Well, I felt it was finally time to post some thoughts on this subject. Since moving to Cali, this particular topic has been foremost in my mind. Every time I see someone doing 90 MPH in their Prius, 4 foot from the rear bumper of the person in front of them, weaving in and out of traffic, I have to marvel at the unabashed ignorance of the average human being.

Here you have a person who either wants to think of themselves as “concerned for the environment” or wants others to think this of them, so they go buy an “environmentally friendly” car. Then, they show their true colors by not even attempting to conserve fuel and driving like an idiot. Here’s a newsflash: My 400HP GTO most likely gets better gas mileage at 90 than your Prius.

Secondarily, the general idea of a hybrid car is just ignorant. You take a gasoline engine, use that to power a generator, use that to charge a battery pack, and then use that to power an electric motor. Huh? Who thought this was a good idea? You are taking mechanical energy provided by a gasoline engine, converting it to electricity, storing it, and then converting it BACK INTO MECHANICAL ENERGY! Are you kidding me? Basic physics tells you that every time you convert energy from one form to another, you LOSE SOME OF IT, reducing the overall efficiency of the system. In fact, the hybrids get good gas mileage is mostly due to them having NO POWER (0-60 in 10 seconds at best, dropping by ~2 seconds for every additional butt in the car) and being (relatively) light weight (3,000 lbs or so). Take an old VW beetle, drop a low HP, efficient engine in it, and I’d bet it would eclipse the hybrid. The only real advantage hybrids have is the ability to use regenerative braking, and THAT depends on driving style.

But enough of my rant on stupid hybrids and their drivers, let’s talk about this global warming horseshit. On this topic, I will present my arguments in a list for easy reading:

1. Computer Models
2. Geological Record
3. Science as Politics
4. The impact of the automobile on greenhouse gasses
5. The biggest problems (and no one is addressing them)

First, let’s tackle my favorite whipping boy, computer models. Every single prediction you are ever going to see on climate change comes from a computer model. Climate scientists create algorithms which they THINK approximate the physics of the climate and computer scientists plug these formulas into a computer model of questionable complexity and generate a prediction of how the earth is going to look in 50 years. Then a moron like Al Gore gets up and vomits out some sewage about how this is gospel. You can believe what you want to believe on this front, but humor me by answering a few questions:
1. When is the last time you saw a 100% accurate prediction of the weather for the week?
2. What about for next week? Next month? Next year?

Think about your answers to those questions and I think you will realize our folly here. If the computer models can’t predict the weather accurately next week, why do we think they are going to predict the weather accurately in 10 or 20 or 50 years?

Now, for this argument, some scientists will fight back with some line about how the computer models predict macro-scale changes while local weather predicts micro-scale changes, and the two are not related. Bullshit. Your own theories show that micro scale changes have an enormous effect on the macro-scale in weather. In fact, this was one of the first obvious examples of chaos theory at work.

So, in short, computer models are fallible, and should not be treated as the final word on climate prediction.

Next, let’s look at the geologic record. Ice core samples from Antarctica show data that can tell us a lot about temperatures and CO2 concentrations for the last 400,000 years or so. If you look through this data, you will notice several things that are at odds with Gore and his lemmings, but two are very obvious:
1. Climate has been HIGHLY variable throughout the entirety of the geological record, even before man had the ability to influence it significantly.
2. Temperature changes are not caused by CO2 concentration. In fact, the reverse is true.

Point number 2 is the most interesting, and the one most likely to be dismissed by the Gore lemmings. But don’t take my word for it, look at the data yourself, or read what Dr. Tim Patterson had to say about it:

I teach a general climate change course. To get the significance of this correlation over to the students I use the following analogy. I tell the students that based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. If you can believe that this historical temporal incongruity could be feasible then you can have no problem believing that CO2 is what’s driving Earth’s climate system.

Next, let’s examine the possibility that the science is being driven and advanced by politics. I know this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory, but there is some truth to it despite that. Scientists get their funding, largely, from grants. Grants are given for issues that are “hot” or perceived to be so with the voting public. Therefore, it is in the scientist’s best interest to propagate a myth if that myth leads to greater funding. The Washington Times probably said it best:

The academics, whose student and public admiration and financial well-being depend on an urgent topic, have a powerful incentive to focus on a simple human-produced cause and therefore a human-correcting solution to the incredibly complex challenge of global climate warming. This narrow focus limits the creativity so necessary to scientific discovery that truly resolves issues and serves society efficiently.

Furthermore, because many students in general education are exposed only to superficial knowledge in science throughout their primary, secondary and college careers, such students as working, voting adults are relegated simply to trusting the consensus of experts on any even modestly complex science matter. For example, when the “lies, damn lies” and AGW statistics are proffered as proof that the Earth is warming because of the excesses of human comfort and that it will continue to do so if humans don’t immediately get less comfortable, the insufficiently educated or uninitiated must simply comply.

As awful as it sounds, science has not traditionally been a high priority with the Government, so in order for the scientists to do real science, they need to keep themselves afloat by doing “junk” science for grant money. Sad but true.

On to point 4, the impact of automobiles on greenhouse gasses. For this, I can give one number that should open your eyes a bit: 14%. That’s the contribution of all transportation emissions to greenhouse gasses. That’s not just cars; It’s buses, tractor-trailers, construction equipment, cargo ships, aircraft, trains….ALL transportation emissions, of which cars are only one component. But still, even if cars made up that total number, it’s still just a drop in the bucket. We could eliminate all powered transportation from the entire planet and we would still end up in the same place, about 3 years later.

So if cars aren’t the problem, what is? This is the best topic yet. Power plants are the largest single contributor to greenhouse gasses, and they are the simplest to prevent. All we have to do is go nuclear. Yes, I know people are worried about meltdowns, and waste, and so forth. Get over it. We can dispose of the waste safely, and nuclear reactors are many, many times safer than any other type of power plant. If you then take all of this clean, efficient energy and put it into true plug-in electric vehicles, you can reduce the amount of CO2 emissions in an intelligent way. We will still need to reduce industrial emissions, but those two alone would make a decent dent.

Want to dig further into the global warming hoax? Check out the following links, or watch the Global Warming episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit.

The Global Warming Hoax

Wired Magazine articles on Global Warming