Why Roe is Doomed

“It’s My Body” and Why It Means the Abortion of Roe

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Trump has certainly caused quite a bit of raucous lately. And it seems that this nomination has resurrected the abortion debate in the United States, a discussion that has been brewing just below the surface for decades. Let’s be clear, Roe is most certainly doomed, but it is not because of some frat boy named Brett being nominated to the Supreme Court. No, Roe’s ultimate demise will actually be caused by the pro-abortion movement themselves. Without question, the seeds to Roe’s ultimate undoing can be found in their favorite slogan, “It’s My Body”. I’ll explain, but first a little history is in order.

Roe vs. Wade is one of the most, if not the most, landmark cases in recent Supreme Court history. But, for as much as Roe has been discussed and debated since 1973, the year the Supreme Court handed down the decision, there is a surprising lack of general knowledge about the actual case. Never fear, it is fairly easy to come up to speed. In short, if one is objective about the matter and uses scholarly language, then Roe can be described as being a weak ass, horrifically conflated, piss poor decision made on a complete and utter shit show of a case. No, really, it’s almost kind of tragic just how bad the legal opinion was and the clownish circumstances that surrounded the case. For such a landmark decision, one would expect more…much more. And no this is not exaggeration, it’s actually a rather nice way of describing the case.

Let’s just start with the individual that started the case, one Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as “Jane Roe” in court papers. Ms. McCorvey was born Norma Nelson and is an individual who had trouble with the law at an early age. Like, at age 10, when she robbed the cash register of a gas station and ran off with a female friend to Oklahoma. That was when she was 10. Without belaboring this rather unusual childhood, eventually, Ms. McCorvey married at the age of 16, divorced, gave birth to her first child out-of-wedlock, developed a serious drinking problem and ended up abandoning her first child, Melissa, who was subsequently taken away from her in 1965. Despite being an avowed lesbian, Ms. McCorvey had a second child that was put up for adoption in 1966/1967. But it was with her third pregnancy that she would make history, so to speak.

In 1969, at the age of 21, Norma McCorvey; an avowed lesbian, became pregnant with her third child and returned to Dallas TX. McCorvey initially falsely claimed that she had been raped in the hopes of attaining a legal abortion exemption under Texas law. She later admitted that her story was a complete fabrication and sought to obtain an illegal abortion. However, the illegal abortion clinics had been closed by authorities. Eventually, two female attorneys who were specifically looking for cases involving women seeking abortions convinced Ms. McCorvey to file a lawsuit that eventually became Roe vs. Wade. So, obviously a poster child for women’s “rights”.

Now, the part of the story that almost nobody knows; I mean other than everything written above, is that Ms. McCorvey actually had the child that was at the center of Roe. vs. Wade. The child was not aborted but rather was put up for adoption, just as Ms. McCorvey’s second child. Perhaps even just as amazing, in the three years that it took to bring the case before the Supreme Court, Ms. McCorvey never appeared in court a single time.

Despite the fact that under the normal rules of standing and mootness the case would not generally have been heard by the courts or would have resulted in what is called an “advisory opinion”, that’s not what ended up happening. While Jane Roe’s appeal was moot because she had already given birth and thus would not be affected by the ruling and as such lacked standing to assert the rights of other pregnant women, the court allowed the appeal based upon a rather obscure exception phrased “capable of repetition, yet evading review”.

So…after all of this, the Supreme Court eventually hands down a decision in 1973 that decides in favor of Roe based upon the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added)

But, what do the Ninth and Fourteenth amendments actually say? Nobody ever bothers to look that up. Luckily, you don’t have to. The Ninth Amendment says this about abortion:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Here’s the issue with using this as a basis for finding a “right” to abortion. Hundreds of years of judicial and scholarly research agree that the Ninth Amendment does not confer any actual rights. As Professor Laurence Tribe has noted: “It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of ‘ninth amendment rights’. The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.”.

