Canary in a Coal Mine

My blood ran cold. Last night, I went out to pull the last vegetables out of the garden before the impending freeze. Working in the twilight, I frantically tried to finish before the rapidly approaching darkness. With the leaves rustling around me, and as long shadows disappeared into blackness, it was very easy to imagine being surrounded by spirits and witches, still around from Halloween. That’s when my hand clasped this cold wet hideous mutant and actually stopped my heart for a second...




Now I know it’s just a green pepper, but in the Middle ages, the appearance of a conjoined twin in the garden like this was a sure sign, of a witch practicing her Dark Arts around Towne. In more primitive societies, it was evidence of bad spirits in the village.


Of course, today we have Science, and no longer believe in silly superstition. That’s why I know that this strange pepper is not evidence of Witches or Evil Spirits. I know it most probably happened, because of Global Warming.

Dodgeball Analyzed

After posting my Dodgeball Routine The Great Orac arose from his slumber. He posted it over at his site so all his scientist buddies could hurl a couple rubber balls back at me. I’m resisting the urge to point out how many of them still throw like girls.

So now that the Science has weighed in, the consensus clearly demonstrates, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that I am a comedian. So perhaps I should try and explain my bit as it were a thesis, which is the level so many scientists want to argue with it.

Remember I'm in the Entertainment Business, and if I were to start reading scientific papers every night, I would be completely out of the business. I would be as broke a a scientist without a grant, and as lonely as a game of Dungeons and Dragons. The nature of Comedy requires that I omit some of the fine details to keep the routine light and fast moving.

If I had to turn this routine into a thesis, my premise was not that Global Warming isn’t happening, but that the consensus is insufficient to warrant legislative action. As I have been told on numerous occasions, there is no reason to debate Global Warming; it is already settled. Global Warming is happening, and it is man made. Those who have called me a denier are not only fabricating a straw man, they are also coming dangerously close to violating the rule against invoking Nazis. There is a big difference between denying a historical fact like the Holocaust, and being skeptical about the consequences of a theory.

My first bit compares Al Gore to Pat Robertson, who both have blamed hurricanes on the activities of humans. While most scientists agree that Pat Robertson is being goofy, not many recognize that Al Gore is being goofy as well. There is no scientific agreement that Hurricanes are caused by Homosexuals or Global Warming; so giving one man trophies, while laughing at the other is nothing more than zealous bigotry. It’s like Catholics laughing at Buddhists for praying to a statue.

Next, we move on to the strength of a consensus. By using examples of historic scientific consensus, that turned out to be wrong, I illustrate how meaningless a consensus can be. Orac loves to point this out as a gotcha, since a failure of science in the past is no indication of it’s current veracity. In fact “The Science Has Been Wrong Before” is a well documented fallacy .

Right now, consensus only gives a 90% chance of a anthropomorphic signal in the observed warming to date. In horse racing terms, that translates to 9 to 1. So betting against future Global Warming catastrophes is a long shot for sure, but not improbable. And if I were betting on a horse with roughly those odds, I might point out to a handicapper, that Seabiscuit in his first race at Aqueduct came in at 26 to 1. That is what I did here. I pointed out that betting on the scientists isn’t always a sure thing, and sometimes it pays off to back a long shot.

Proposals for reducing human impact on the climate include higher taxes, and more expensive energy technologies. Which means that the economy will impacted negatively. Already the small increase in energy costs over the past year is slowing growth, and raising food prices. And if, gas at three bucks a gallon, hasn’t decreased the demand, taxes would have to get that price a lot higher before CO2 levels start decreasing. So we know that any solution to the “crisis” is 100% certain to impact our economy negatively. You don’t put forth legislation that is 100% certain to slow the economy for a theory that is only 90% probable. It is a really bad bet.

Next, I point out that much of what Al Gore says, just apocalyptic rhetoric, because only bad things are predicted to come about from Global Warming. The DVD recorder skipped here so a lot of the point I made didn’t get recorded. Certainly there should be some benefits to Global Warming, and in fact there is science to indicate that warmer weather is good for humanity. I like warm weather. Which is why I personally think we should encourage Global Warming.

Rather than taking a balanced look at the possible outcomes of a warmer climate, many just point to the bad. It is impossible for every result of Global Warming to be harmful. Nature doesn’t care if something is good for humanity or bad for humanity. In fact, Nature has done everything in it’s power to try and eliminate humanity from the face of the earth, and in a victory of Evolution, we survived. (Our use of petroluem is one reason we won the fight.) To say petroleum consumption will result in more human suffering is just moralizing. Which isn’t science, it’s religion.

There is such a rush to scare people, that every disaster gets blamed on global warming. This sometimes causes humorous contradictions, and occasionally a completely ridiculous claim. The diapered astronaut being blamed on AGW was a joke of exaggeration. But that doesn’t mean that equally ridiculous claims are not made: The Secretary General of the United Nations actually blamed Global Warming for the genocide in Darfur. With a straight face.

