The Real "Inconvenient Truth"

Carbon footprint activists claim that by reducing the burning of fossil fuels, we will produce less greenhouse gases and reduce global warming. That "solution" is junk science and is based on a false premise. Here are some real answers to real questions.

1. Is the world warming catastrophically? NO...Humans have only been measuring global temperature consistently since 1880, and it has warmed only .6C (plus or minus .2C) since then, and at least half of this rise occurred prior to 1950 and prior to any signficant changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

2. Carbon dioxide rising means rising temperatures? NO...Global mean temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising, and are well within the range of natural variations.

3. Carbon dioxide is bad? NO...It is an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 to increase productivity and water efficiency for food crops.

4. Greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide? NO...Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's total greenhouse effect. The other 10% is carbon dioxide and other minor gases.

5. Humans are responsible for the carbon dioxide total greenhouse effect? NO...Humans only account for about 3% of the only 10% of the greenhouse effect. The rest is natural.

6. The Earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse? NO...an actual greenhouse acts as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid). The Earth's atmosphere actually facilitates convection.

Bottom line: Of all the things that humans can do to the planet, temperature response to carbon dioxide emissions is simply too trivial to worry about. Thank you for "saving the planet", but carbon constraint is nonsense and a distraction to real problems. Better to direct your activism to begging problems like malaria, potable water, AIDS, and sanitation in the Third World.

Good Iraq news is bad for activists

It is said that the winners in war write the history. And, inescapably, peace always follows war. War should not be waged simply to achieve a peace, but history tells that the nature of mankind makes war inevitable and that peace is always a byproduct. Sometimes, the dynamics of a situation make fighting a war now make more sense than fighting a war later. The so-called Axis of Evil in World War II are now all allies of the United States. I find it curious that many anti-war, or liberal, activists are not welcoming the indisputably good news that is coming out of Iraq. By any metric, violent attacks are less than half of what they were a year ago and trending distinctively downward. After all, this kind of news should energize those who claim their true concern is the safety of our troops as it portends the return of them to the U.S. Yet, it also means that we are slowly winning the Iraq war and that conclusion does not fit the template of those who claim the war is a disaster. If the war is not a quagmire and winnable, that would make them...well, wrong. Watch as they move the goalposts and deny the successes even when the news continues to be good, the security responsibilities continue to be shifted to the Iraq people, and our troops begin a steady exodus. My guess is that these activists will conveniently dismiss the military's years of efforts, including the recent Surge operation, and will instead try to claim that their whining, not the military, made our victory possible. Of course, such a lie is mind numbingly absurd and despicable, but let's see if they hijack our media and write the history to fit their political agenda.