OK, so surely the Fourteenth Amendment has much more to say on the subject of abortion. To wit the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”

Let’s do these in reverse order and see which of these sections mentions privacy or abortion. Section 5, nope. Section 4, nope. Section 3, nope. Section 2, nope. Section 1, nope. You see, the context of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it was adopted in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments following the United States Civil War. The reason it exists is to address issues related to the equal application of the law related to former slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with privacy or abortions. It’s a pure fabrication by the court.

OK, so that’s the history of Roe. It’s important to keep things in context here and actually know what you are discussing or have an opinion about. So, bad decision or not, the real question becomes, should the government be all up in your uterus with regards to whether or not you should be able to get an abortion. Now, to some degree, even with Roe, they are all up there and everything because the courts still allow abortions to be banned when the fetus is “viable”. But before that, should it be the government’s business? Well, probably not. However, if the pro-abortion movement gets its way and your body truly becomes “yours”, well then we have a major problem.

You see, when pro-abortion rights activists say “It’s my body”, they are evoking a statement that their body is, well; “theirs”. Essentially, the argument is that an individual’s body is that person’s property and that individual owns it. Except that, technically, you body isn’t your property, it’s a little more vague than that. You see, while suicide has been decriminalized in most states in the United States, you still can’t just go out and sell one of your kidneys to the highest bidder. Your body is not technically your property to do with what you will. But, many argue that it should be, that your body should be considered your exclusive property, particularly when you start talking about DNA.

Today, if someone gets my DNA genome, they could post it online for the entire world to see and they would technically not be violating any laws. But with the advent and rapid proliferation of DNA testing facilities where in their terms and services they claim a form of ownership over your submitted DNA, this issue of ownership is going to come to a head in the courts; quite probably the Supreme Court, sooner rather than later. And this is where the pro-abortion movement may have wished they would have chosen a different slogan.

Think about it, if your body actually truly becomes your property and since DNA is part of your body, well then “Houston, we have a problem”. Specifically, that problem is that the fetus growing inside a woman; that said woman wishes to abort, is technically no longer entirely her property. I know, what?!? Well, think about it, it is really only HALF her property, DNA-wise that is.

Now, I grant you, for people that do not understand the biology inherent in having babies this may come as quite a shock but babies actually have half of the DNA of EACH parent. A baby’s unique DNA consists of half of the unique DNA of the mother and the other half…drum roll…is the unique DNA of the male donor. Thus if DNA becomes property, well, then that baby is partially the male donor’s property as well. And at that point, Roe is pretty much done. Stick a fork in it, good night, game over, thanks for trying out.

So ultimately, Roe is doomed. There is no way that DNA does not eventually get ruled as property of an individual. So it will be an odd end to the abortion discussion but an end none-the-less and; God forbid, the utterly ignored concept of MEN’s rights (read fathers) will finally actually get their due.

Published July 24th, 2018

Immigration Idiocy

Of COURSE You Separate the Children from Their Parents!

Recently, there has been a rather remarkable discussion going on within the United States regarding immigration policy. This debate has achieved epic proportions, pushed the political rhetoric to a new low (seriously, calling people Nazi’s?) and led to ridiculous, childish and downright dangerous behavior. First, let’s all agree to calm down and agree that OF COURSE you should separate children from parents when people cross illegally at the southern border of the United States. I mean, what the heck are you people thinking, have you become completely unhinged and out of your mind? To an objective observer, the right course of action seems blaringly obvious. However, I will explain in detail why this is the only reasonable course of action.

So, before we dive into the meat of the subject, we need to all understand a little background. First up is really the status of immigrants that cross illegally over the border. Do the same laws and due process apply in such circumstances? While there is a legitimate Constitutional question here on whether illegal immigrants are really entitled to the same due process under the law, for the sake of this article, let’s all just assume that immigrants that cross illegally are entitled to the same rights of due process as citizens of the United States and therefore should also be subject to the same laws and treatment as United States citizens. Fair is fair, everybody gets equal treatment.

So, if everyone should be treated equally, the natural question that arises is, “How are United States parents and children treated?” Well, the short answer is that around 100,000 children of United States citizens are separated from their parents or responsible adults every year. That’s right, 100,000…which is like way more than 2,000 for those of you that are math geeks.