Well then, if there is no certainty that Global Warming is catastrophic, why would anyone insist that we need things like a carbon tax? Here is where I lose most of the scientists (the Dodgeball Routine). I chronicle the dramatic descent of a smart young boy into the perdition of Socialism. I speculate that there is envy and a desire to control within the hearts of some scientists. Not all scientists, just enough to give my argument some weight. I have met many highly educated people who believe a persons wealth should be in proportion to his education. They claim there’s something wrong with this country, when a guy like Bill Gates could drop out of college and become the world’s wealthiest man. These are the people to whom this bit is dedicated.

Often people without money or power, resent those who have it. Socialism attracts people wrought with envy and impotence. And just like alcoholics often find themselves working in a bar, Socialists often find cover within the environmental movement. The regulations and confiscatory taxation often proposed as environmental solutions, are virtually indistinguishable from Socialism.

And I’m not buying that science supported Al Gore claiming 20 feet. If the 20 foot rise is possible, then why did the IPCC settle on 23 inches by 2100? According to the IPCC: ”Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level" Which means it "might" go higher, but there is no consensus on when the 20 foot rise would occur, or if it ever will. If you are arguing from the authority of the consensus, you have to go with 23 inches figure. Which is what I did.

When Gore demonstrated the impact on the world, he used a current map of population centers. That indicated he believed that the twenty-foot rise was imminent. Which was a clearly a scare tactic. Populations can move quite a bit over decades, there is no way anyone is going to sit in one spot as the ocean rises over their heads. New Orleans lost half its population after the last deluge, I can’t imagine that many would stick around if it happens again. Perhaps in another 100 years, the French Quarter will be a really cool dive site. The history of the world is full of population migrations, and I don’t think that’s ever going to change, whether we pass Kyoto or not.

Since Most scientists agree that Global Warming doesn’t cause Hurricanes, there is a 10% possibility that they’re wrong (again), some are just responding to envy and a lust for power, and any ocean rise will be small and gradual; the consensus on Global Warming is insufficient to pass any legislation at this time.

Now where’s my Grant money?

11/4: Corrected math error. Odds are actually only 9 to 1 in favor of Global Warming.

Did I Get Ripped Off Here?

Okay, maybe I'm just paranoid, but this cartoon reminds me an AWFUL lot of a bit that I do about Halloween and Taxes.



Not only is it Uncle Sam holding the bowl, I believe those are Payday candy bars in the bowl.

Yeah you say, but the theme is different, it's about Social Security.

Perhaps. But if you look at a newer version of the routine (starts about 5:50 )

Showcase

Add to My Profile | More Videos

You will hear me say " Grandpa is gonna eat all that!" A claim about the true nature of Social Security.

Dodgeball

In honor of America's newest Nobel Prize Recipient:



Here it is.

for those of you who followed the Orac Controversy, and are still here, I've decided to post a video of the bit in question, so readers can decide for themselves whether or not it's funny.

Good vs. Evil

Polarization. It's the remaining essence of any argument, after all the nuance has been boiled out. Good and Evil. Black and White. Cowboys and Indians. Most often, Liberals accuse the right of having a such a World view. Unless it involves something close to their hearts. Like Global Warming.




The talking points are, that all the noble Scientists, (who are good hearted, open minded, and intelligent) believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. On the other side are the incredible scientists, whom the evil corporations have paid off, to construct lies and obfuscation.

There's no nuance when the fate of the world is at stake. Either you agree with the Consensus, or you are a Denier. You're either an Intellectual, or a Patsy for the Oil Corporations. Academic or Propagandist. Enlightened or Bought Off. Intellectual or Whore.

One of the most honorable men to the Left is Dr. James Hansen, chief climate scientist over at NASA. Dr. Hansen has been boldly standing up to the Bush Administration, who repeatedly tries to censor this whistle-blower. The order for the President to tone down Dr. Hansen's rhetoric comes straight from the oil corporations, according to Liberal dogma.

It is believed Hansen is above reproach, and no sum would be sufficient for him to alter his opinion. But it turns out, he CAN be bought off. In Monday's Investors Business Daily comes this juicy tidbit: The George Soros funded Open Society Institute, has given $720 000 to Dr. Hansen. Apparently, not all the science whores are in the pockets of oil companies.

Of course, supporters of Hansen would attest that the good Dr. has ALWAYS been a proponent of Global Warming, and the payoff from Soros was an Honorarium rather than a bribe.

But it turns out, that wasn't the case. Thirty six years ago, when the Global Temperatures were falling, Dr. Hansen didn't believe in Global Warming. Back then, his famous computer models were churning out numbers 180 degrees from todays prognostications.

And What about CO2 you ask? Well back in 1971, Hansen and his partner in crime didn't think it was relevant. "They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide that fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Washington Post report said.

Furthermore it was recently discovered that the stalwart Dr. Hansen had made an error in his calculations, and the oft repeated statistic that 1998 was the warmest year in US history was wrong. Once the numbers were corrected, it turns out that 1934 was the warmest.

Is it possible that George Soros, with all his money could convince Dr. Hansen to fudge numbers? Why that would be an Indecent Proposal wouldn't it?

The Deadly Duo

Those who have been here for some time now are probably familiar with a recent argument I got into with Orac over at Respectful Insolence on the dangers of Second Hand Smoke. I mentioned that recent science indicates that spending eight hours in a smoky bar is no worse for your heart, than drinking a can of pop every day.

