American Madness

Song originally written for Kermit the Frog by Joe Raposo, the fascinating composer for sesame street. (Via Lily Allen AmericanMadness*).

*Josh may have found it today through Lily Allen, but we had it posted on here a month before her. -Matt

Adam will like this post.

I highly recommend The Angry Economist. It’s rare that we really think here at AM. Mostly we tell you about cool ideas, products, culture. The AE appears to think every day. Not easy to do.

Teaching Climate Change

A California legislator wants the state’s science cirriculum to teach climate change. Climate change is a documented fact. Within recorded human history we have gone through two 1500-year warming / cooling cycles. There’s evidence on every continent of this. But human-caused global warming is bullshit. Basically, we’re being asked to believe that the inevitable warming is *more* warm *now* than it *should* be. We have zero evidence of that. Nobody can say with any precision how quickly the earth warms when it warms. It was warmer during the Roman Warming than it is now. Fig trees grew in northern Italy where they don’t grow now.

Yeah, teach climate change, but teaching global warming is as bad as teaching creationism. They’re both faith-based education.

I’ve been fascinated by the global warming consensus for a number of years, because it is such an excellent example of how we as a species can delude ourselves on a global scale with amazing speed and thoroughness. The Internet is a wonderful propaganda tool, and as a marketing professional I have come to admire the tactics used by Gore and his minions to spread the global warming gospel.

However, as a rational human being I am concerned. I can see that the importance placed on consensus is a direct attempt to destroy the scientific method of working towards the truth through careful observation of reality. It is the classic battle of subjectivists vs. objectivists and the subjectivists’ method of science by consensus has been winning.

Luckily, those who understand the scientific method have a very powerful weapon on their side, reality. The natural world has been drilling a number of holes into the global warming gospel over the past few years and the news media has finally begun to pick-up on this. For example, we have experienced a series of mild hurricane seasons despite catastrophic predictions. Further, while everyone has been wringing their hands about the ice cap at the North Pole shrinking, the ice layer at the south pole has been steadily expanding.

I have recently read two interesting articles that I hope are harbingers of a cultural shift away from alarmist group think and towards a respect for true scientific inquiry into the nature of earth’s climate. The articles are as follows. (more…)

It’s worth zooming ahead to see the chart breakdown. Basically, he offers a choice (do something/do nothing) based on the premise that global warming (if not fought) will devastate humanity. It’s an absurd argument because we can’t predict how awful global warming will be.

(more…)

Apparently Penelope Cruz is jumping on the Green bandwagon as the lead story on Yahoo “What are some inexpensive tips to turn my house green?” This is just another of the bullshit Green articles I will not link to.

First off, why does Penelope Cruz need “inexpensive” tips? Did she gamble all of her money away from Volver? Or is she just to cheap to really care about the environment?

If you couldn’t tell I am tired of the current Green movement. It is not that I don’t believe there is a problem, cause there clearly is. It is this current fad of Green being a hot topic and getting lots of press. I feel like Green has become a catch phrase to sell more newspapers (which, if they truly believed in the green process would only produce online editions…) and get higher rating during sweeps week for news programs.

I have argued before that the government needs to up its involvement in the Green movement and then maybe this trend will last beyond teaching you to shut off your lights when you leave your apartment and was recently presented with the counter argument that Republican don’t really care about the environment. Well, guess what, the Republicans aren’t the only ones, because while this might be a hot topic for Democrats, since they took control of the House and the Senate I haven’t seen much improvement. Really forcing Green regulations on big businesses is just going to hurt the money coming in to all politicians.

I am also tired of hearing about companies like BP who are investing in finding alternate energy possibilities and are spending so many billions of dollars to build green buildings. Yeah, well BP has that money to spare to do this research and build these buildings. Want to know why? Because of relaxed environmental regulations that allow them to make billions upon billions of dollars each year by exploiting the worlds dependency on petroleum, they maybe trying to change their image and name to Beyond Petroleum. But they built themselves up as British Petroleum and are still reeling in the cash.

On a slightly more positive note: Ikea has decided to start charging for bags in the US, but has reduced the price of their reusable bags. Money raised by charging for bags will go to American Forests, the US’s oldest citizens nonprofit conservation organization. You can find more info about this on the Ikea website as well.

Also some architecture Greenery:
A new skyscraper going up in Dubai will produce its own energy
And some conceptual designs for some “Eco-Towers” that will harness the power of the wind

So I was going to write about the new trendiness of being Green, but instead I will take a cue from the NY Times and just mention how pricey it can be. The NY Times had a piece this past weekend on  the high cost of living Green, and how by slapping th words “organic” or “green” or “environment” on to a label jacks up the price. Unfortunately, I am at a loss for locating the article to post here. Instead I will go back to focusing on the new trend that is Green and as an example I will throw-up the NY Times “The Business of Green: A Special Section.”

Though I am not against being Green, I am a bit concerned about the fad like qualities the recent Green movement seems to be exemplifying. With last years An Inconvenient Truth and everyone getting panicked over our dependence on Middle Eastern oil there has been a rise in  making a conscious effort to be a bit more green in our personal lives. Even some big businesses are working on models to become more green. I have to admit, I am a cynic though, I don’t believe the hype.

While there is a call for personal responsibility in being Green, it doesn’t quite feel like enough is being done to see this as a serious trend. Companies like BP are touting the work they do with alternative energy- But they are still a Petroleum company. GM still is cranking out Hummers and SUVs are still top sellers across the board. Car companies put enough research into alternative fuel sources to know that it is not yet worth their time or money to produce cars that run off something other then gas.

Limiting companies carbon emissions offsetting is a joke. When companies only need to buy or trade another companies offset what difference does it make. Until the government actually looks at the damage we are doing seriously and starts making regulations that will help our environment then buying organic recycled toilet paper, while a nice start, isn’t going to make much of a difference.

Speech codes are rare in the industrialized, Western democracies, but curiously there is a strong taboo against suggesting anything in opposition to the view that man-made carbon emissions drive global warming. Intimidation, isolation, ad homonym attacks, and now lawsuits are all used to stifle opposing views.

A recent article by Alex Beam titled “MIT’s inconvenient scientist,” points out that these speech codes create a hostile environment for opposing views and honest scientific inquiry on the subject of global warming.

Some interesting links from opposing views in the one sided global warming debate:
No Consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance by John Christy
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850
The Satanic Gases by Dr. Patrick Michaels
Antarctic Ice: The Cold Truth by Dr. Patrick Michaels
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Politicians, Science and the Media
A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
Scientists who disagree with the global warming “consensus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Richard Lindzen’s commentary in the Wall Street Journal
Website of Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
The Geologic Record and Climate Change by Tim Patterson
Research of Sallie Baliunas and William Soon.