You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘climate change’ tag.

Today, the predominant media is filled with positive articles about all the great reasons why you should consider an electric vehicle or EV. If you are swayed by this positive input and are considering buying an EV instead of an ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle, some of the following may be helpful.


Here are five top reasons to buy and some of the questions you might want to ask yourself:

  1. Annual cost to operate – Is an EV really less expensive to operate? – a – First is the cost of electricity vs. the cost of fuel. In general, the electricity to power an EV is cheaper than the fuel to power and ICE vehicle. If or how much you save is almost entirely a product of where you live and where the vehicle will be driven. In the Northwest, fuel prices are among the highest in the country (just under $4.00/ gallon for regular gas at the end of 2021) and electricity prices are among the lowest (some places as low as $0.75 per gallon equivalent). That means for the average driver who puts 12,000 miles on a car each year and gets 20 miles per gallon, you would spend $450 for electricity to power an EV vs. $2,400 for your fuel, a savings of $1,950 a year. In the Northeast, electricity is more costly and petroleum fuel not quite as expensive so the numbers are not as good. In Connecticut there are places where fuel is about $3.00 per gallon and electricity is almost $2.00 per gallon equivalent. You could save barely $600 per year. (see this article) – b – In an EV you will not have to pay gas tax and this is often billed as an additional operating cost savings. Unfortunately the gas tax is paid at the pump and is already included in the savings calculation so don’t count it twice. – c – Also remember that most states are scrambling to replace gas taxes lost to increases in EV usage and as such have enacted or are considering annual EV road use taxes. – d – You will likely save the cost of 2 or three oil changes each year which pending the type of oil and the type of car could be as much as $200 to $300 per year saved. Very few articles that you read will tell you that this savings will likely be offset by the increased cost of brake replacement. With the EVs extra weight to stop and regenerative brakes (energy captured in braking to add to the efficiency of the EVs power system), brake pads last less than half as long as on ICE vehicles. – e – And few articles will tell you about the increased tire wear (again largely due to the increased weight of the EV). Think of driving an EV as it would be to drive an ICE vehicle that was always loaded with a full load of cargo and/or passengers.
  2. Initial cost to own an EV – Most EVs cost between 20% and 40% more than their ICE counterparts. This means you will pay between $6,000 to $25,000 more for the privilege to drive an EV. This penalty is normally believed to be repaid by lower operating costs and the offset of rising fuel costs over the life of the vehicle. There are numerous government incentives (tax credits and tax deductions) that can often help reduce this initial cost, again much of this is dependent upon where you live.
  3. Good for the Environment – The majority of the articles written about EVs highlight the ‘fact’ that EVs are good for the environment. We are told they have zero emissions (see this article). In general, it is true that the operation of an EV produces fewer emissions than the operation of most ICE vehicles. What you will see in very few articles is the environmental cost to produce the EVs which is far greater than what is required to produce ICE vehicles. To name a few: the environmental cost to mine the lithium for the batteries, mostly controlled by China which has one of the world’s worst records of protecting the environment; the environmental cost to mine the cobalt, also used in the batteries, mostly done in the Congo but the processing is done in China; the fact that EVs are, on average, more than 20% heavier than their ICE equivalents increasing energy use and pollution from producing that much more product; excessive tire wear and road wear caused by heavier vehicles, etc. If you are truly concerned with the environment, you need to ask the questions not being asked in the media to see if you are really convinced that the EVs represent an improvement over ICE vehicles. Do you wonder about recycling of lithium ion batteries? As of today, there is no available, reliable way to reclaim value from LI batteries so what will happen to them when they are replaced? Do you wonder how the electric grid, already taxed to the limit in many part of the country, will hold up to the huge increased demand for electricity to power EV batteries? What will be the environmental cost to expand the power grid to meet the new EV demand?
  4. Lifetime Cost to Own – Much is made in the media about how in spite of the fact of higher initial cost, EVs have a lower lifetime cost to own. Most reports show a lifetime of 200,000 miles of use see this article which I found was the basis of many pro-EV articles that I found) 200,000 miles is the equivalent of 16+ years of driving for the typical American driver. Make sure to ask yourself if you are likely to keep the vehicle that long. “While the average new car buyer holds onto their car for 8.4 years, there is a wide variety of cars that owners are more likely to keep longer,” said iSeeCars. If you change the lifetime cost to own calculation from 16 years to 8, the cost to own picture is not as kind to the EVs. Or, if you add the cost of a full battery replacement, $12,000 to $15,000, almost no EV sold today pencils out to save you much or anything over its lifetime. Most EV manufacturers warranty their batteries for 8 years or 100,000 miles. That is a good indication of how many years you should be able to drive before the costly replacement. EV batteries don’t understand miles, or years. They age based on cycles and how you drive and how you charge your batteries will have a big effect on whether your battery system will need replacing in five years or twelve.
  5. Lifestyle and Social Credit – If you do most of your driving in town, the current lack of convenient charging options should not be a big concern. Charging stations are being built in most highly populated areas. And you will rarely be far from you home and its charging station. However, if you live in a rural area and much of your driving is between places not served by charging options, this should be a big concern. I like to equate the geographical reasons in favor of owning an EV to those that favor using public transit. Where there is a dense enough population to support convenient public transit, there is now or will soon be enough charging option available to make EV ownership a reasonable choice. You may want an EV because in your social sphere, ownership of an EV is a symbol of an Environmentally responsible person. If that is the case, an EV may be a good choice but wouldn’t riding public transit be a better choice for the environment?