Well it looks like pop isn’t the only thing that’s worse than working in a smoky bar. Turns out that a couple bags of microwave popcorn is even worse! Wayne Watson, a Colorado man, who consumed two bags of microwave popcorn every day for the past ten years has been diagnosed with Bronchiolitis Obliterans or Popcorn Lung, an often fatal lung disease. Apparently the chemical diacetyl, which occurs naturally in butter, and gives it that delicious flavor we all love, can be deadly when vaporized and inhaled. So if you can smell butter, you are being exposed to toxins.

But where is the legislation? Where are the lobbyists? Where is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? How come this threat to humanity is still allowed to be sold in grocery stores all over America, even to little children!

I know that the risk can be avoided simply by customers selecting the butter free variety (or not eating popcorn). But what about the children that work in movie theaters? What about the workers that are exposed? According to research the risk to popcorn workers of contracting Popcorn Lung, is roughly the same as coal miners contracting Black Lung (3%) which means working around buttery popcorn, is thousands of times more dangerous that working in a smoky bar.

During our heated and extended debate, the Great Orac once said “There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition.”

By the same token, there is no reason to put butter on popcorn, outside of tradition. When will we start caring for the victims of popcorn? Certainly those who wish to eat buttered popcorn, can step outside the theater to indulge in their deadly habit. I SHOULD be able to enjoy a movie without exposing myself to second hand butter.

Two Americas

Yesterday, according to the AP, John Edwards said that Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He said he would ask them to give up SUVs.

The theme of his campaign has been the divide between two Americas.

Here is a picture of John Edwards leaving a rally in Lawrence Kansas during the 2004 Presidential campaign, courtesy of Heidi | me, my life + infrastructure.



Like Orwell said, "Some animals are more equal than others."

Divine Left

And while we're on the topic of outrageous power grabs: Here's an interesting political maneuver from the People's Republic of Cheap Christmas Ornaments; a law requiring a government permission for reincarnation.

Is this a new Chinese attempt at population control? I guess that if people are required to wait in a Government office before they can be reborn, it will discourage the practice of being reborn. It could even backfire, and cause mass conversions to Christianity. One might imagine that Hell and Purgatory are preferable alternatives, to waiting in line at the Reincarnation License Bureau.

Here in the US, the State avoids regulating supernatural phenomenon. Despite King County Washington adding Bigfoot to the endangered species list; and Florida requiring Telephone Psychics to sign a Vow of Clairvoyance; governments rarely regulate something so ridiculous. But in a Nation where Atheism and State Worship have been the common practice for the better part of the past century, who knows? This goes far beyond a merging of church and state; the state is actually superceding a chuch. Back when the Western world was ruled by the Vatican, the worst that could happen to a person is an excommunication, which would only affect a person in between lives.

Here in the US, we're just trying to make certain that everyone who comes here from another country has the right paperwork. At least it is possible to build a fence to keep illegals from entering this country; I don't know how you could guard against an infiltration of Illegal Reincarnates, though I imagine it would include garlic.

The truth behind their new law, is an attempt to stave a revolution in Tibet. By requiring a license be issued before reincarnation can be completed, the next incarnation of the Dali Lama will be cleared by the government. Therefore, he would be less able to organize a Tibetan Revolution. In other words, they know there's a new Ghandi on the horizon, they want to make certain it's going to be THEIR Ghandi.

I'm reminded of the ad campaigns of my youth where government sponsored ads would show government sancitoned Hippies warning about the dangers of drug use. The idea was that if some really cool hippies "laid down" the truth about drugs, kids would "dig the rap." But it never worked. Kids are fairly perceptive, and it was obvious these weren't REAL hippies. For one thing, they were over 35, and wearing bad wigs. I can't help but think the New People's Dali Lama of China will be met with the same cynicism.

If you can’t stand the heat...

While I was out of town for a week, on an un-deserved vacation, the Great Computer spoke again, about this little bug that keeps chaffing his silicon. In this post, he has decided to compare me to Creationists and Practitioners of Alternative medicine. The reference of course it that we’re all ignorant fanatics, who shun Science. In other words: Guilt by Asscociation. He was surprised to learn that some of our arguments are similar. It’s amazing to him, that people prefer, to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and not be dictated to by scientists.

There is a certain kind of person in this world. Most of us, when alerted by another driver, that we have a flat tire, will pull over and inspect it. There is that other type of person that will continue driving, and wonder why all these jerks on the road, keep telling him that his tire is flat. If I were told by several people, that I was being arrogant and controlling, I might take another look in the mirror, before I start accusing and generalizing.

Let me point out once again: I am not opposed to science. There is nothing wrong with information. A link between smoking and cancer? Great, let me know about that so I can alter my lifestyle. The earth is getting warmer, and the ocean might rise a few inches by the time I die? I’ll remember that when I buy my beach-front retirement home. (Make certain it’s in the North, and at least a block from the beach.)

