I hear it sometimes many times a day, from everyone who thinks about running for Town Council up to and including the President of the United States.

“We need clean and affordable energy.”

Let me tell you something about energy. It comes at a price.

We generate electricity in a number of ways but in all but one we need to crank a generator. The exception is a solar panel, the photovoltaic conversion of sunlight energy into a flow of electrons.

We crank generators with a turbine powered by steam, water, wind or burning fuel—the jet engine.

With the exception of wind and water all the other systems use steam made by heating water by burning hydrocarbons or heat generated by the decomposition—fission—of nuclear material.

Generators turned by jet engines burn either gas or burn refined jet engine fuel.

Those are our only options. The dream of generating heat from fusion, the squeezing together of hydrogen atoms to form helium with the byproduct of heat only occurs on stars. The best minds on the planet have been attempting to achieve this for decades but have failed. The temperatures and pressures required are not attainable on a continuous basis.

Now to some of the reasons why we will not have “clean and affordable energy.”

The best deal that you can get regarding energy is to hang your wash on an old-fashioned clothesline but your neighbors and environmentalists don’t want to see your underwear flapping in the breeze like Tibetan prayer flags.

Neither do they want to see wind turbines against the skyline on their hills.

Neither do they want to see solar panels on your roof or in your yard if there is not enough sun that hits your roof.

Neither do they want to see dams on the rivers.

Neither do they want to see power plants and transmission towers on their favorite beach.

So to keep saying, “We need to find new ways to generate clean and affordable energy”, accept the fact. There are no new ways.

KNOW WHAT WE NEED?

“Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.”

Looks good on a Christmas card but it ain’t gonna happen anymore than we will get affordable and clean energy.

It’s esthetics versus utility.

It’s wishes versus reality.

When you are done chewing your nails, go to Whole Living Today to get your blood pressure back down to normal.

A puppy takes a lot of care. You must feed it, make sure it has water, take it for walks, play with it, teach it to interact socially, take it to the vet and spend a lot of time with it.

Yesterday I opened a can of worms that I have been trying to avoid since I started this BLOG–politics and Global Warming.

They are intertwined.

Now that I have, I must follow through on a series of related articles….or look like an idiot.

In short, yesterday, “I Bought a puppy”.

The planet is warming. There is enough good data to support this at the present time. We do not know if it will continue to warm up or if it will start to cool.

So far this winter some seriously cold weather and snow have been seen around the world.

In the 1970’s the fear was that the planet was cooling.

As I said yesterday it is cyclic and unpredictable.

There are greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere today than there had been as shown by measurements in core samples from ice.

Whether the Sun started the warming cycle a couple of centuries ago and people are adding to it now is a possibility.

Warming of the northern regions releases carbon dioxide from the permafrost along with a far more effective greenhouse gas, methane.

Glaciers are melting. That too is verifiable.

Iceland and Greenland are volcanic in nature and some of the glacial melting can be coming from the rock under the ice and not just the atmosphere.

Science is full of symbols and numbers. Symbols frighten some people but they are “shorthand” for abstract concepts: momentum, energy, force etc.

Numbers indicate magnitude or quantity.

I will try to keep these at a minimum

Most people have heard of “Carbon Dating”.

There are three isotopes of carbon. An isotope has the same chemical properties but different internal configuration for an element.

Carbon 12 is the most common form of carbon and about 99 % of all carbon exists in this state.

Carbon 13 makes up most of the rest.

But there is also Carbon 14, a radioactive form that disintegrates to about half of itself in 5600 years. This is termed, “Half Life”.

Carbon is the major constituent of plant life and it is from this that we derive all of our common energy sources, our hydrocarbons: firewood, coal, oil and natural gas.

No matter what hydrocarbon that we burn to extract the energy that the sun originally put into it, the by-product is water and carbon dioxide.

By measuring the residual carbon 14 contained in ice samples we can determined when that carbon was captured and stored.

Ice core samples do indicate that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has been increasing during the period of the industrial revolution and  the increasing population on the planet.

It seems obvious to conclude that people are the cause.

Maybe but maybe not.

If the Sun triggered this warming trend agriculture would spread and populations would grow because there is more food to support them. It may be a corollary rather than a cause.

I am in total agreement that we must reduce carbon emissions but not catastrophically destroy our ability to lead reasonably comfortable lives until we really understand what is happening.