Of course there are many more important comparisons that you might want to make. aSafety, for instance may be a big plus for occupants of the much heavier EVs. In general, in accidents, the heavier vehicle comes out better than the lighter one. However, heavier vehicles, in general take longer to stop or change direction so are less likely to avoid crashes. b – Cargo, is another issue to consider. Most EVs carry less weight than their ICE equivalent vehicles and some also have far less cargo volume due to space taken up by batteries. – c – Ground Clearance and turning radius are also impacted by placement of batteries and are worth considering pending the type of driving you do. – d – Resale value is a real unknown. There is the possibility that increased demand may make for high resale value. Just as likely is the possibility of low resale value due to battery age or lower demand than projected.

Last, I think we all need to understand that electric power for a vehicle represents a very flexible fuel profile. The electricity may be generated using solar, wind, coal, hydroelectric, biomass, oil, natural gas, or nuclear. In all cases, the electricity must be moved from the point of generation to the point of use. In the transmission of electricity, most estimates are that about 6% of the energy is lost (2% in transmission and 4% in local distribution). So, the price of this flexibility is a loss of efficiency. In fact, EVs are only less polluting if the source of their energy is less polluting. China, the biggest market for EVs and the fastest growing one generates between 70 and 80% of their electricity from coal. Will China’s big change to EVs really reduce the amount of pollution that they produce? Depending where your electricity is made, you may be driving a coal fired car or a natural gas fired car or a solar powered car. No matter where you are, we still don’t know what effect 250,000 more EVs each year will have on our power grid. Nor do we know what the environmental cost (each year) will be from the recycling (or not) of 250,000 or more huge lithium ion batteries. Lots to think about and not many people asking the important questions.

Before you buy your new EV consider all of the costs, not just those that are advertised and which favor EV ownership.

I’ve driven from Oregon to Montana and back 6 times this year. Each time I drive through the Columbia Gorge, I see hundreds of huge windmills. I know very little about them: how much energy they convert from wind to electricity; what they cost to operate compared to the energy converted; why it so often appears that many, if not most are idle; how long will they continue to produce; etc. Similarly, when I see acres of fields covered with solar panels. I wonder how efficient they are. How much electricity can they convert from the sun’s rays when they have a thick coating of dust overing them? How much did they cost to manufacture and what is the operating cost?

Today I received an interesting piece from a friend, by an author I do not know. I think it is worth considering.

from the Daily Caller “New York Spent $5,000.000……”

The Shocking Naked Truth

Bruce Haedrich

When I saw the title of this lecture, especially with the picture of the scantily clad model, I couldn’t resist attending. The packed auditorium was abuzz with questions about the address; nobody seemed to know what to expect. The only hint was a large aluminum block sitting on a sturdy table on the stage.

When the crowd settled down, a scholarly-looking man walked out and put his hand on the shiny block, “Good evening,” he said, “I am here to introduce NMC532-X,” and he patted the block, “we call him NM for short,” and the man smiled proudly. “NM is a typical electric vehicle (EV) car battery in every way except one; we programmed him to send signals of the internal movements of his electrons when charging, discharging, and in several other conditions. We wanted to know what it feels like to be a battery. We don’t know how it happened, but NM began to talk after we downloaded the program.

Despite this ability, we put him in a car for a year and then asked him if he’d like to  do presentations about batteries. He readily agreed on the condition he could say whatever he wanted. We thought that was fine, and so, without further ado, I’ll turn the floor over to NM,” the man turned and walked off the stage.    

“Good evening,” NM said. He had a slightly affected accent, and when he spoke, he lit up in different colors. “That cheeky woman on the marquee was my idea,” he said. “Were she not there, along with ‘naked’ in the title, I’d likely be speaking to an empty auditorium! I also had them add ‘shocking’ because it’s a favorite word amongst us batteries.” He flashed a light blue color as he laughed. 