What I oppose, is when Science is confused with legislation. Orac himself makes that error when he suggests:

"It's the personal against the cold, unfeeling scientific. In the case of global warming, it's portrayed as science saying that human industry and automobiles are causing a problem on a planetary scale; in other words, science versus free enterprise. In the case of secondhand smoke, it's scientists telling bar owners and smokers that their habit harms more than just the person puffing on the cigarette and that workers shouldn't have to subject themselves to that risk as a condition of employment; in other words, science versus freedom itself!"

It seems here that Orac is hiding behind Science as if it were Pontius Pilate’s fingerbowl. It’s not the scientists and politicians who are asking for smoking bans and restritive energy legislation, why it’s SCIENCE! You cannot oppose Science!

Science doesn’t legislate, people do. It is wrong headed to suggest that science ever supports any legislation. Science is actually pretty neutral on legislation; it doesn’t ever care whether something is good for society or bad for society. (Think “Manhattan Project.”) Data in data out.

Contrarily, it is how that science is used by legislators, that sets the moral tone. Or let me put it in a way Orac and his buddies might understand better: Science is like a Magic Wand, an Enchanted Sword, or a ring that makes you invisible. It is a power that can be used for good, or it can be used to sneak into the girl’s locker room.

The desire to legislate is the desire to control. The bottom line of all legislation is, that we’ve decided a certain behavior is so repugnant, we must send police to arrest whomever next engages in that activity. It is the consummate position of power. People don’t get into politics unless they have a desire to hold that power.

Where that desire comes from, I don’t really know. What is it that compels people to demand that bars they have no intention of entering, must be smoke free? Why should all light bulbs be replaced with CFLs, and everyone be required to drive a Prius? As someone who thinks people should be allowed to live their own lives as they see fit, I really don’t understand it. I originally speculated, that this need to manipulate fellow citizens was spawned on the dodgeball courts of a pre-Clinton America.

I still haven’t seen anything that would convince me otherwise. If that conclusion bothers some, hey it’s just politics. Ad Hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated arguments have always been the status quo of political debate. Once scientists have decided to commit their lives to politics, they have entered a forum where the rules of science no longer apply. It’s all fair game. So if you don’t like the rhetoric, get back into the laboratory.

And in the political realm, it seems science is used more often, to fog the debate, than to clarify it. Little scientific facts are used to support overwhelming suppositions. Advocates of legislation are allowed to make incredibly hyperbolic statements with little or no criticism from the scientific community.

Take for instance Global Warming: The famous claim by Al Gore that oceans could rise by as much as twenty feet. According to scientists, they could. It has happened before, and it might happen again. But there is no evidence that this is likely within any of our lifetimes. This dubious claim that we are facing a deluge is played out by politicians, and in the media, as if it is inevitable and impending. Al Gore even said we have less than ten years to act if we want to stop it. Carbon emission caps are proposed, and if anyone dares criticize those caps, they are accused of being ignorant, anti science, and will be held responsible for the great deluge.

The truth is, current estimates only attribute 30 - 40 percent of the observed warming to human CO2 emissions. Which means that if we stopped all CO2 production tomorrow, a majority of the warming, melting, and rising would still occur. Since there isn’t a chance we could stop burning carbon within the next ten, twenty, or (probably) even a hundred years, it seems that Global warming is inevitable; just something we should learn to live with. But that’s certainly not the direction the legislation is headed.

Same goes for the risk of second hand smoke. I brought up earlier that the risk of heart trouble from second hand smoke, is less than the risk of heart trouble from drinking a can of pop every day. Orac claims that is a silly argument, because nobody is forced to drink a can of pop every day.

Apparently, he completely missed my satirical point. Most Americans would be surprised to learn there is more risk of heart disease from can of pop, than from sitting in a smoky bar. Smoking has been so demonized, that people assume SHS is nearly as deadly as cyanide gas. In fact, much of the popular propaganda often repeats that there is cyanide in second hand smoke. Scientific fact perhaps, but is it ever mentioned that cyanide is also found in almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots?

And let me state here and now that I don’t think there is anything in a can of pop that could cause heart trouble. I believe that there is just a commonality between frequent pop drinkers, and those with heart trouble that the experimenters didn’t control out of the study (Lack of exercise? Dietary habits? Propensity to lie about smoking, diet and exercise when questioned by an Epidemiologist?). Which is the point I was trying to bring up. Yes, a risk of 1.2 from smoking Second Hand Smoke might be real, and statistically significant, but it is so small, that perhaps the scientists just aren’t looking at their control group close enough. (or more likely, they don’t want to). I don’t think any of the studies that Orac pointed out screened participants for daily pop consumption.

One of the things that irritated Orac in the beginning, that I made fun of Global Warming, by suggesting a cold February was evidence against it. He missed the satire that night as well. If a hot day in Nevada, is evidence of Global warming, the thirtieth coldest February must be evidence against. If a politician were to trumpet the lack of hurricanes for two seasons, as evidence against global warming, the scientists would come down on him in herds. However, there is very little opposition when politicians and media types use a particularly active hurricane season as evidence of the crisis. This despite the fact that most hurricane experts claim no link between Global Warming and hurricane frequency.

