An Appeal To Global Cooling Deniers

The sun has gone blank - no sunspots

Astronomer Paul Dorian, an actual space scientist, says we may be headed for a new mini ice age as sun spots disappear from the face of the sun. Informed sources say that carbon emissions from Al Gore's private jet have leaked into space from the stratosphere and fallen into the sun, filling up the sunspots and making them disappear.~

For those of you congregated over double shot half-caff, mocha soy latte's in a Rio Linda Starbucks, that was sarcasm bordering on satire. Satire is not by the way bald-faced lying as some of you seem to think, but an obvious exaggeration with intent to ridicule, not for the purpose of masquerading as legitimate news, as is the practice of a disturbing number of fake news "satire" sites run by millenials who never read Jonathan Swift or Geoffrey Chaucer or Mark Twain in school, but drifted toward the National Enquirer and stories about aliens who advised President Clinton when he was president (which, given his record, just might be true enough).

Meanwhile, back to the threat of a new Ice Age: The only solution to save mankind from this new form of nuclear winter is, of course, global socialism.

My good friend Dave Degan, whom I've never heard of before until he came on a Facebook thread of mine to curse me for a stupid lout, objects to the very idea of sunspots as having anything to do with temperatures on Earth. The fact that he sweated through his Tommy Hilfigers one day last summer when his AC in his car broke down during his afternoon commute has apparently convinced him that tiny bipeds drinking beer and watching American football (as opposed to the real kind with the round ball and a distinct lack of scoring), can overcome the effects of an almost unimaginably large nuclear ball of fire equivalent to So the total energy output of the sun in one second could be equal to more than six trillion Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs per second.

So Dave shows up with this stunning bit of reasoning:

• Yeah sun spots my a*se. Of course it would be nothing whatsoever to do with pollution clouds from the billions of oil burnt every day in our cars , planes, liners, power stations blotting out the sun's rays would it? No - never .

I, of course, am completely schooled by his overpowering display of massive intellect (again, sarcasm for the Rio Linda half-calf vanilla triple-ginseng espresso crowd). I did check Dave's numbers, though. He doesn't say billions of what - gallons, barrels of fuel we supposedly burn every day? Lets assume the smaller amount, gallons, which will give us a larger number to be fair to Dave. The world knocks back 94 million barrels of crude a day at current rates. You can make 19 gallons of gasoline from each barrel or 12 gallons of diesel. Just to give Dave the biggest number possible, lets say all of it is made into gasoline. That gives us 1.7 billion gallons of gasoline.  That's billion, singular, not plural.  That said, less than half of crude oil is actually made into fuel. We'll assume it's all gas and not diesel to get Dave a bigger number. That works out to 850 million gallons of gasoline a day at the most. So the billions is not a good number unless you are measuring your gas consumption in pints. It's still a lot of gasoline, but not quite billions, although it does take billions to frighten people these day. Millions just doesn't have the power to terrify that it once did. Congress can burn through a million bucks during their mid-morning coffee break without even being on the floor for a vote.

That said, global cooling deniers never trouble themselves with accurate numbers anyway; only numbers which make the case for a global socialist government.

Actually, the sun's rays aren't being blotted out by power plants much these days either. Nuclear plants, for instance, produce no smoke, which is possibly part of the reason global cooling deniers are so against them. Coal fired plants have scrubbers installed which remove most of the carbon pollutants from the plant's smoky fires. Even cars have special attachments to remove the carbon pollution from their exhaust. As a result, on a clear day you can now see Los Angeles, something you couldn't do back in the 60s. You can thank my generation for that one, Dave. Most of the real smokey stuff is found in third world countries, but for some reason, global climate treaties never seem to address the problems in those countries. They only call for draconian measures in successful economies which tend to be capitalist, free market states. Not sure why?.~  (the .~ is a snark mark to indicate sarcasm for the humor-impaired).

Dave certainly has an inordinately high opinion of humanity's ability to affect the Earth's climate. Human pollution pales before the damage Mama Nature can wreak in just a weekend when she's feeling cranky. One active volcano can put out more soot and ash in a month than all the power plants in all the world can put out in a decade, darkening skies worldwide as Krakatoa, Santorini, Vesuvius and others did and as Mt. St. Helens tried to do more recently. 

Early settlers in the Midwest started putting out the great
prairie fires before they got too bad. For one thing all the
smoke made it hard to breathe and for another it killed stuff.

 

Did you know that it used to be, before humans started putting them out before they spread, that forest and prairie fires used to burn out of control in fires that consumed areas the size of midwestern states, pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere? Mother Nature for her own amusement used to smite the ground with lightning and burn up huge swaths of vegetation with that little trick - at least before humans started to intervene with their shovels, wet blankets, fire trucks and those pesky smoke jumpers.