Professor Paul Chill of the University of Connecticut School of Law stated in a 2004 article that:

According to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 100,000 children who were removed in 2001–more than one in three–were later found not to have been maltreated at all. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Because definitions of maltreatment are extremely broad and substantiation standards low, it can be reasonably assumed that a significant number of other children who are found maltreated, and for whom perhaps some intervention–short of removal–is warranted, are nonetheless removed on an emergency basis.

Now, when Mr. Chill mentions “extremely broad” and “standards low”, he is being extremely accurate. Consider the case of Debra Harrell, the working mother who was arrested for letting her 9-year-old spend summer days alone at a park crowded with families. Or the case of the widow who left four kids home alone for a few hours, only to have them taken by the state. Or perhaps that of Kim Brooks, whose nightmare began when she left her kid in the car while running a quick errand. In all of these cases, the state separated the children from their parents.

Where was the shock and dismay over these cases, and thousands others like them? Where were the cries of “Nazis!” or denying child protective services workers the right to eat at a restaurant or public shaming of said individuals? Not a peep.

So, I would submit to you that, were a parent or family to set out walking from an impoverished neighborhood in New York City bound for Texas (that’s about the same distance from Guatemala to Texas) with barely any food and water, subjecting their children to hunger, dehydration and crime that they probably wouldn’t make it out of New York state, let alone make it to Texas, before their children were ripped from their arms over cries of child endangerment.

But, let’s suppose that this family does succeed in making the arduous trek to Texas, all along the way subjecting their children to drug traffickers, local gangs, rape, murder, hunger and dehydration, and upon arriving find a local court house or other government facility and break-in, committing the offenses of trespassing and illegal breaking and entering. At this point, OF COURSE the parents would be separated from their children on the basis of child endangerment and after a potential year long stint and jail, the parents would likely be hard pressed to win back custody of their children…ever.

There would be no hue and cry over “Nazis” or stupid rhetoric and actions from anyone. Everyone would pretty much agree that those parents were irresponsible and put their children in a dangerous circumstance and had no right to continue being responsible for those children. People would pat the authorities and child protective service members on the back and say “Good job!”.

So, when you consider someone from Guatemala or other Central American country doing EXACTLY the same thing as our mythical family, OF COURSE you separate them from their children. They are putting those children in danger for crying out loud. And THAT is why what is going on today at the border is immigration idiocy.

Parkland Students Have Only Themselves to Blame

School Shootings and Suicide

Look, this is going to be short and to the point. And there’s no other way to say it other than to just come out and say it. Parkland Florida survivors have nobody to blame but themselves for what happened at their school. It wasn’t police (although they are definitely culpable), not the FBI (also culpable) or school guidance counselors, Florida Department of Families and Children, the shooter’s parents/family and most definitely not guns. No, the Parkland students themselves are to blame for what happened. Let me explain.

When someone commits suicide, we do not blame the rope that they used to hang themselves or the garage they use to suffocate themselves in. No, we actually tend to blame ourselves. What more could we have done to prevent that person from committing suicide? What signs did we miss? How could we have been a better friend, family member or coworker? But, those are mature, adult responses to a tragedy.

The problem is that Parkland students are not mature or adult. Like all teenagers, they are immature individuals who are self-absorbed and generally incapable of true human introspection. Thus, they angrily lash out at anything and everything that is to blame for what happened in Parkland Florida. But they should be blaming themselves. They are ultimately the root cause of why the shooter lashed out.

You see, the issue is that school shootings by teenagers tend to be a proxy for suicide. Both are the last, desperate acts of young individuals who have been bullied, teased, demeaned and made to feel so unpopular and outcast that they see no other way out other than suicide. Some are so angry that they wish to take their tormentors with them. It should therefore be no surprise that there are more school shootings these days considering that in the last decade the suicide rate amount 15-24 year olds has climbed about 30%, from 10% to well over 13%.

And the root cause of all of this is the kids. Kids today are over-privileged, mean, cruel to others different than themselves, form cliques, tease unpopular students, make fun of other kids and are generally just downright immature. Most parents would be mortified if they saw how their kids actually behaved towards others when in school. And every adult that went to high school knows exactly what I mean. Until the root cause of the problem with our society is addressed, teen suicide and school shootings will continue, regardless of how many gun laws are passed or politicians given the boot.