I can’t help but cite some scientists for complacency in the process. Perhaps it is not the motivation of all scientists to head this country in an anti-capitalist direction, but many of them seem to be quite silent. Perhaps don’t realize they are being quite useful to the cause.

And here is a truth that Orac refuses to acknowledge: There ARE socialists within the environmental movement, that want to use Global Warming as a starting point to control capitalism. Do you think it’s any coincidence that former Communist, and admitted Socialist, Mikhail Gorbachev is now the head of an environmental organization? I spent a weekend at a Green Party Convention, and there was a lot more focus on Socialism than Environmentalism. In fact, the delegates, weren’t even using the recycling bins the hotel provided.

The resentment Orac feels from me, is not based on ignorance or antipathy to science, it is antipathy to people who want to run my life. It is not his authority I reject, but his authoritarianism.

The success of this nation, is based on freedom. Freedom of citizens to make individual decisions that contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the entire society. And the freedom to make mistakes is just as important as the freedom to make good decisions. As a committed Darwinist, he should understand that. His latest post suggests that Scientists are jerks, because it takes a real jerk to survive the grant application process, (I probably agree with him there), and Darwinian Law, eliminates non-jerks from the grant industry.

But Darwinism goes beyond Nature and the Science Department. Cultures and ideas must be subjected to the same forces that encourage evolution. Businesses and traditions must have an opportunity to fail. Ideas that don’t stand up will be abandoned, but it is only by subjecting them to the process that we can ever know which decisions were correct. Anybody who claims they can predict the outcome, has let his own intellectal pride delude himself.

If a family wants to raise their child without Darwin, what business is it of Orac’s? I can’t imagine how an ignorance of Evolution will damage a child outside of him getting mocked at a lot of cocktail parties when he grows up. (But that’s probably going to happen to an admitted Christian anyway). And if vitamins, weeds and enemas won’t cure diseases, future generations will be absent of people with that tendency to believe in the healing powers of vitamins, weeds, and enemas. Those of us who discount Global Warming, will buy beach-front property, and those who believe in it, will not. (Check the Real Estate market thirty years from now, and see who was right.)

And finally: if a bar owner wants to let people smoke in his bar; he warns his employees it’s going to happen; he puts a big sign outside the door telling customers that the atmosphere inside is as risky as a can of pop; and warns everyone they will be exposed to the same toxins that exist in spinach; who (outside of a few shills on the Robert Wood Johnson Payroll) should be concerned?

We know we’re not as smart as you, just let us make our own mistakes.

I Give Up!

Just in case any of you missed it, I spent the better part of last week trying to teach some science geeks about how business works. Turns out they don’t care. Perhaps their youthful forays into Dungeons and Dragons have reinforced their confidence at role playing, and they now believe they can do anything. Whatever. Here’s my last post I left there before I trot off to the wilderness for a week:
Orac writes: " his lame comparisons to Hitler and Mao"
Perhaps I'm just not making myself clear on those comparisons. I never meant to compare the horrific actions of Hitler, Mao, (and Stalin) to the anti smokers. As I said before, it's silly to compare a smoking ban, to the horrors of those dictatorships. My comparison was meant to be a critique on the planned economies of the last century, which all failed miserably. And it wasn't just because they they lost the wars.
Planned economies always fail, because the intelligentsia of those nations, try to run things they know nothing about. They take over the factories, the farms and the mines, and assume that their advanced intellects and educations could run those things more efficiently than the original owners. It inevitably devolves into micromanagement, resulting in shortages, lines, and poverty.
The success of capitalism is based on letting individuals with experience, make the important decisions, free from a micro managing authoritarian bureaucracy. We suppose in this country, that a guy who has worked up enough scratch to open a business, knows how to run that business best.
I can tell that very few of my rivals here, have ever worked in a bar. LCR compared Q2 revenue to Q3 revenue, and claimed there was an indication of a downturn. Anybody who has ever worked in a Northern bar knows that April May and June are always going to be busier than July, August, and September. Comparing Q2 to Q3 is as specious as comparing November and December retail numbers to February and March.
And he continues to insist, that because other bars are still open, it proves that smoking isn't part of the bar business. I don't know if he's really that ignorant or just obstinate, but for the last time: all bars are not the same. Some offer food and drink, some offer entertainment, some have dancing, some have nekid girls, and some are just a place you can go to have a smoke with your beer, where your wife won't complain about the smell. (What's wrong with letting a few bars get smoking licenses?)

