Global Warming (A Hot Topic)

I read in the Deserted News yesterday that the Western Governor's Association says that the science on Global Warming is done. It's for sure. It's conclusive. I have several questions for these folks.

Question #1: Since when is science EVER conclusive? I've been taught in my science classes all of my life to always doubt the current model. Relativity? It has to be wrong. It's just our best guess so far. Same goes for Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb's Law, AND Anthropogenic Climate Change. Science is not conclusive. Ever. Especially sciences that have been in heavy research for 30 years. If Coulomb's Law has to be wrong, and it hasn't changed in a VERY long time, then Climate Change must follow the same logic. Except that it's a lot newer, and hasn't been quite as conclusively proven.

Question #2: Even if the science is conclusive, are the politics and policy? What evidence do we have that the current proposals to halt climate change will work? For the policy often referred to as "Cap and Trade," we have evidence to the contrary. The Kyoto Protocol was a treaty which took force in February of 2005. It promotes "Cap and Trade" measures between countries. It basically punishes those who increase their CO2 and GHG emissions past 1990 levels by making them pay countries which have decreased their emissions levels. As of 2004, all of 4 major industrial countries have reduced their emissions below 1990 levels. These are the following: The Russian Federation, the UK, Denmark, and Germany. While Germany, Denmark, and the UK are to be commended for their success, the Russian Federation deserves no such glory. Anyone remember what happened in Russia in 1990? Their government, which owned everything, collapsed. Their emissions ratings in that year were exceptionally high due to the fact that their government was still functioning. Since their economy collapsed, it made it rather easy for them to have emissions under 1990 levels. Also, other than these FOUR countries, the vast majority of the 183 signers of the Kyoto Protocol have had increases in their emissions levels. It doesn't seem to have had much effect on emissions levels in any other country, and has simply moved wealth around.

Question #3: Given the failure to achieve the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, why is the United States Government so deadset on doing the same thing here? There must be a better way. One that will actually work, perhaps? If something must be done, I propose to simply pump tax dollars into research grants for developing things that will work.

Hmm... I was going to slip some jokes in here.... I kinda forgot what they were.... or where they went. Oh well. I hope you laughed in some part of this post...

What do you think? I don't see the current proposals as being effectual at preventing Climate Change, assuming the science is conclusive. Do you agree, disagree, or have an entirely different viewpoint? Spell it out! (Thanks for reading, and thank you in advance for your intelligent discourse).

P.S. I am my primary source, with supporting info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol Look at the graph about 3/4 of the way through the article.

Liberalism and Conservatism

I've been thinking lately. (Shocker, right?) Why is it that I call myself a Classical Liberal, and believe in constitutionally limited government, and yet several of my friends call themselves Liberal, and believe in extremely strong government? In the time of Jefferson, I think they would be called conservative. In the days of the founding of the United States, Liberalism meant believing in small government, and natural rights. Conservatism used to mean in favor of conserving the rights of the monarchy and the aristocracy. Monarchy, as a system, believes very little in its people. It believes that a privileged class ought to control most EVERYTHING. Liberalism has come to believe in much the same things, especially in its latest manifestation under President Obama. The GM and Chrysler takeovers are proof of this.

Conservatism has come to mean conserving the rights, freedoms, liberties, and traditions of small government the United States has come to be known for.

This change in meaning of the two words is an advantage to the Liberal movement, and a disadvantage to the conservative movement. This is because Liberal has a connotation of moving forward, while conservative has a connotation of holding back.

Would anyone like to explain how these words switched meanings?

On a lighter note

I remembered a story of little Ben today. In 1995, when Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and James E. Faust became the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, little Ben was watching it on the TV. Little Ben LOVED trains. He noticed that Gordon, Thomas and James are all characters on his favorite TV show, Thomas the Tank Engine. "It makes perfect sense mommy! Gordon, Thomas and James!" Little Ben was rather excited to find out that his church leaders were his favorite TV show's main characters.