I will continue with this subject in a series of articles that deal with power generation, electric vehicles and nuclear energy.

“Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of…. Will the World Turn?”.

                               HIMALAYAN GLACIERS

updated 5:25 a.m. EDT, Mon October 5, 2009

(CNN) — The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Wed Jan 20, 7:30 am ET

GENEVA – A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday — an admission that could energize climate change critics.

The Himalayan glacier claim, made in the group’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, was little noticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.

      How timely for me to restart my BLOG today and the article that I posted earlier today.

     This is exactly what I have been talking about and the reason that I started my BLOG two years ago.

(Readers, please check my post of earlier today.)

    Before you dive off the cliff, know how deep the water is.

HURRICANES AND SUCH

I started this BLOG in November 2007 and it has been my intention to terminate it after two years. It’s not because I am bored with it or that I do not have sufficient material to continue it.

Life is full of choices and there are many priorities that clamor for attention:

E-mails have to be read and answered, jokes need to be forwarded, the garbage must go out, wood for the fireplace must be brought in, snow must be shoveled and toilet paper rolls must be replaced when empty.

People say, “I wonder where the time went.”

That’s the answer. It was chewed up by trivia.

Anyway, the reason for this post is the goading by a very interesting and well-researched book that my granddaughter gave me recently, “Hot, Flat and Crowded” by Thomas L. Friedman. It is loaded with good information and a “must read” by Liberals and Conservatives alike.

I do take exception, however, that the author implies that all the ills of the modern world are the result of the policies of the United States in many areas.

First, a digression. I wrote and published  a novel in 1994, DESTINATIONS, which has been out of print for years.

I am seriously planning to have it reprinted soon. I have had to make no changes to the original after all these years because I feel it is more current today than when I wrote it.

In the story, I have a character ask the following:

“Who’s telling you what and why?”

This is something that everyone should ask themselves when they are presented with an argument that they are somewhat wary of.

Back to Friedman’s book. On page 147 I read something that made me take notice and I quote now:

“Many climatologists believe that Katrina’s unusual ferocity was fed by the warmer waters in the Gulf on Mexico, which, they believe, are partly attributable to global warming.”

Friedman stated that after World War II the United States increased its industrial output and as a result generated much more CO2, the major cause of Global Warming. This production increase, he claims, accelerated after the fall of The Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.

Being the scientific skeptic that I am, I said to myself, “Wait a minute, what about other hurricanes before WWII?”

During the 1930’s the United States was in a deep depression and industrial production along with CO2 emissions would have been way down.

This led me to look at hurricanes of epic proportion.

The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, was a Category 5 hurricane. The Hurricane of 1938 was also a Category 5 hurricane. These occurred before there had been significant  CO2 generation. Hurricane Camille in 1969 was a Category 5 hurricane. Hurricane Gilbert of 1988 was a Category 5 hurricane. Hurricane Andrew of 1992 was a Category 5 hurricane.

Katrina, however, came ashore as a Category 3 hurricane.

It was not a “ferocious hurricane”. The damage that it caused was not by high winds but by a poorly maintained levee system and people living below water level.

Significant rain along the Mississippi River basin could have created the same result without its being a hurricane.

What I am getting at is that the Hurricane of 1938 devastated New England without having traveled across warm Gulf water caused by the United States industrial CO2 pollution.

Now, my point is this. There is no question that the climate is changing. It does so on a daily basis. I have been keeping daily weather records for over 40 years because that is my nature; to observe and hopefully predict. As I stated in my first BLOG article, I am a scientist.

 The geological records of the planet shows the extremes of ocean levels that have occurred over time. These levels are a function of global warming and cooling. There is no argument there but the Earth’s temperature ranges are neither predictable as a function of time nor consistent in amplitude.

I live along the Connecticut coast. The railroad line from New York to Boston runs along this coast and a series of bridges had been built across the estuaries in Stonington, Connecticut that flow into Fisher’s Island Sound then into the Atlantic Ocean.

The clearance under these bridges leave barely enough room for small boats to pass under yet this clearance has been approximately the same during the past 100 years.

What does this mean? The oceans have neither risen nor fallen enough to cause a change in the clearance between the water level and the bottom of the bridge.

This is a “yardstick” cast in stone.

If this is true, then the ocean heights have not changed at Stonington, Connecticut, Samoa, Sri Lanka or Sicily.

People can say, “The beach used to be way down there but now the waves are lapping at my foundation. That proves that the ocean levels have risen.”

Wrong, that shows the effects of erosion at work.

In 1952, on the northwest shore of Oahu, Hawaii I have photos that show about 50 yards of beautiful sandy beach. When I returned in 1953, the beach was only about 20 yards wide with about a six foot drop to the water of hard black lava.

At the time, I asked one of the “locals” about it.

He said, “The sand comes and goes. It will come back.”

In 1954, the wide sandy beach was back.

He understood.

Fishermen who leave Chatham, Massachusetts on Cape Cod in the morning often must return in a different channel because the sand bars shift daily.

Let’s not confuse beach erosion with ocean heights. 

Before we become “Chicken Little” and scream that the sky is falling down, let’s get some solid data that does not favor some scientist’s job, does not support a political party’s agenda and does not allow someone to make a fortune at taxpayer’s expense.

Keep an open mind and a clear head and ask:

“Who’s measuring temperature and where?”

“Who’s measuring ocean heights and how?”

And finally, “Who’s telling you what and why?”

DICTATORSHIP

There are two steps necessary for an impending dictatorship

The first is to silence opposing views. Today it can be achieved by controlling the media: television, radio and the Internet.

Any system through which those with opposing views can gauge the extent of dissention in society must be eliminated.

Revolutions are not undertaken by a single person and unless the strength of the opposition can be evaluated with respect to the strength of the government no action is taken.

The second is to disarm the people to prevent forceful opposition.

The method employed throughout the world has been the registration of weapons

. This provides the government with not only the number and types of weapons but a list of where they are located.

Enforcement of this is through very severe penalties if unregistered weapons are used or otherwise found.

After registration, there are several means of control.

The most dramatic and the least likely to be tolerated in a free society is confiscation.

A more subtle and gradual process is ownership permit fees and taxes.

These can be raised to such levels that people voluntarily give up their weapons.

            Finally there is the elimination of manufacture and the distribution of ammunition.

            I may be wrong but it appears that we are presently on that course.

             I have sent this out as an E-mail to many of my friends and quite a few disagree with me.

Thankfully we live in a free country where I can express my opinions

   I receive many e-mails asking why I don’t post articles to this log more often.

The reason is that like most people I find that the trivia that one encounters in everyday living consumes time that could be better spent in creative pursuits

   I write when I encounter either ignorance or stupidity so overwhelming that I have no choice.

   Ignorance can be excused but stupidity is something else entirely.

   People who have not been exposed to fact, for whatever reason, can be excused but when facts are available and well-circulated then those who, again for whatever reason, chose not to accept those facts are truly stupid.

   Stupidity has no place in civilized countries. The people therein have had access to schools, libraries and recently to TV and the Internet.

    There are countless documentaries on TV with well-developed time-lines of the evolution of the surface, forests and landscape of our planet. The rise and fall of ocean levels and the formation and melting of glaciers has been a continuous process.

   Core samples taken from ponds indicate, from very durable pollen samples, the plants that grew in the areas and the temperatures and moisture necessary for those plants to exist.

  The planet Earth has warmed and cooled for eons before there were people, power plants and automobiles.

  Even a fifth grade level geology book would enlighten people to this fact so why are so many people resistant to truth?

   What is it going to take to convince those people who make decisions that can wreck the economies of the entire planet to change conditions that are unchangeable?

   Is it politics alone that so blinds people or is it a more sinister hidden agenda that is determined to revert us back to living in caves and eating roots and berries.

  There are no more new caves and many many more people today so expect violent competition for survival.

In this very long article I hope to discuss the dangerous cliff on which we presently stand.

I have lightly discussed revolution in a couple of former articles but this is an in-depth look at what can precipitate one.

The French Revolution of 1789 overthrew an absolute monarchy and ended a system of feudalism for the aristocracy and the Catholic Church.

The precipitating cause was a famine. This was most likely caused by crop failures caused by the eruption of the volcano Laki in Iceland in 1783-1784 whose sulfur fumes and dust clouded the northern hemisphere. It is estimated that 8 million tons of hydrogen fluoride and 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide filled the atmosphere.

Temperatures plummeted to such an extent that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico. This caused enough famine and hardship in France to make the people desperate.

When the system that is looked to for stability and the well-being of the masses falters, for whatever reason, conditions are ripe for revolution.

It can be an actual cataclysm or the perception of one that triggers a revolution.

After the overthrow of the French Monarchy a period of relative stability existed during which time the Industrial Revolution began to occur.

Machines were invented which could produce much more than men could individually.

. 

Between 1834 and 1846 France’s economy mushroomed as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

However, the means of production was in the hands of a few who could afford to buy the machines by accumulating enough money to buy them.

The machines displaced hand labor and caused a migration of people from farms to the cities which possessed the power to operate the machines—steam and water-power.

This led to a rise of capitalism and the middle class which ultimately created a class struggle. It became a struggle between the owners and managers of the means of production and the laborers.

About that time two people developed a philosophy that attempted to deal with this problem.

 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles produced The Communist Manifesto in which they used the term ‘Proletariat’ to define the working class. These are the people in a Capitalist society who do not own the means of production but sell their labor for a wage.

The ‘Bourgeoisie’ were defined as the managers of the means of production.

Where there is a reasonable amount of freedom in a system of government, there will always be a conflict between these two groups. The laborer wants to receive the most financial advantage for each hour of his work while the manager wants to maximize his profit.

This is not the case in either a Monarchy or a Dictatorship. What you get is what you get. A person is essentially a slave in either of these systems.

How much material wealth is spread among the masses is a function of the generosity of the leader.

Unfortunately both the Monarch and the Dictator generally have other aspirations—grandeur or conquest—which permits no surplus for the masses to enjoy.

Socialism’s goal is to spread the surplus capital, the difference between what the actual generators of that production, the ‘proletariat’, have generated minus the cost of that production.

Of course, what history has shown is that this system kills incentive for investment because the would-be venture capitalist is not willing to expend the effort if there is no possibility to accumulate some of the surplus capital.

There is no point being the owner of the means of production if it is a ‘break-even’ venture. If a person’s expenses exactly balance his potential income there is no point in working harder.

The common laborer is also not likely to attempt to better himself and advance into the ranks of the owners of production when he realizes that he would be no better off to assume more responsibility and work harder.

This is the flaw in the concepts of Socialism and Communism.

The dream of Utopia is just that, a dream. The fathers of modern day Socialism/Communism , Marx and Engles, never addressed how this perfect state would come about. They produced The Communist Manifesto at about the same time as the French Revolution of 1847.They, like most idealists, would have enjoyed living in a system in which one could enjoy prosperity and leisure without trading the hours of their lives to achieve it.

Marx’s definition of Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the Proletariat by the Bourgeoisie.

The French Revolution of 1847 was precipitated by conditions not unlike those presently existing in the United States.

The Industrial Revolution showed people that if they could acquire the ‘means of production’ they could become wealthy. Machines could out-produce people but it required money to buy these new machines.

Those with aspirations could achieve that by borrowing money. This caused competition for money which raised interest rates and increased speculation.

The Russian people, through the actions of Lenin and Trotsky, became, for the most part, almost unwilling participants in the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Crash of 1929 and the following Depression created a pattern of similar thinking in the United States. The election of a Liberal President who fathered The New Deal, Social Security and permitted a fertile climate for the labor unions probably averted a revolution in the US as its citizens looked toward the apparent success of the Soviet’s first Five Year Plan.

We Americans are facing a series of hardships with the loss of enormous wealth in auto manufacturing, investments, home and business values that we may be on the verge of acceptance of either a total socialistic system or a revolution.

Socialism stifles investment and creativity; revolution creates chaos.

Utopia is an impossibility and Marx and Engles realized it.

It is unfortunate that the followers of their philosophy do not understand this and are willing to create a revolution to lose everything in the hope of achieving that which is impossible. Revolution has only led to a long period of misery.

Today we are seeing the possibility of a revolution in Iran.

Could a revolution there create a ‘fall-out’, as the volcano Laki did to France,

that would affect the United States?

   For as long as I can remember I have heard people say “Don’t discuss politics or religion”.That makes sense because both are subjective issues and people usually adhere to religion as a ‘faith-based system of salvation’. Faith is the sticking point.

People do not change unless given a reason and since the principles of a religion do not change significantly people continue to believe in their deities. Theists, of just about any religion, use the argument “it could not have been otherwise”.

People usually stay with the religion of their parents until an event in their lives causes them to question why they are of a particular faith. People do not simply change from one religion to another. They must first drop their original beliefs because of disagreement with their church leaders, a change in church policy or they dislike someone in the congregation so much that they are uncomfortable being there.

Politics, on the other hand is also subjective but the results of politicians are generally visible. The process may not be transparent but the results of the politicians actions are.

I have tried to avoid these two topics in my articles when I started writing them a year and a half ago but I wish to remind people of what happens when you ‘owe’ something to someone.

If someone loans you money they expect it to be repaid.

I believe people borrow money for two primary reasons.

The usual reason is that they need to borrow because they have mismanaged their affairs and are in debt.

The second is that they want the money to invest in a new home, car or business.

In the former case it is expected that the borrower will modify his or her habits so that they can avoid actions which caused their original financial problem.

The individual who loaned the money expects that assurance and so monitors  the debtor’s behavior, and if necessary, attempts to control it.

In politics no one is elected who is an unknown therefore to advertise a candidate’s attributes requires money. We have seen recently that even elected positions that are of minor significance require ever increasing amounts of money.

This money comes from campaign contributions so the politician who receives it owes something to the contributor. The larger the contribution, the greater the debt.

Whoever loans you money essentially controls you. If it’s an individual or bank they need to know that the course that you are pursuing will guarantee that they will get their money back.

If you expect a handout from the government then you owe the government and they receive their payment through taxes. If you owe the government, it can tell you how you must live your life and how much of your money that they will take to make that happen.

We are caught up in a huge game.
The people at the top make–and keep– the most money in a Socialistic system.
That seems to be the game plan, a Socialistic ‘One World’ system of currency and governmental control by a few people. Perhaps it will be those few who have the greatest influence on the United Nations organization.

Every time the Democrats get elected, they push us a little closer toward Socialism.
When the Conservatives get back in, it’s like a ‘ratchet’–it never goes back. They never undo what the Liberals have done.

This is not to excuse all Republicans either. They want to get as many votes as possible so they must satisfy the desires of the masses with hand-outs which also is a step toward Socialism.

In short, no matter who gets elected in this country, Democrat or Republican, you can expect Socialism in the end. It is only a matter of who gets us there the fastest.

The government will decide what the individual is entitled to and control that through taxes and the redistribution of wealth.

That is, except for the privileged few at the top.

CORD                  1929-1937

CROSLEY           1939-1952

DUESENBERG   1913-1926

ESSEX                  1919-1932

HUDSON             1910-1957

KAISER               1945-1956

NASH                   1916-1957

PACKARD           1899-1958

STUDEBAKER   1902-1966

When these fine American cars could no longer compete in the market, they simply went out of business.

Where was their  Uncle Sam when they needed him? No one bailed them out

When the horse and buggy could no longer compete with the automobile, the buggy manufacturers closed their doors also.

The United States did not collapse.

If a company is unable to produce any product competitively then it should fail.

Subsidizing failure seems to be a trend in the US today but it creates the expectation of continuity in enterprises that make incompetent decisions.

During this period of religious significance to both Christians and Jews, a mental  ‘almost overload’ has “….come upon me”–while I was raking last fall’s leaves.

Not being a theologian the following is the best that I could do.

Christians celebrate Easter as the rebirth of the Savior—someone who would cleanse them of sin and perpetuate their survival in Heaven.

Pagans celebrated this period as the resurrection of crops and fruit trees–those things necessary for their survival.

The Jews celebrate it for another reason—that they were ‘passed over’ and so survived to today.

It appears to me that ‘survival’ is a major component of this holiday season.

People want to hope for better times. They need a belief that things will get better as the pagans knew would happen in the spring. Or is it simply that people have faith that things will get better?

Faith is blind acceptance of a possible outcome. There is no available data to back up faith.

This seems very appropriate for what is happening today.

The Jews had faith that a Messiah would come and make things better. When Jesus came into the picture He didn’t help them in their struggle with the Romans so he was rejected as not being the Messiah that they expected.

Today we are experiencing a similar situation. Times are tough; fear is rampant.

Obama has been compared by many to be a ‘Messianic figure’.

The fact that he was elected President might have been as a result of this perception by a large number of people. In his campaign he said that he had a plan that would solve all the problems facing our country and perhaps the world, by extension.

I wonder if Obama and Congress will “deliver us from evil” or must we wait another four years for some, as of yet, unknown Messiah?