Which one of those Parkland survivors lifted a single finger to reach out to that shooter and try to make friends with him or make him feel included? Even more, which one of those Parkland survivors teased the shooter? Talked about that individual behind his back? Made him feel an outcast?

Emma Gonzalez, what did you do to make a difference in that young man’s life? What did you do to make his life worse than it was already? David Hogg, how about you? Cameron Kasky, what did you do? Daniel Duff, did you make a difference in that young man’s life? For the better or for the worse? Did you try?

The reality is none of those kids did a damn thing when it really mattered. And so now, instead of introspection, they stamp their feet and shout and scream and demand “change”. How unfortunate that what really needs to change is not government or gun laws, but themselves.

The Climate Bomb

Population Control or Race to Oblivion?

While you are reading these words, poor people will have died from climate change. Most of them children.

If the above words look familiar, that’s because this story of climate change has been told before. One Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich penned an incredibly similar alarmist narrative in his book, The Population Bomb in 1968. But here’s the thing, the climate change narrative is simply a rehashing of The Population Bomb narrative which is itself simply a rehashing of a Malthusian catastrophe. The reality here is that climate change is simply a repackaging of a failed theory penned in 1779. And, I can prove it.

We can state the climate change narrative and population bomb narrative and the Malthusian catastrophe narrative with a single narrative.

“There is a variable x that is growing exponentially. This growth is caused by people. Continued, uncontrolled growth in this variable will result in the end of the world.”

If you never got around to reading The Population Bomb, now you don’t have to. You’re welcome. With The Population Bomb, the variable is, well, the human population and its exponential growth is caused by uncontrolled breeding/insufficient death rates. With climate change, the variable is CO2. But, and here’s the kicker, CO2 is simply a proxy for human population. Why? Because we are told that the rising CO2 levels have an anthropogenic cause (caused by humans) through breathing and the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Well, more population means more breathing and greater needs for energy and thus the burning of more fossil fuels. Hence, rising CO2 levels is simply a proxy for the growth of the human population.

The fact that CO2 is simply a proxy for human population is actually confirmed by Ehrlich himself and by a host of other sources here, here and here and, frankly, all over the place. Thus, what we really have in climate change is simply a “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggesting that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation. With Malthus and Ehrlich this was setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to provide sustenance. With climate change this is setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 output. At its heart, this is what climate change is all about. In short, nothing new to see here, this same tired argument has been made since the 18th century. Always about overpopulation and always ending in catastrophe. In 1779, Thomas Malthus wrote:

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p61

That’s some pretty dire, apocalyptic shit right there. But what I find more concerning really is Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists take on solving the problem. You see, these “Malthusian” catastrophes are always setup as an “end of the world” scenario. This is done to scare people and justify all kinds of horrific actions intended to “save the planet”. Specifically, population control. Ehrlich writes:

“The essential point made about population growth is as valid today as it was in 1968: “Basically, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birthrate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birthrate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate – war, famine, pestilence – find us” (p. 34).

— Paul and Anne Ehrlich, 2009. The Population Bomb Revisited.

You see, the term “population control” is simply a polite way of saying “mass genocide of deplorables, mass sterilization of undesirables, forced abortion and eugenics”. This has been the environmentalist mantra since Ehrlich and continues to this day with climate science.

One can believe in climate change and reject its mantra of genocide, sterilization, abortion and eugenics. The failure of Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists is that they blame all of the world’s problems on humans without ever considering human ingenuity and technological prowess. More humans means increased ingenuity and faster technological advancement. This has been proven since the 1960’s in that the growth in food production has been greater than population growth. The same is true of climate change and CO2. Human ingenuity and technology will prevail.

One Trick Pony

A “Final Solution” to Climate Change?