Several years later, when James left this world, a slightly bigger Ben was delighted to find out that his replacement was another character on the show, Henry. Unfortunately, soon thereafter, Gordon passed on as well, as was replaced with someone who isn't quite a Thomas the Tank Engine character. There aren't any Dieters in the Tank Engine lineup. Thomas is in charge now, though, which is as it should be.

I therefore have a proposition to make. I propose that we petition Takara Tomy, the makers of Thomas merchandise, to create a new tank engine. Dieter the Diesel Tank Engine. Any takers? I'd buy one.

Optimism

I am often told that I am too optimistic in regards to how people act. Whenever I am criticized in such a way, I am asked "Have you met people, Ben?" The answer is obviously yes. I have met people. The question is usually met with a qualifier of "as in non-utah people." The answer to that is also yes. But what bothers me is that those who ask the question don't strike me as having any more experience with people, and often strike me as having less experience with people. So, I ask any person who has asked me this, "Have YOU met people?" I assume the answer is yes, but your condescending tone begs another question. What is it that makes your experience with people more vast or more valid than mine? My view of people is just as valid as yours so far as I see it. Please justify yourselves.

Thank you for reading and putting up with my style.

Intelligence

In discussions of public education with many of my friends, I have been confronted with a very elitist viewpoint of education. It can be summarized in the following quote.

"The way the system is now is excellent. On one end you have the people that no matter what you do, for whatever reason, they fail. They don't care, they don't have the ability, whatever, they just drop out and fail to the lowest class. Then in the middle you have people who "become organized" as the mission statement said, and then you have people like us who go "HEEEEECK NO!" see the problems in the system, but ultimately still get through, thinking, and are ahead."

As much as I might like to think that I'm better and more intelligent than most people, I just cannot honestly believe that it's true. I'm fairly certain that I'm about average in most every respect. I've only had more opportunity to fulfill my dreams than others. It is not my intelligence or my ability that has brought me to where I am, but my environment and my choices. I have been extremely blessed to live in a loving home where intelligent discussion and wit were prized. I have been blessed to have a family that can afford to put me through college. I personally do not have merits that make me so much better than anyone else, except perhaps my circumstances.

I sometimes come off as highfallutin and cocky, but that is a fault of my personality that is entirely unjustified. When I put my beliefs out in the public forum for picking and pulling and squeezing and poking, I am not trying to say: "This is what is right, listen," but instead simply saying: "Here's something I've been thinking about... I think you should give it a thought or two as well."

Angels or Demons?

I've come to realize in discussions with some of my close friends that I believe that people are more like angels than like demons. There is evil in the world, but I believe that most people are essentially good. I believe that most people, given the chance to pursue their dreams, free from institutional bondage, will do good things. Hence, I put my faith in people, rather than institutions.

I also believe that most of those who do evil acts don't wake up in the morning thinking, "how can I make the world a more miserable place? How can I destroy the lives of as many people as possible?" People who think like that are demonic. I think that they are few and far between. Most people who do evil acts think that they are pursuing noble and good ends. They just approach those noble and good ends with too much force and overbearance, and instead of making the world a better place, destroy things.

I believe that creating powerful institutions, like governments, is necessary, but dangerous. Governments not held in check by the superior power of the people will become corrupt and do things not in the best interests of those they attempt to protect.

I realize that there are those who do not have as much faith in people as myself, as much as I hate to admit it. To those, I would argue the following. People on the whole are good. Some are evil. If you create a powerful institution like a powerful government, you will give much power to individuals. Those that are evil are naturally drawn to these positions of power. If you create such a government, sooner or later, you will end up with evil men in positions of great power.

There are those that believe that mankind, left without an all-powerful government to keep the people in line will do all sorts of horrible things. I cannot believe that.

Much of my belief is founded in certain scriptural texts. From Mosiah 29:26-27,

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

Given that this statement is true, I cannot believe that people are essentially devilish. That's too darn depressing. If it's true, then the judgments of God are about to fall upon this people in America. I'd rather not have that happen. So, I maintain my faith that people are generally good.