Global warming is on the lips of many people. Fingers are being pointed in every direction trying to find someone, people, to pin it on. The only issue with these accusations is that most people fail to take into account the blatant information that shows it is a natural occurrence. Carbon Dioxide, a natural byproduct of respiration and burning fossil fuels, makes up less that 5% of green house gasses in the atmosphere but receives most of the blame. The leading green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor of which the majority is put there by volcanoes. Accurate record temperatures were not kept until 1880. In 1883 the eruption of Krakatoa caused a mini ice age dropping the average global temperatures 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit which did not return to normal until 1888. The start of record keeping began at a cooler time in our history. There is also the changes in ocean currents, carrying warmer water to areas that would see these cooler temperatures and thus warming those areas. These currents can be affected by solar activity. Variations in this activity also creates a warming trend. Sunspots, a direct measurement of solar activity, documented for the past 400 years are showing that when we are experiencing more of these sunspots, it is warmer and when there are fewer sunspots the planet cools. During the Maunder Minimum, 1645 to about 1715, almost no solar activity was recorded. In that period temperatures were 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit colder globally. Since then we have seen a gradual increase in solar activity and global temperatures. Currently we are in the Modern Maximum and it is the most active period of solar activity on record.This isn’t the warmest period scientists have found evidence of. How do we know that? Carbon-14 measurements shows that a period […]
Most people know that the government often creates or aggravates problems. One of the best examples of the government creating problems is in regards to environmental laws. When the United States government makes new laws regarding the environment, they typically make laws that end up exacerbating the problem. Most people agree that people need to do their part protecting the environment. At the same time, most citizens realize that the government is not protecting the environment and is, instead, hurting business owners large and small. In an effort to protect the environment, the United States government created the environmental protection agency. Created with good intentions, the EPA is now bloated and too powerful. Unfortunately, over time, the agency has done more harm than good. When a factory produces goods, the factory is going to, inevitably, produce carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, when burning fossil fuels, a person is producing carbon dioxide, which in excess numbers, are harmful to the environment. One way in which the government is trying to protect the environment is by forcing businesses to lower their carbon dioxide emissions. People working for the EPA do not think about unintended consequences of their actions. When scientists and bureaucrats at the EPA receive new data about global warming or other problems, they genuinely want to fix the problem. Hastily, the people running the agency decided that the United States needs to cut CO2 output. Since it is difficult to run a business without producing CO2, the EPA is hurting small and large business owners with new stringent regulations. We recently spoke to the owner of grease trap cleaning fort lauderdale. The company uses large vacuum trucks to pump and clean grease trap in and around ft. lauderdale, florida. The company refuses to buy any trucks that were built after […]
Hypothesis: If scientists rely on government grants for funding then these government funded scientists may produce work that will get them more grants. If a scientist disagrees with the agenda of his funder then he will no longer have work. Just a thought.
If there is an opportunity to be made our “free market system” will allow our entrepreneurs to do it. So why aren’t we driving electric cars, or cars that run on biofuel. It may be possible that these ideas are simply unsustainable without a government subsidy. If there is a breakthrough in energy it will happen in the private sector and without government assistance or oversight. This has happened with fracking. The government has a long list of green energy investments, the most noted one being Solyndra a company trying to make a go at solar. Solyndra costs the tax payers around $500million. It seems like the politicians doling out these subsidies may not be interested in real energy progress, but instead interested in pushing there green energy agenda. Public investments in the myth of green energy are really a waste of our money. Real progress has been made in fracking (extracting natural gas from rock beneath the earth). Private companies have decided to invest their own money in the development & advancement of this technology and it has payed off big time. Everyone benefits from the this technology. These companies drill for natural gas, employ people in real jobs, and provide a clean source of energy. The more natural gas they extract the more the price of energy declines. That is assuming the current administration doesn’t tax the natural gas to high heaven to pay for green energy failures. For those people that oppose fracking for gas, the “no drill, no spill” people. I only ask that they stop complaining about the price of energy if they become unreliant on fossil fuels.