I think that the real problem that skeptics have with climate change advocates is the obvious political underpinnings behind mainstream climate science. Specifically, climatologists continually claim that the only solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions and replace the energy production with wind and solar. The problem with this is that such a statement ignores basic science, demonstrates an incredible inability to think critically and an unimaginable lack of imagination. In short, these climate change advocates are one trick ponies when it comes to controlling climate change. Somehow we are to believe that some of the supposedly “greatest minds in science” are too stupid to think of any other solution to climate change other than to stop burning fossil fuels by replacing them with wind and solar. Obviously, this is idiotic. The only rational explanation is that such scientists are politically motivated. This article will utterly expose this obvious political motivation by listing a plethora of alternative methods of controlling climate change that are both obvious and much more effective than replacing the burning of fossil fuels with wind and solar.

First, in order to understand the alternative approaches to controlling climate change, a little background is required. Specifically, one must understand the “forcing mechanisms” that cause climate change as well as the sources of CO2 within the atmosphere. With respect to climate change, internal forcing mechanisms include ocean-atmosphere variability and life. External forcing factors include orbital variations, solar output, volcanism, plate tectonics and human influences. If we accept that CO2 is a main driver of today’s climate change warming, then in addition to fossil fuel consumption we must also consider ocean-atmospheric exchange, plant and animal respiration, photosynthesis, soil respiration and decomposition and volcanic eruptions. Let’s take a look at all of these things and see what solutions we can come up with.

Let’s look at ocean-atmosphere exchange first. CO2 is a soluble gas that dissolves in the oceans and is taken up by marine plants. There is a natural cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere in cooler and more biologically active areas of the ocean and released back to the atmosphere in warmer, less biologically active areas. Using 2011 numbers, ocean-atmosphere exchange resulted in 330 billion metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. This is a huge number, an order of magnitude larger than burning fossil fuels. And yet, there is little if any research going into technology to influence this exchange for our benefit (reducing CO2 emissions). For example, we could reduce the rate of physical mixing that stirs deep water to the surface. Centuries of respiration produce high CO2 levels in the deep ocean and much of this CO2 is released when deep waters are brought up to the surface. We could also stimulate the growth of algae that consume CO2 on the surface and later transfer that carbon to the deep ocean when they die.

Orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) have a large impact on climate. In fact, they are noted for their correlation to glacial and interglacial periods, and more of a glacial period is apparently just what we need right now. The IPCC does note that Milankovitch cycles drove the ice age cycles. To be clear, Milankovitch cycles are the result of variations in the Earth’s eccentricity (oval orbit versus a perfect circle), the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation and precession. Perihelion or Apsidal precession is the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rotates, tracing out a flower petal pattern and is a major cause of climate oscillation on Earth. While technologically daunting, we could potentially find a way to influence the orbital variations of the Earth to our benefit or nudge the Earth into a slightly farther orbit, thus reducing the solar input into our atmosphere.

Granted, that last one is a bit far-fetched, but it leads us to the concept of reducing the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere or reducing solar output. To reduce the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere, we simply need a “sunshield”. We could send up numerous spacecraft to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point and essentially block a portion of the solar radiation coming to Earth, thus cooling the planet. Conversely, it might be possible to develop technology to reduce the solar output of the Sun. Climates millions of years ago had many times the amount of CO2 that we have today but the Sun was weaker than it is today.

Another way to go would be to promote volcanism. Volcanism actually has a cooling effect on the Earth and releases relatively little CO2 compared with other natural processes. This is because volcanic eruptions release large amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere and the optical properties of SO2 and sulfate aerosols strongly absorb and scatter solar radiation. We drop a few MOAB’s down the neck of some inactive or active volcanoes and simply get them fired back up again or encourage an eruption. And we would only need one or two of these. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 affected the climate substantially as global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

We could also engage in a bit of continental reengineering. The position of the continents determines the geometry of the oceans and therefore influences patterns of ocean circulation. The locations of the seas are important in controlling the transfer of heat and moisture across the globe, and therefore, in determining global climate. We might, for example, blow a hole in the Isthmus of Panama to allow the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to mix more freely.

Obviously what we have covered thus far are solutions on a grand scale that are likely largely infeasible. Except for the sunshield. I mean, duh, if you are getting too hot, fire up an umbrella. But, let us move on to more terrestrial solutions that are far less science fiction.

First up is nuclear fission. This one here, more than any other, demonstrates the absurd political underpinnings of mainstream climate scientists. Why? Because the introduction of more nuclear reactors solves the problem of fossil fuel burning today yet is not promoted at all by climate scientists. Climate scientists can’t promote nuclear reactors because environmentalists hate nuclear reactors. And yet, today’s nuclear reactors are many times more powerful and efficient than solar and wind. Consider that to generate the United States baseload electric power it would take approximately $30 trillion dollars and an area the size of Indiana with wind power. For solar, it would take about $20 trillion dollars and solar panels all across our southwest deserts. For nuclear, we could to it for as low as $1 trillion dollars on a few square miles of land. Also consider that a sunshield would cost $5 trillion dollars, just saying. But, nuclear fission reactors never enter the conversation, proving that climate scientists aren’t really about saving the planet and only about the politics.

Similarly, we could invest in research to speed up the creation of a viable nuclear fusion reactor, which is probably only about 20 years away anyway. Nuclear fusion reactors are effectively the opposite of nuclear fission reactors and essentially replicate the process that powers the Sun. And yes, we have achieved nuclear fusion, and yes we are making major breakthroughs and no, nobody in climate science ever talks about it.

We could also promote more plant growth, probably something like algae or Azolla in the oceans or artic. The process of photosynthesis removes CO2 from the air. The Azolla event in the mid Eocene epoch actually drew out 80% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, transforming the Earth from a “greenhouse Earth” state to the “icehouse Earth” state we have today. Yes Virginia, we live in an icehouse Earth state today, despite what climatologists might tell you.

Pollution. The human production of aerosols or pollutants actually has a cooling effect on the Earth because the pollutant particles reflect, absorb and scatter solar radiation. Nobody really wants pollution, but if pollution can save the planet, and that’s what we’re talking about here right? Saving the planet from the disastrous, terrible, awful effects of climate change that will destroy all of humanity? Then why not a little more pollution? Simple, effective and I guarantee we have the technology and yet, like nuclear fission, never enters into dialogues around controlling climate change because it is not what environmentalists want, further proving that climate change science is not about saving the planet but instead simply promoting environmentalist politics.

Now, let’s continue on with a much more controversial solution, wiping out large parts of the human and/or animal population. The average human releases 365 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. This is generally considered a carbon neutral effect since the carbon expelled during breathing was recently taken out of the air by plants, which were eaten by said human to sustain their metabolic processes. Fair enough, but that only goes so far. You see, if we can grow more plants to help take CO2 out of the air, a sudden adjustment of the population, say wiping out 25 million North Koreans, that would remove 9 million metric tons of “anthropogenic” CO2 emissions per year. Some might view that as a “win-win” as it were. Good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. Again, we are talking about climate change wiping out all of humanity correct? But, understandably, if you are a bit squeamish about intentional genocide to save the rest of humanity, we could always just kill all of the birds as that would solve global warming and also provide A Cure for the Flu. Again, win-win.

I could continue on with solutions, including things like banning all aviation travel, the most costly form of travel in terms of CO2 emissions and on and on and on without ever even approaching solar and wind solutions. Again, what this proves is that climate scientists are not really interested in actually solving the problem of today’s current climate change because we could do that today through nuclear fission reactors and pollution. No, their science is simply a sham to prop up environmentalist policies plain and simple. Otherwise, if the future of humanity was really at stake, then all options would be on the table. And yet, nobody talks or even hints at these alternative solutions or takes them seriously because the sole purpose of climate change science is to promote solar and wind power and to punish large, technologically progressive countries like the United States and transfer its wealth to smaller countries. It is a sham and it calls into question every piece of research, every model and every data point that has ever been conducted on climate change. And the scientists have done it to themselves because they have allowed themselves to become nothing but political hacks. Scientists, wake up. If you are really serious about the science then stop being a political one trick pony and actually get serious about solving the problem.