“Sorry,” NM giggled then continued, “three days ago, at the start of my last lecture,  three people walked out. I suppose they were disappointed there would be no dancing girls. But here is what I noticed about them. One was wearing a battery-powered hearing aid, one tapped on his battery-powered cell phone as he left, and a third got into his car, which would not start without a battery. So I’d like you to think about your day for a moment; how many batteries do you rely on?” 

He paused for a full minute which gave us time to count our batteries.  Then he went on, “Now, it is not elementary to ask, ‘what is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called us Energy Storage Systems. That’s important. We do not make electricity – we store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, n’est-ce pas?”

He flashed blue again. “Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five thousand pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.”  

He lit up red when he said that, and I sensed he was smiling. Then he continued in blue and orange. “Mr. Elkay introduced me as NMC532. If I were the battery from your computer mouse, Elkay would introduce me as double-A, if from your cell phone as CR2032, and so on. We batteries all have the same name depending on our design. By the way, the ‘X’ in my name stands for ‘experimental.’   

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium.

The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill. 

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle batteries like me or care to dispose of single-use ones properly.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.”

NM got redder as he spoke. “Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject. 

In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.

The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas. 

Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the  workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car. 

But wait – can you guess one of the highest but rarely acknowledged embedded costs?” NM said, then gave us about thirty seconds to make our guesses. Then he flashed his lights and said, “It’s the depreciation on the 5000 pound car you used to transport one pound of canned beans!”

NM took on a golden glow, and I thought he might have winked. He said, “But that  can of beans is nothing compared to me! I am hundreds of times more complicated. My embedded costs not only come in the form of energy use; they come as environmental destruction, pollution, disease, child labor, and the inability to be recycled.”

He paused, “I weigh one thousand pounds, and as you see, I am about the size of a travel trunk.” NM’s lights showed he was serious. “I contain twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside me are 6,831 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each auto battery like me, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.

He let that one sink in, then added, “I mentioned disease and child labor a moment ago. Here’s why. Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”  

NM’s red and orange light made it look like he was on fire. “Finally,” he said, “I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects. 

Thank you for your attention, good night, and good luck.” NM’s lights went out, and he was quiet, like a regular battery.

NM lights dimmed, and he quietly said, “There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent. I’m trying to do my part with these lectures. “

If you took the time to read this in its entirety, thank you. I hope you found it worth your time.

“Settled Science” is the great oxymoron of the politically correct movement.  I don’t say it belongs to the Environmentalists, or the Liberals, or the One-World Order folks, though most of them use the term.  It is a politically correct term because it it makes sense in no other realm.  The number of people and groups that accept Man-Caused Global Warming as “Settled Science” is very large and very disheartening.


Thanks to

Thanks to

Science by its very nature is observation, experimental investigation, and above all, keeping an open mind to whatever might be the result of such observation and investigation.  Most scientists make their living by challenging what others before them have discovered or believed, not by running around saying, “Me, too.”  Saying that science is settled is just a political method to quell dissent.

400 years ago, Galaleo said, “Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?”  It was a great question then, and, is still a great one today.  Are we so conceited that we think we know everything?  Are we so conceited that we think that after millennia  of the earth warming and cooling in cycles effected by solar activity and natural cycles, that now, in the past century, man has changed the balance of all our ecosystems?

I would love to see the proof of  global warming as a long term phenomena caused by humans.  I would also love for humans to be humble enough to open their minds to believe that what they “Know” may not be so.

I’m not holding my breath for the Al Gores of the world to change their minds or their tune.  They have too much power and influence wrapped up in the myth that they have helped create by stifling all other voices on “climate change.”

My resolutions this year are a bit different than in the past.  I guess I should restate that.  In the past, I have resisted New Year’s Resolutions.  If I am really serious about doing something, I can resolve to do it at any time.  Typical New Year’s Resolutions only last until about mid-February anyway.  The five items below make up a list of things I want to pay more attention to in the coming year.  It is anything but a complete list, but it strikes me as a list of five very significant issues.   I hope to refer to it often and continue to blog about these things more than many of the more superficial issues with which I have dealt in the past.  Here it is:

1.  The Value Added Tax, VAT. I actually think that VAT is a reasonably good idea.  I think it is simpler than our combination of Income, Property, Sales, and Death taxes.  It has a fatal flaw, though.  There is not a chance in the world that it would be enacted to REPLACE those taxes.  Its passage would only mean another layer of tax and more revenue for Congress to abuse.  Tax reform will be a hot topic for the next 22 months and I plan to watch and pay attention more than I would normally.  I predict we will see proposals of a very moderate VAT, like 1% (just like the start of Social Security), and that it will be only a foot in the door.  I will work to oppose any new tax that does not replace a tax that is removed from the current long list.  I predict a VAT will not pass in 2011 but will become a HUGE issue in the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign.