I'm a little rain forest and I love me some CO2!

The trees and grass, as it turns out, used to love the extra CO2 that all that burning created. It seems the extra carbon dioxide makes the rain forests grow more thickly. Then, when the carbon dioxide is heavier in the atmosphere, all that new vegetation in turn produces more oxygen and it all balances out.

It amazes me at the arrogance of tiny little global warming alarmists who think that something we all can do will somehow overcome the effects of the sun. Wikipedia has this to say about the power of the sun. Located a mere 93 million miles away from our planet’s surface, the Sun is a thermonuclear fusion reaction. Good thing it’s that far away, since nuclear fusion involves temperatures in excess of 5700 °C, (and as high as 14 million °C in the case of earth’s sun). The sun continuously pelts the earth with 35,000 times the amount of energy required by all of us who now use electricity on the planet in our lifetimes.* Sunspots regulate the amount of energy escaping from the sun. More sunspots, more heat. Fewer sunspots, less heat. Right now, the sun has gone blank. Few or no sunspots! That means the old solar furnace is running cooler. Last time that happened this drastically was during the Maunder Minimum, an event that happened in the late 1600s to early 1700s. Ever noticed that not a lot happens in history during that time period. Everybody was huddled under blankets is why. It was freakin' cold! They called it the mini ice age and lots of people starved because the growing season was shortened.

A proper hive city.

It seems obvious that humans are making the planet warmer, at least to political hacks who need a good crisis like anthropogenic global warming to justify turning the human race into a massive insect-like collective so that their betters can rule over them effectively, turns out to be a load of balderdash. By stuffing us into hives, we'd leave the rest of the Earth free for nature to function unmolested, save for the dachas of the ruling elites who work so hard to make our lives all exactly alike and therefore "fair".

Given the political background of Marxist collectivism that these guys come from, one should not be surprised at the arrogance of the global climate change crowd. They somehow manages to count coup every time the weather changes whether it gets hotter, colder or in any way shifts no matter what their computer models have predicted. Remember the poles were supposed to be ice free by 2015. Instead, the polar ice caps are expanding. Apparently the sun decided we needed bigger ice caps and turned down the heat.

Snearing conjecture and appeals to sarcasm don't prove a point, not when those sunspots which Dave and his ilk so casually dismiss, but which seem to cause their collectivist sphincters to twitch for some reason, can raise or lower the output of that big ball of fire in the sky by literally millions of kilo-joules. Ultimately, the most we can do is adapt our farming methods, insulate our homes and try not to make big messes where we have our nests. I know that terrifies the control freaks among the progressive socialist intellectual elites, but it is true nonetheless. If the sun decides to play merry hob with us, there's nothing we can do to stop it except perhaps go to work to save ourselves. The idea of all that labor gives pseudo-intellectual elitists the heebie-jeebies.

I'm not saying we should not clean up after ourselves. We've actually been doing that since long before the Marxists decided to use global warming fear mongering as a political tool to herd people into those human built worker's paradises they truly believe they are smart enough to make. So to all the Global Cooling Deniers out there, I appeal to you. Cut it out! And buy plenty of warm socks. You're going to need those when you travel to your next global warming conference.

The truth is that next to Nature and Nature's God, you guys are really tiny little fellows in a wide world after all.

And I've also noticed a lot of you have really small hands.

Just sayin'

© 2016 by Tom King

* From a Wikipedia article on the sun and sunspots and NASA data on the recent sunspot decrease.

 

World Peace Through Nomenclature Change

 A friend's little boy the other day, stumbled over the pronunciation of the Czech Republic in his geography lesson.  He called it the "Quiche Republic". His mom, of course, dutifully posted the incident on Facebook. I though about it for a bit and am now convinced the kid was really on to something; something that could bring about world peace in our lifetime.

I now believe that every country in the world should be named after food. I think the political ramification of such a policy would be far-reaching.  I mean how hard would it be to stay angry at your neighbors in, say, Pizzaland or Hamburgerslovakia.  Would you really want to shoot missiles at Mashed Potatopolis or Chocolatecakehastan?

There are a few countries that already tried naming theselves for food - mostly smaller city-state style countries. Unfortunately, history proves that everybody needs to participate in nomenclature change or the delicious-sounding countries will be snapped up by countries with more war-like sounding names.  The Sandwich Islands, for instance, have always been a peaceful garden spot in the Pacific. They were at one time an independent nation till they were gobbled up by the more war-like sounding "United States".  And we all know the fate of city-states like Bologna, Neufchâtel, Roquefort, Worcester, Weiner and Asiago. Swallowed up by Italy, Germany, England, France and Austria - all hungry countries with non-food related names.  Turkey has long had to fight for it's independence and Greece has managed to keep clear of dominations since the Goths and the Vandals forced them to cut their cholesterol way back.

How much better would it be if every nation was named for something tasty?  Deutchland could become Sauerkrautland - still with the attitude, but more digestible. Switzerland would become Schnitzeland and as suggest, Italy would become just plain Pizza or possibly Pasta. China could indulge its need for world domination alive by calling itself Top Ramen.  The United States could still be united, calling itself "Cornutopia" or the "Onion Steaks of America". Canada still "could" by retaining the "can" part of it's name but make it "Canasalmon", since we don't know what a "can o' da" is. |

Isolationist nations could name themselves Brusselsproutia, Liverland, Broccolikia or Beetavania. The states could name themselves for condiments - Mustardia, Ketchupstan or or Saltundpepper. Mayonnaisia would get along with everybody. Every country could have it's own unique array of cheesy provinces.  

Instead of Peace Conferences or Summit meetings we could have Pot Lucks and Smorgasbord's. Everybody at the conference would have to bring enough to feed their own family plus enough to share. We could have cookoffs instead of wars. Picnics instead of invasions. We'd always invite Chile to the Barbecues and failing to bring along Bordeaux, Burgundy and Champagne would be considered impolite.

Instead of fighting AGAINST global change, we could fight FOR change.  We'd educate children to support Global Nomenclature Change.  We could rewrite history books in order to highlight the peacefulness of food-related geography. We could ridicule anyone who didn't accept the idea that Global Nomenclature Change was the wave of the future. And if, indeed the world is getting warmer, we'll all just bake to a nice golden brown together in peace and harmony.

Kinda like those family Thanksgiving dinners when you were a kid......

© 2013 by Tom King

We've Only Got One Globe

The Problem With Globalization

The folks that moon after a one world government see it as the next logical step towards universal peace.  Quite rightly they lay the blame for war, violence and exploitation at the door of tribalism, nationalism, greed and corruption. The globalists have looked around for a villain and believe they have found one in capitalism.

Let's face it, capitalism is tough on the face of it. If you work hard, you reap the rewards. If you don’t – tough luck. No guarantees. Progressivism/socialism says you should take from those who are well off and spread it around to those who are not. It's sold as a more humane form of government. It sounds like progressivism would be a better way of creating a peaceful world than the apparently dog eat dog capitalist system.  That good feeling about progressive socialism lasts until you actually sit down with an honest history book.

The flaw in the progressive ideology is that it assumes a black and white world; one in which all capitalist leaders are greedy, self-interested, evil and exploitative and that socialist leaders are altruistic, unselfish and good.  It further assumes that if we only have one government, war will end. After all, who will we go to war against?  Right?

The truth is, we can't trust any of our leaders, whether they be socialist or capitalist. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sort of. That old proverb is is flawed. There are sometimes good leaders. Power doesn't corrupt everybody. What actually happens is that "Power attracts the corruptible."  You may get lucky and get one or two incorruptible leaders, but if you surround them with all that power, you can bet there's a whole bunch of folks out there who would dearly love to get their hands on all that power and usually do.

But isn't all those separate nations out there, governing in the name of their own self-interest a very bad thing. Turns out, not so much. The United States is 50 separate government banded together, but each governing according to the self-interest of their own people. Like states, if there are many nations and one nation rises up to harm its neighbors, the community of nation states can (and does) tend to band together against that rogue nation. If there is just one world “nation” and it goes bad, then we’re all pretty much screwed. That's the trouble with breaking all your eggs into one basket. You're really vulnerable to having rotten eggs swirling around poisoning the whole basket.

 Even God does not build a one-world church.  When an oppressive one world church organization threatened to overwhelm Christendom and establish a one world theocracy, God raised up a thousand communities of faith to resist. In ancient Israel, God warned the Israelites that centralizing power in one man - in a king, no matter how charismatic or well-meaning that king might be - was a mistake. God’s system trusts no leader with massive power.  If there were civilizations on other planets nearby stars with whom we had commerce, we might have a need for a global government to represent us. We would also have other worlds to which we could appeal to for help should one planet move against us, or even if our own government become oppressive and went bad.

In the meantime, till we start building the United Federation of Planets, this world is all we've got and we have very good reasons to fear a global government. The other old saw about not putting all your eggs into one basket is excellent advice. Too much of a risk of rotten eggs to make that a safe policy.


(c) 2009 by Tom King - Some Rights Reserved