There are No Climate Change Deniers

Explaining Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change advocates impugn anyone and everyone that so much as raises an eyebrow over the various claims about climate change with the words “Climate Change Denier”. The trouble with this, however, is that it is inflammatory speech and is wholly inaccurate. It is inflammatory because it evokes the concept of a “Holocaust Denier”. This is not unintentional. It is inaccurate because there are no actual Climate Change Deniers. Well, OK, there might be but at the same level of volume as there are “Flat Earthers”. The problem is that the language is not correct, there is a deeper meaning to what is being referenced in calling someone that pejorative term that is not born out by the actual language. Understanding this will hopefully produce some more meaningful discussions around climate change.

Here is why there are no “climate change deniers”. Because everyone knows that climate change happens. Anyone that understands that there has been an ice age on Earth at some point in the past fundamentally grasps the concept that the Earth’s climate changes over time. It is fundamental. Therefore, calling someone a “climate change denier” is inaccurate because no one actually fits the ostensible meaning of those three words. That being said, that is not what is really intended by those three words in the first place.

What is actually meant when someone utters those words is that the person in question may not agree with the statement that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average, that this will continue indefinitely and that the primary cause for this is anthropogenic (caused by mankind’s actions), specifically from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. You see, this is a very different thing than that someone simply denies that there is climate change because calling someone a “climate change denier” automatically makes that individual look foolish because, of course, the Earth’s climate changes over time. No reasonable individual would argue otherwise. But, if an individual is skeptical about any of the three real meanings behind that term, then they are labeled a “climate change denier” and made out to be a fool when there are legitimate reasons to at least be a little skeptical of at least one or all of those three underlying premises.

First, we must consider whether the current temperature increases are greater than average. The reality is, science does not know. There is no generally accepted “average” amount of temperature change. Why is that the case? Simple, we didn’t have satellites and other things measuring temperatures and CO2 levels hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Since modern temperature measurements didn’t begin until the 1970’s, scientists rely on archaeological evidence, glaciers, vegetation, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology (tree rings), ice cores, animal remains and fossils and sea level changes. This NOAA report does a decent job of trying to obfuscate the fact that there is no consensus “average” temperature change but proves this fact unequivocally. The report effectively states that only the last 150 years are recorded by instrumentation and that everything past that is inference and that “significant uncertainties remain”. So, could one be legitimately skeptical of the alarm over today’s temperature increases? Absolutely. If we do not know with certainty what an average is or really have no idea if temperature increases/decreases of similar magnitude have occurred in the past (and we don’t), then why couldn’t a reasonable individual be skeptical?

The IPCC’s fourth report, AR4, states that the Earth has warmed by 0.74 degrees Celsius from 1906-2005 OK, so considering that modern global temperature measurements did not begin until the 1970’s, could one also be skeptical of this figure? The answer here again is yes. It would be reasonable to be skeptical of temperature measurements made in 1906 as these would either be by devices that may not be calibrated to today’s standards or temperatures arrived at indirectly or through inference.

Perhaps more troubling, AR4 specifies that over the 50 years from 1956-2005 that the rate of increase is 1.3 degrees Celsius per 100 years or essentially 0.65 degrees Celsius over those 50 years. This is used to raise alarm over the current rate of climate change. Now, could one be skeptical of this? The answer again is, sure. And the reason, again, is that we do not know for certain whether any comparable such temperature change has occurred in the past or even what an “average” is. In addition, this presupposes looking into the future and assuming that the next 50 years will continue this increase of 0.13 degrees per Celsius. Predicting the future is really hard, so might one question or be skeptical of this? Sure.

Thus far, the analysis has shown that there are legitimate questions that could be raised by a reasonable, fair-minded individual regarding the first two premises that underlie the phrase “climate change denier”, that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average and that this will continue indefinitely. The primary arguments that underpin such reasonable skepticism being that methods of inferring temperatures beyond the last 50 years or so are indirect and potentially imprecise and that it is difficult to predict the future. Let us now turn our attention to the third underlying premise, that the primary cause for this climate change is anthropogenic.