2. The Fed continuing to create money out of thin air. I continue to be very concerned that the mother of all bubbles (greater by a factor of 10 than the housing bubble) is being created right now by a Central Bank that the American People neither understand nor control.  I predict that the Fed will continue to print money to allow our government to operate with few fiscal restraints.  A Trillion dollars of new deficit each of the past two years has been possible only because of your friendly local Fed.   The Fed will also engage in Central Planning of the Banking Industry that will further remove our economy from any stable base (like existed under the gold standard) and will greatly increase the severity of the crash that will be the inevitable outcome of the bubble they are creating.  I predict that these short term measures will continue to prop up politicians and will eventually bring an end to the position of the U.S. Dollar as the standard world trade currency.  I predict that the Fed has the political backing to carry out the sherade for 2011 and possibly even 2012 (until the election), but am convinced that hyper inflation (Jimmy Carter style, at least) will occur within the next 3 years unless we throttle the Fed or return to a gold standard.

3. Virtual Civil War. I don’t see a war like in the 1860s, but I do predict a battle that is every bit as influential in setting the path for the future of our country.  I see wage earners vs. dole takers.  I see Investors vs. politicians/regulators who would tax and spend rather than invest.  I see Private Sector Employees vs. Public Sector Employees.  I see entrenched Keynesians vs. Libertarians and Free Bankers.  What will happen when private sector unions finally discover that public sector unions are driving taxation and deficit spending to the point where they (private sector unions) lose wage parity and the power to control our political direction?  What will happen when Investors come to the realization that the government has in the recent past and will continue in the near future to nationalize businesses and industries?  Unless a concerted effort is made to stop pitting one part of our society against the other for political gain, I fear we will have a virtual Civil War.  It will be between unelected regulators and the people regulated.  It will result in massive non-compliance with taxes, regulations, and law in general.  We can’t build enough prisons to handle a lawless society.  We can’t hire enough enforcement personnel to track down all scofflaws.   I hope for unifying, straight talking leadership but fear we will get more of what we have now, a prescription for the fracture of America.

4. Global Warming. This is a multi-facited problem that is as much about Globalism as about Climate.  Currently, we fight over whether the climate is changing and if so if the change is man-caused.  This is a microcosm of the debate on Globalism.  Is everything so entwined that every action taken by political leaders in Sri Lanka has an effect on politics in Andorra?  Is there a need to have world governing bodies?  Must all societies agree to conform to the same standards?  These are questions about which we will hear exponentially  more in the coming year.  I hope to stay aware of the drive to “One World Order” and to understand the consequences of such a system.  Just the total ineptitude of the U.N. leads me to be very skeptical of any world governance proposals.  I am also concerned that the “global climate change” fear-mongering is just an attempt at a foot in the door advancing Global Government.

5. Innovation. It is my opinion that here is where the real hope lies.  As mentioned before, I loved The Watchman’s Rattle by Rebecca Costa.  I think she is really onto something and it is an important concept for us to watch.  The evolution of our brains has not kept pace with the evolution of our societies and the growth of our populations.  We are losing control of our destiny because we are overwhelmed by complexity beyond our capabilities.  Truly, what in life has not become more complex than it needs to be or than we want it to be?  I plan to learn more about the human brain and hopefully train mine to be more open and innovative.  I think we will develop many of the cures/solutions/fixes that will keep us from collapse as a society.  But, I don’t think it will come easy.  I think that key innovation will occur in societal/political organization (see Theory of Power by my son, Jeff Vail, for one take on this).  I think solutions will come in understanding and using human emotion and belief systems.  I hope solutions come from more reliance on facts than from retreating to the comfort of beliefs.

The good news is that change for the better is occurring, if not at the national political level.  I already notice when talking with Liberal friends that they are disgusted with many of the Orwellian measures that are being forced upon us.  They are upset at the level of taxation and regulation.  They are concerned about how many people are out of work and can see that at least part of it is due to government policy that encourages sloth/discourages work.  I notice when talking with Conservative friends that they are worried about backlash and the growth of right wing anarchist groups.  They are concerned that too many people are talking about guns and taking things into their own hands.  They worry about loss of respect for the law.  I actually think there are a growing number of folks on both sides who are leaning more toward a Libertarian/Get-Government-Off-My Back attitude.  I think there is a great opportunity for us to build on these feelings and start to work together to right the wrongs of the past 80+ years of movement to the deficit-financed welfare state.

