In considering the ill effects of welfare, critics frequently focus upon its failures and upon the immorality of the theft that supports it. There is also discussion about the negative effects it has upon recipients - who become passively dependent and unable to lead productive lives, and upon "providers'' - who begin to think of themselves as an elite that is superior to the recipients and to the productive people whom they plunder to keep the game going. Less noticed is the ugly turn that welfare often eventually takes in which the recipients actually try to harm the productive people who have provided for them. This problem seems to arise from a negative aspect of human nature. Even in private charity - which is the honorable way to provide for those who are truly in need - this can occur. As charity continues, the providers sometimes begin to feel superior to the recipients, and the recipients begin to resent the providers. In private charity, however, all is voluntary and the participants are usually in close contact with one another, so these difficulties are manageable. Public welfare has, of course, more beneficiaries. These include the vast and voracious bureaucracy that administers welfare - welfare for scientists and welfare for pot-smoking back-to-nature hippies who just prefer not to work. Therefore, these welfare programs become ends in themselves. No matter how extensive the difficulties, this bureaucracy is determined to keep the failed system going at all costs. Perhaps the greatest cost is the deliberate damage eventually done to the productive victims of welfare by some of the welfare recipients themselves. In the Northwest, for example, the destruction of the logging industry has largely been accomplished by agitators who are extensively supported by welfare. These are the people who have time to spike trees, promulgate hate campaigns against the lumber industry, and participate in demonstrations. Antinuclear demonstrators are somewhat similar. Antinuclear protests include a very large proportion of people who are not engaged in productive work. The elite behind these movements has, however, a larger agenda. The same elite that promulgated the "energy crisis'' in the 1970s promotes the "global warming'' crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. Their first claim was that we were running out of coal, oil, and natural gas, so there would soon be none to burn. Their new claim is that we are going to burn coal, oil, and natural gas in ever increasing amounts in perpetuity and fry the planet. Simultaneously, they have stunted American progress in nuclear energy by means of false claims about the dangers of nuclear power. Their agenda has little to do with any of these claims. For many of them, that agenda is the elimination of human beings. The goal is reduction of the earth's human population by means of technological genocide - the reduction of life-supporting technology. These elitists cannot, however, succeed by themselves. They must have foot soldiers to get the job done. These foot soldiers are now being provided by the giant welfare system that they have built for "scientists.'' For the first several decades of this welfare system, scientists were content to passively participate. Now, however, some of them are beginning to behave in the predictable manner of long-term welfare recipients. They are beginning to bite the hands that feed them. Now we find welfare-supported scientists willing to elevate tenuous hypotheses with little or no experimental support to the level of "robust'' theories of unquestioned verisimilitude - in order to deliberately destroy the way of life of those whose earnings pay for welfare. A problem with science, however, is that it still includes a method of thought that is based upon truth. While one is shoveling welfare to the scientific mob, there is no completely reliable way to guard against a discovery that is inconsistent with the political agenda. Moreover, scientists who are playing the desired game may, at any time, revert to their fundamental training and uncover some embarrassing fact. For this reason, the global environmental scams 
In this context, the global warming crowd recently suffered a very severe setback. After extensive squabbling in which referees modified the paper and tried to suppress it, "Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO
2 Concentrations'' by T. M. L. Wigley, R. Richels, and J. A. Edmonds in Nature 379, pp 240-243, was published. Figures 1 and 2 are adapted from this paper.Wigley,
et al, subscribe to the entire global warming scenario in which computer models that fail to predict past weather and contain only the most rudimentary guesses as to the actual effects of atmospheric release of carbon dioxide from human activity are used to pretend to predict the future with breathtaking precision. Wigley, himself, is one of the lead authors of the recent report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has been enthusiastically publicized throughout the media in recent months as the most authoritative verification of the looming global warming catastrophe.Alas, Wigley asked one question too many. Assuming that the entire global computer model is correct (nonsense as shown in
AtE 23-06 - but it is this nonsense upon which the global warming facade rests), Wigley calculated the effects of waiting another 10, 20, or 30 years without any control of CO2 emissions at all before taking action. His calculation assumes the worst case scenario adopted by the UN for uncontrolled emissions. The calculation was carried out for ultimate atmospheric CO2 levels of 350 parts per million through 750 ppm.
Figure 1 shows the predicted atmospheric CO2 levels assuming immediate crisis reductions (IPCC) or assuming a wait of 20 years before any reductions (WRE). Figure 2 shows the total amount of CO2 emissions from human activity under the two assumptions. (The line labeled IS92a is the IPCC assumption for CO2 emissions if no action is ever taken. Planners love this sort of apocalyptic scenario.) For a 30-year wait and his recommended level of 550 ppm, Wigley finds that the end result for the global environment is unchanged. Along the way to that UN-created nirvana 300 years from now, there is a difference - of less than 2 inches in sea level and about 0.2° C in temperature. In other words, as Wigley et al conclude, the effect of waiting 30 more years before controlling CO2 emissions, even when one assumes that the entire global warming scenario is correct (which it is not), is so slight as to be not worth significant economic disruption.
A 30-year wait would, of course, be devastating to the global warming industry. Without a crisis, their war-level funding from tax money would decrease and, worse yet, their predictions would need to stand the test of 30 years of future climatological data.
From the Wigley, Richels, Edmonds (WRE) calculation there is no honest escape. From here on, the crisis teams at the UN and the welfare receiving scientists and other unprincipled participants in the multibil-lion dollar global warming crisis business will have to fly on hope. Their fuel tanks are empty. They just must hope that no one notices.
|
|
Vol. 23, No. 7
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 23, No. 7 Date: March 01, 1996 02:42 PM Title: Golden Tears
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|