First, can one be skeptical of an anthropogenic cause on the basis that there are other potential explanations? Sure, the list of natural causes of climate change includes orbital variations, solar output, volcanism and plate tectonics. The list of natural carbon dioxide emissions includes the oceans, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. If one just looks at human population growth, one sees that there are over 3 times as many humans alive today than in 1950. Hmm. Double the warming from 1950 to today versus the previous 50 years relating to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 3 times the human population. Could one not reasonably conclude that the natural respiration of that many more humans is actually the main contributor to the increase in CO2 levels and thus the warming trend being experienced? Or, considering that we can only approximate the CO2 generated by ocean-atmosphere exchange, animal and plant respiration and soil respiration and decomposition, which account for about 750 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, what if we are off in our estimates and those emissions are closer to a trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions?

Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the primary reason given for establishing an anthropogenic cause for climate change is a consensus among scientists. This consensus is established through a review of peer-reviewed, scientific papers that either support or deny this anthropogenic cause. Current estimates are that around 97% of such recent papers support an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Now, here is the problem with this. Scientific consensus has not only been wrong in the past, but spectacularly wrong in the past. Consider the following:

  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, the scientific consensus was that there was no such thing as dark energy and dark matter. Scientific consensus was that we could see 100% of the matter and energy in the universe. We now understand that visible matter and energy represent only a small fraction of the matter and energy in the universe.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.

These are just four examples of where scientific consensus was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. Additional examples are numerous, including the consensus scientific beliefs in phlogiston, a flat Earth, an Earth-centric solar system, that there was no such thing as evolution, the “plum pudding” model of the atom and on and on and on. Science, particularly young science, tends to get things wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And climate science is at most 100 years old but in reality more like 30-50 years old. Physics, astronomy, paleontology and other sciences are orders of magnitude more mature and all of them have gotten things spectacularly wrong and likely have some consensus scientific opinions today that will eventually be proven wrong.

In conclusion, the term “climate change denier” is pejorative and wholly inaccurate. It is used to attack individuals that might reasonably question underlying assumptions and premises of a very young science. There is no reason for this and it is fairly unprecedented in the history of science for science to have become so political and descend into the realm of personal attacks and a concerted attempt to belittle opposing scientific views. The presumptions that underlie the term “climate change denier” can be legitimately questioned by a reasonable individual because the science, particularly in terms of historical climate change rates, is inexact. Finally, this reliance upon the supposed infallibility of this consensus science is ill-placed because scientific consensus has repeatedly been shown to not only be wrong, but to be spectacularly wrong in the past.

Published 6/8/2017

Guns Save Lives

Guns Don’t Kill Terrorists, British Firearm Units Kill Terrorists

First, before we get started, allow me to address the inevitable, predictable complaint this article is sure to generate. Specifically, that this article is despicable because it is using a tragedy to advance a political point of view. My response to this is rather lengthy and nuanced. I don’t care.

With that lengthy and nuanced discussion out of the way, I think that President Trump’s tweet on the London Bridge terrorist attack deserves some scrutiny:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump Jun 4
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!

To be clear, what President Trump was referring to was the London Bridge terrorist attack where three terrorists used a van and knives to murder seven people and injure scores more. Two unarmed British police officers attempted to tackle the terrorists and were both severely injured in the attack. A British Firearms Unit was called in and eight British police officers armed with guns fired a total of fifty (50) shots to kill the three terrorists and end the threat.

There were many that thought this particular tweet was odd. Not quite as odd as “covfefe”, but odd none-the-less. Here’s how I took it. Every time there is some sort of attack that involves guns there is the standard, typical, predictable outcry over gun violence and an effort to ban guns or otherwise infringe upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Why then shouldn’t we point out when guns actually save lives, as in the case of the London Bridge terrorist attack? Without guns, there would have likely been many more deaths and injuries resulting from the terrorist attacks. Who knows, guns could have saved the entire population of Britain.

Herein lies the fallacy and hypocrisy of gun control advocates. Where is the outcry to ban knives and vans? There is none. And there is no acknowledgement from these groups that, in point of fact, guns saved the lives of countless British citizens. To an objective observer, this is the height of hypocrisy and is a disservice to honest debate on the topic. Gun control advocates should at least admit that guns can save lives as well as take them.