I wish everyone a Happy, Healthy, and Thoughtful New Year.  And while you are having that Thoughtful New Year, take the time to comment here and help the conversation.  Last year, this blog was viewed over 345,000 times, but there were fewer than 500 comments.  That is too much of a one way street for my liking.  My hope for the New Year?   More comments.

Planestupid is a group dedicated to showing that human caused global warming is, in large part, caused by aircraft travel.

Where to start?

The revelations this week confirming many of the conspiratorial aspects of Al Gore’s Religion, Global Warming, raise a number of questions.

Should we trust scientists or the U.N.? —  It appears that many scientists were willing to shape experiments and data to fit their needs.  They also seems to be quite apt at using peer pressure to silence those who disagreed with their global warming mantra.  As such, many have proven to be untrustworthy.  It also appears that the U.N. did much the same thing by silencing descenters.  Trusting the U.N. has always been unwise but it now appears that to increase funding and gain more control over more people, the U.N. has again misled us.

Does Global Warming Exist? I don’t know.  I’m guessing that you don’t either.  It does appear that we all need to go back and actually study data and how it was obtained rather than choosing a political agenda and finding statistical data to support how we feel.

Is the use of carbon fuels by humans the cause of climate change? My guess is that it has an effect. I also guess that the effect is much smaller than we have been led to believe.  I continue to wonder about events like the Krakatoa Eruption o f ’83.  If scientific estimates of the 1883 eruption are correct, it was over 10,000 times the destructive force of the Nuclear bomb detonated at Hiroshima.  Did it have an effect on global warming?  How big an effect compared to today’s use of carbon fuels?

How similar are the results of the campaigns to promote the Y2K disasters and the Global Warming disaster? A lot of people made a lot of money on the Y2K scare.  They sold computer upgrades, new programs, insurance, and you-name-it.  Many of these people did what they could to stir the pot and create the panic preceding Y2K.  My guess is that Al Gore has made a lot of money on global warming.  I know he has done a lot to promote it.  I think the similarity is great.  The difference is that we learned the falsehoods of the fear mongers on Y2K at shortly after midnight on January 1, 2000.  If Human Caused Global Warming is real and is as bad as Mr. Gore would have you believe, it will be too late to change our ways by the time we find out the truth.

We could get much closer to the truth if the U.N., many “scientists”, and all those who benefit from the fear of global warming would be honest.   This week’s revelations may help move us to more of the truth.

What should we do?

Two religions are sweeping the globe and gaining power and influence every day.  One is very old.  The other is very new.  They worship very different deities and gain their power through very different means.


Radical Islam is pushing the extreme beliefs of that religion on ever larger populations of the downtrodden.  Where large numbers of people are dissatisfied with their lot in life, there is a breeding ground for radical islam.  Those who would increase the spread and the power of Islam use intimidation, terror, torture and other less than humane methods to coerce people to go along with their plans.  The end result, the radicals hope, will be a world without infidels, operating under Sharia Law and in which concepts like freedom, liberty, and individual initiative don’t exist.

According to Wikipedia, “A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narrativessymbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.”

Radical Environmentalism is the other and it is both a very new and fast growing religion.  I like the current Wikipedia definition of Religion.   To me, Radical Environmentalism and in particular, Global Warmism, are religions.  The Ultimate Truth of Global Warmism is this:  The earth is warming at a rate which will have catistrophic consequences to all life forms and the reason is an increase in ‘greenhouse gasses’ caused by human activity.  The end result of Global Warmism, its proponents hope, will be a world with significantly lower fossil fuel consumption, and all economic activity that has a significant “carbon footprint.”  The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will go a long way to determining how far this new religion goes.

I would argue that these two religions, not necessarily working together, but working at the same time, will bring an end to thousands of years of human progress and will result in a world dominated by Radical Islam with people enduring a standard of living equivalent to what existed in the dark ages.  As economies stagger under the pressure of regulation and restraint, more people will fall into poverty creating a new large base for exploitation by radical Islam.

For more posts on this subject, please go to Cap and Trade, Obama Un-American, Global Warning?

The following video raises some interesting questions.

Do the leaders of these two religions want to control the world so they can dictate the way we live?  Yes.

Do the leaders of these religions use peer pressure to sell their product?  Yes.

Do you agree that both are religions by the Wiki definition?  Do you agree that they are gaining power and influence?

Which is the more dangerous religion?

Hit Counter since Sept. 2008

  • 1,545,055 hits
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory