Odd Citizen

Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

Global Warming & Y2K

April 15th, 2008

Observation from conclusion of: The Y2K scare: causes, costs and cures
by John Quiggin
from:Risk & Sustainable Management Group
Schools of Economics and Political Science
University of Queensland
Brisbane, 4072
Australian Public Policy Program Working Paper: 1/P04

The Y2K scare: causes, costs and cures, a PDF file

Does this conclusion about the Y2K scare in any way resemble the state of the current Global Warming debate?

“From the perspective of public administration, the two most compelling observations
relate to conformity and collective amnesia. The response to Y2K shows how relatively
subtle characteristics of a policy problem may produce a conformist response in which no
policy actors have any incentive to oppose, or even to critically assess, the dominant
view. Moreover, in a situation where a policy has been adopted and implemented with
unanimous support, or at least without any opposition, there is likely to be little interest
in critical evaluation when it appears that the costs of the policy have outweighed the

This is so well stated that nothing else needs to be said. After all, a mania is a mania, a panic is a panic.

Typical U.N. Food Program at Work

April 14th, 2008

As it appears in Time.com. Also typically for Time, the “news” article blames world capitalism for the problem.

The Cost of Looney Land CO2 Cap & Trade

April 14th, 2008

The Global Warming Hysteria now has some numbers associated with it. According to WashingtonWatch.com S. 2191, the America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 is projected to cost over $17,000 per average U.S. family. For that we could probably outfit (privately, not via. Nasa) a mission to another inhabitable planet and send everyone there.

Yes, folks, the nutty global warming frenzie does have a cost. A Big one! Throw out these ignorant bureaucrats and politicians. The bill’s original sponsor is Joseph Lieberman and there are many co-sponsors, including:

Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 10/18/2007
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 10/18/2007
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN] – 10/18/2007
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 10/18/2007
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] – 10/18/2007
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 10/18/2007
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 10/18/2007
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 10/30/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 2/28/2008
Sen Warner, John [VA] – 10/18/2007
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 12/17/2007

…. Idiots ALL.

Global Warming and Global Food Hysteria

April 13th, 2008

Oh, OH. Global warming hysteria has led to substitution of crops for oil, which has led to higher food prices. One big government response to hysteria is leading to another big government cycle of panic then intrusive, expensive, corrupt and ineffective programs.

This week we’ve seen numerous and sudden stories popping up about skyrocketing food prices causing rioting and hunger in Haiti and various parts of Africa. Now, from Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, according to API:

“He called on governments to rapidly carry out commitments to provide the U.N. World Food Program with $500 million in emergency aid it needs by May 1.”

So let’s analyze this. Haiti, which has had stockpiles of food rotting and being eaten by rats in Port au Prince customs warehouses — due to government actions, and African countries with brutal leaders like Robert Mugabe and others who a) destroy productive white-owned farms, b) refuse food aid that is from genetically modified seed, and c) salt away monetary donations in Swiss bank accounts (activities the U.N. and World Bank routinely ignores or excuses) — these guys deserve urgent food aid? What about the last batch? So we’re about to be treated by a call for a world organization to control food prices. Sound dumb and unlikely? Don’t kid yourself.

What’s causing the rising prices? Croplands dedicated to bio-fuels, corn crops for ethanol? Could this have something to do with rising prices? Of course it does. What’s causing the riots? Rising prices, partially. Failed big government programs, tariffs, politics, corruption? Yes, mainly those.

So an environmental panic sponsored by the U.N., various governments and their big-government cheer-leaders leads to higher food prices. SURPRISE! And failed international and U.S government aid programs fail to work due to corruption on all fronts. SURPRISE! And the proposed solution is more big government and international programs. NO-SURPRISE! Control oil. Control the air. Control the farms. Control food! More control leads to less of everything. Control Government would be a better and more effective solution.

Iran, Iraq and Al Quaeda This Weekend

April 13th, 2008

The bombing of the Shiite mosque in Shiraz, Iran on saturday makes one wonder if Al Qaeda is trying to provoke Iran into more actively participating in the Iraq war. It is reported that the Shiraz mosque preached hatred of Wahabi islam, the version promoted by Al Quaeda. So bombing the mosque could be a tactic similar to the Al Quaeda inspired attacks on Shiites in Iraq, itself, in an attempt to foment additional sectarian violence there. Could Al Quaeda be trying to provoke additional violence between Iran and Iraq? Just a speculation.

Why Global Warming is Political, Not Just Scientific

April 10th, 2008

A spirited debate has ensued in this blog under the title “Global Warming – Another Scientist’s Dissenting View”. This has been great fun. But seriously, this whole exercise had me thinking about the real nature of the difficulty we [a scientist(he) and a skeptic(me)] have communicating with eachother. Maybe it mirrors the problem that others have had in the same department.

My thinking goes something like this.

1. Suppose that the global warming crowd is right about the theory that the world is getting warmer due to CO2, and that this is due to human activity.

2. Are these esteemed climate experts really able to predict the future with any certainty at all? For example, Why did it take so long for “peer-reviewing” scientists to debunk the hockey-stick model? I don’t have to know anything about math to ask that question, which introduces doubt about the whole process. But suppose the models become convincing in spite of critics’ objections.

3. Do the future consequences even come close to Senator Gore’s scenario of global catastrophe? What makes the climatologists able to predict hurricanes, sea level rises, diseases, etc. as a result of GW? Are these forecasts and projections of consequences the least-bit credible?

4. Even if one accepts 1 through 3, above, isn’t the decision about what, if anything, can or should be done about it a political decision?

5. Climate scientists are entitled to their opinions about anything they like, but their scientific credentials give them no additional credibility or authority when it comes to deciding about taxation and regulation. It is up to the political process to evaluate whether a future danger is real and serious, and to weigh the consequences of doing something or nothing.

It’s a little like the argument that war is too serious a (political) matter to be left entirely in the hands of the generals (the technical experts).

So that’s why it is political without calling anyone names.

Global Warming – Another Scientist’s Dissenting View

April 7th, 2008

Here we’ve had some discussion about mathematical models and global warming. It has been my contention that the use of mathematics doesn’t necessarily validate a hypothesis, per-se. And since much of the global warming hysteria is based on projections of models, it’s interesting to hear from a scientist who says these models are not credible and explains clearly why, in his opinion, they are bogus.

Dr. Freeman Dyson discusses carbon in the atmosphere in a two part UTube presentation. Dr. Dyson is described in Wikipedia as a “theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, solid-state physics, nuclear engineering,…” among other activities. Clearly not a mathematical novice!

The first part is linked below:
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming you can get to the second part from there. It’s great to get a scientific opinion in English!

P.S I got this tip from the back jacket of a new book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so” by Lawrence Solomon.

Nasa – a $17.3 Billion Boondoggle

April 7th, 2008

For my $70 share of Nasa’s $17.3 Billion proposed budget I’d gladly take the money and let NASA fold. It has completely outlived its original purpose, which was to impress the Russians during the Cold War. The space shuttle is a miserable mistake technologically and economically, and the space station is a huge waste of resources. The proposed manned Mars mission is a waste of tax money.

As a technical person I’m easily impressed by technology. I love gee-wiz-bang stuff. But I don’t see any good reason for the U.S. Government to be engaged in this mass entertainment project using funds extracted by force. If enought people really valued NASA’s programs enough they could contribute private funds to a private version thereof and get their jollies. As for me, I’d like a $70 tax reduction.