirous of continuing dialog – just because I’ve come to a conclusion on the subject based on my reading to-date doesn’t mean my mind is closed to new information.
Well, I’ve gone on much too long. Sorry for the rant – it’s been that kind of month here sunny Southern Utah. You have a great weekend.
Un abrazo.
Note: I took the attached photo on my family trip to southern Chile in 2005. Watching lava bubble and boil was every bit as entertaining as watching ice (glaciers) melt.
No comments:
Post a Comment