And Orac was right. Two years revenue is not a scientifically large enough data sample to establish a trend (I repeat here, he didn't seem to mind the limited data set, when he used the same numbers to support HIS argument). But in the Bar business, sometimes two years is all you've got. And I know the bar business in Minneapolis is hurting. I have enough friends in the industry there, and I trust their opinions. Perhaps I can't write a convincing enough report for the politburo, but it is real.
Here's a question: If there is no negative economic impact from a smoking ban, why would bar owners say there was? How does it serve bar owners to make up such a lie? I guarantee that a lot of owners would like it if they didn't have to come home smelling like stale smoke every morning. And the reductions on their fire insurance premiums should be more than enough incentive to go smoke free.
The reason is, they KNOW it's more profitable for a bar to be a smoking establishment. (And the way many of you are fighting it so fiercely, indicates that you probably know it as well.) But you don't care. You pretend to know more than the individual bar owners. How many times has someone here repeated, that there is absolutely no reason for people to smoke inside of a bar? Well maybe the people who invested their time and money, know just a little more about it than you. Customers don't want to go outside for a smoke. Once they're out there, a lot of times they just go home. I've SEEN it. People used to hang at the bar in Minnesota after a show. Now they all leave.
You might think my argument about power hungry science geeks is out of line, but I think most of the responses I've been getting more than proves my point. Look in the post above, how David G. feels he has a right to go into any bar without having to smell smoke. That somehow, every establishment should cater to HIS personal preferences. Would David be so quick to say, "I should be able to go into a Gay bar and enjoy a meal without having to worry about guys hitting on me?"
Look how he doesn't care about minor "economic fallout." (At least he admits there will be some.) And the remark, " They may lose some smoking patrons, but they surely stand to gain some nonsmoker patrons." presupposes that David knows more about the bottom line than the bar owner. (I defy him to back up that point with any hard evidence.)
I'm sorry, but this is the same kind of confidence that the dictators of the previous century had, when they nationalized the Auto plants.
Remember the Yugo?

Once More Round the Wheel

I crossed the line. My last shot, certainly got someone’s attention. What I thought was just a spirited debate, is starting to blow a few circuit breakers. My recent post about anti-smokers being power hungry control freaks hit a nerve over at Respectful Insolence, and the normally emotionless and rational Orac has actually gotten angry.

Let me note first, that I never said that proponents of the smoking bans are geeky kids trying to get even with the cool kids that smoke. That’s just reducing my original argument to the point of ridiculousness. What I’ve been saying, is that kids who grew up being bullied, sometimes grow into adulthood with a tendency to bully. The fabled Napoleon Complex is one example of this phenomenon. The way I got treated by scientists, for suggesting that a bicycle emits the same amount of CO2 per mile as a Moped was another. (I still have a few bruises, from what happened on THAT playground.)

I believe that people who were bullied, sometimes grow up to be bureaucrats who use the power of government to push others around, and lose sight of the human aspect. This example certainly fits the dictator I mentioned in my last post (He who Cannot be Named). I did not mean to associate the horrors of his regime with smoking bans. But when you start making the decision that public health is more important than the investments of small business owners, you are invoking tyranny. Sure it’s just a small step towards dictatorship, but it is the same concept.

I think some scientists might also harbor a version of the Bureaucrat Complex. I think when a person spends too much time in the laboratory, he starts looking at everything as a lab experiment. People become less like individuals, and more like figures on a report, that can emotionlessly be pushed around to achieve a favorable result. So what if a few people lose their livelihoods, if it will marginally increase public health? (Orac suggested as much when he inferred that he might have succumbed to the legendary surgeon’s “god complex.”)

I stated that a lot of people in the Minneapolis Food and Beverage Industry have suffered material hardship. (Others have suggested that the link I provided was biased, and without a proper control). In response, Orac pulled up a few “studies.” But before we move on to those, lets look at what the author of that “biased” link (a non-smoker) had to say about his motivations for jumping into the debate:

“My career of 15 years, selling Smokeeter air filtration equipment to bars and restaurants came to an abrupt end once the debate for smoking bans began ...

During that time period of being unemployed, without the ability to continue making car payments my vehicle quickly fell into repossession status, and eventually was surrendered. Without the ability to continue making child support payments a family court judge decided I was in contempt and ordered me to jail. Without the ability to continue making mortgage payments our home quickly fell into foreclosure status, the sheriff's sale ocurred on May 5, 2006, and as it currently stands we are to be evicted”

Ouch. That’s kind of hard to look at when you get real close isn’t it? This kind of suffering never shows up in “studies.” And his story is only one of hundreds. I’m telling you, the loss is real. I’ve talked to a lot of the people with stories similar to the ones on his list.

A friend of mine owns a restaurant connected to a small bar. Since he is a bit of a gourmand, he made the restaurant portion of his establishment non-smoking, long before the ban. The bar side of his restaurant, catered to an entirely different crowd. A factory down the street was a boon for his business, since workers could walk there for lunch, and after shift drinks. It also served as a place where diners could enjoy a cigarette with their aperitif, or a smoke after dinner.

When the ban passed, the bar went entirely empty. No more lunch crowd, no shift change, and the smokers all rush straight outside after dinner. He told me that the ban has cost him close to $125K per year in lost revenue. Fortunately, his restaurant is successful enough to keep him afloat, but as he told me, “If I had been just a mom and pop, beer and a shot bar (like most of the ones that closed are) the ban would have devastated me. None of those smaller operations could bear a loss like that.”

But if you want statics. Let’s take a look at some of the links Orac provided in his response:

This one was from a group headed by Dr. Stanton Glantz and “supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.” Pardon me, if I don’t take that one seriously. I would be laughed out of the room if I sent anyone to a link on the Phillip Morris website, for a study compiled by Richard Lindzen. I trust Orac will grant me the same courtesy here.

His second link, cites a New York Times article. It is a questionable study done by comparing tax revenue and employment in restaurants before and after the ban. I don’t really put a lot of credibility in this methodology. However the study concluded, that by those proxies, that New York Food and Beverage business is up. But deeper in the article is a suggestion why:

''The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association”

A perfectly reasonable criticism since the study compared tax revenues from 2003 to 2002; less than a year after 9/11. It seems to me that this would have set off a big red light for a scientist as skeptical as Orac. But what makes it even more questionable is the following statement:

“The report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.”

Not reliable? Or maybe it didn’t fit well into their agenda. Such a possibility seems to be proven on the third link. I don’t even think Orac bothered reading the original report this article was based on. (Bad Orac!) If he had, he certainly would have had his interest piqued by the following:

“For the remaining two categories of businesses, revenues decreased from 2004 to 2005. The rate of decrease for neighborhood bars was 4.15 percent, and for downtown clubs, 0.09 percent. “

Furthermore, during that same time frame, bars and restaurants had raised their prices around 15% to pay for the Minnesota minimum wage hike. So actually, tax revenues should have been up 15% over that time frame. If statistics were compiled from bars and restaurants outside of the Twin Cities, it would have given a much better perspective on the true state of the Industry. Comparing revenue to the previous year is an inferior control.

It seems my claim of a recession in the Twin Cities Food and Beverage Industry isn’t specious. I ask again: Why must every bar be smoke free? There is obviously a market for smoking bars in America. Orac, as a non-smoker, might not understand the concept; but it is real. His insistence that all bars must become smoke free, (just because that is how He chooses to drink) is why I accused him of tyrannical behavior.

Here’s the Slagle Compromise: Currently 20% of the population in the United States are smokers. Why not allow States to allow 20% of all liquor licenses to be designated “Smoking Allowed.” They could originally take bids for the licenses, after which they become property of the establishments. Ultimately they could trade smoking exemptions amongst themselves. So a bar that relies on smokers for it’s business could buy an exemption from an establishment that wants to open a non-smoking restaurant. This way, 80% of the bars and restaurants would be smoke free, and smokers could still find a bar or two where they could light up. Non-smoking waitresses who didn’t want to expose themselves to the 1.2 risk of heath complications, would still be able to find work in the other 80% of the bars and restaurants. (I still think some non-smoking waitresses would rather work in the smoking bars, because it is my understanding that smokers are much better tippers).

I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution to the dilemma. However, it runs contrary to what I believe is the ultimate goal of the Anti-Smoking Lobby: Complete Tobacco Prohibition. Those who doubt me, need to reacquaint themselves, with the concept of incrementalism.

Correction: I originally misread the New York Times article. I thought the tax revenue was averaged over the amount of restaurants. Most certainly, a closed bar would be reflected in total tax receipts, which was how the study was conducted. I have applied changes to the article to reflect this realization.

Almost Had Me

After the incredibly fun week of back and forth over Global Warming, my arch nemesis Orac posted a follow-up, in regards to my question on Second Hand Smoke. He wrote:

“Certainly indoor smoking bans at workplaces and in restaurants and bars are defensible on a scientific and public health basis.”

In full disclosure, I’ve been opposed to smoking bans, since day one. I’ve got myself in trouble a couple times being civilly disobedient, and once I even made the 10:00 News in Minnesota, leading a smoking rally. (BTW: I will be back in Minneapolis October 2 - 6, the week after the Minnesota State ban goes in effect .,.. Stay Tuned!). I also tend to spend more time talking politics with right wing people (since all my leftist friends refuse to do it anymore). My slant is admittedly going to be on the side of the tobacco companies. At least,I admit my bias.

It always frustrates me when people only see that bias. Of course there is the corporate position. A company that has enriched itself providing a legal product that people enjoy, is going to take the side of themselves and their customers. And people DO want cigarettes. There is this peculiar notion, that every person who smokes is hopelessly addicted, and would quit tomorrow if it were possible. That is simply not true. Some people just like smoking. They know its unhealthy, but which of us non-smokers is completely guiltless when it comes to other self destructive behaviors, like drinking, overeating, and a negligent exercise schedule?

On the other side of the debate, is a motivation far more insidious. It is a desire for power. Many people who see the debate as manipulated solely by tobacco money, never look at that angle, nor recognize that for some, power is far more seductive than profit. There was a very power-hungry person, who once advocated smoke free workplaces. He is the one who cannot be named. (Not because there are dark powers associated with the name, it is because current protocol dictates that the first person to invoke his name, automatically loses the debate ... spend a little time playing with you Googler, and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.) But I think it’s no coincidence that one of the worlds’ most infamous megalomaniacs, didn’t want people smoking around him.

The reason why I am suspicious of things like Second Hand Smoke, and Global Warming is not because I am anti-science. I actually enjoy science. I spent some time in college studying it, (and if I hadn’t decided I like beer and girls better, I might be studying it still.) Actually, I am anti regulation, and anytime somebody tells me that science has proven a need to regulate my life, I get really suspicious. When I asked Orac if he could send me some links to prove the negative health consequences of smoking, I was genuinely curious. He wasn’t the first person I asked. However he was the first person who provided me with some.

I stayed in the background throughout the debate, because I didn’t want to embarrass myself again. I also didn’t have to join in. Somehow, from out of ether, came a swarm of angry bloggers, ready to call Orac on the carpet. He had to write two follow-ups, one on relative risk, and another on the famous Helena Study. He even did a fourth article on the effects of smoking on Parkinson’s Disease. I looked at what he had to say, and what his multitudinous opponents had to say in return. It was highly educational.

Here’s what I learned: There are studies that suggest a health risk from second hand smoke. The risk factor depends on whether you’re looking at lung or cardiovascular, and whether the person lived with a smoker, or worked around a lot smokers. It varies from 1.2 to 1.3. (Notice, that there is no study to indicate that standing next to someone smoking at a bus stop, or in the house next door, will have ANY impact on your health.)

I had known that somewhat. But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible. Orac corrected those who suggested such a thing. Apparently there is no practice within epidemiology (the study of stuff like this) to discount such statistics. According to him, there has been a propaganda campaign (most probably orchestrated from inside the tobacco companies) to discredit SHS studies, and a list of suspicious quotes discrediting epidemiological studies under 2.0, has been circulating the Internet. I had to throw in the towel at this point. I’ve never studied Epidemiology, and I have to take his word for it. If he says a risk below 2.0 is significant, it is significant. I guess I was wrong.

I was going to write him a note telling him so, until I ran across this. Apparently, a recent study found there is an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease for people who drink a can of pop every day. And look at that risk rate. Over 1.4. Now granted this is just one isolated study, and Orac stressed the need to look at isolated studies without a biologically plausible mechanism skeptically, but it really puts things in perspective. Apparently the risk of getting heart trouble from second hand smoke, is almost identical to drinking a can of pop every day. So working in a smoky bar, is as bad for you as a can of pop. In fact, since most people who work in bars have access to the soda gun, there is a good chance that every non-smoker in those SHS studies, drank a glass or two of pop every single day.

So have I changed my mind? Yes and no. I can no longer defend the statement; “There is no science finding adverse health consequences from second hand smoke.” But is there enough danger in second hand smoke, to pass sweeping legislation? Not really.

Especially since that legislation has resulted in the bankruptcy of hundreds of small business owners. I honestly don’t understand why every bar has to be non smoking. I think that owners, customers and employees are all capable of making such a decision on their own, whether they want to subject themselves to a slightly elevated risk of cancer and heart disease. Certainly when smokers were forced to decide between drinking at home, or going to a non-smoking bar, they just opted to stay home.

But I wouldn’t expect Orac to understand. Some people just don’t care about the plight of the average Joe. To them it’s just about the numbers. It’s why I often find myself butting heads with Statists. I care more about the impact of Global Warming legislation on the economy today, than I worry about a projected 23 inches of ocean rise. I am more concerned about the real loss incurred by bar owners, than some mythological non-smoking waitress, who couldn’t find work anywhere else. But these people let their egos run out of control, and presuppose they know more than the individual business owners.

Orac wrote: “ There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition.”

It’s beyond tradition, it’s why many people go into a bar in the first place. A place to smoke and drink. What he said is almost as ridiculous as as saying: “There is no reason to add Tequilla to a Margarita, other than tradition.” or “I just don’t see why exotic dancers need to take all their clothes off.”

This whole argument started over a bit I did, about how scientists probably got beat up on the dodgeball court when they were kids. I was trying to illustrate how some nerdy kids will grow up bitter with a disregard for humanity, and they disguise this disregard as logic. Orac started this thread disputing my allegation.

He might think that a bar should be able to survive, just by providing a place to drink, but statistics prove otherwise. At least a hundred families in Minnesota have lost their life investment, and at least a thousand more people are now out looking for work. Meanwhile there has been a recession in the various industries surrounding food and beverage in the Twin Cities.
How could anyone think that is, an acceptable sacrifice? Or maybe nobody really does. Maybe they are just getting even for Dodgeball.

Environmental Fashion Plates

I said it over a year ago. According to an article by Robert Samuelson yesterday, the popularity of the Toyota Prius has nothing to do with the environment:

“Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. “

Why the disappointing sales figures? Well, the Hybrid Civic, looks just like a regular Civic. What sense is there in paying all that extra money for the high tech, if nobody knows you have it? Saving the planet, is just a side benefit; impressing your friends and neighbors is Job One. Today the average Prius is only driven around 7000 miles per year. So it seems that they're not really being purchased for transportation. It reminds me of my college days, when you could tell how much a guy paid for his stereo, by the size of his speakers.
Samuelson apparently concurs with my speculation that Priuses (Prion? Prii?) are fashion statements. As I said in 2006: "If you want to sell a Hybrid, you need to make it look like a Hybrid, so it's easier to pick up the vegan chicks." Back then, it was Ford Motor that reported disappointing sales of Hybrid SUVs. Now it seems Honda is stricken with the same plight.
The photo above is an idea for a possible option that Honda should offer. An attached flashing neon sign, that telegraphs your environmental awareness to the world. They certainly need something, to spare the Hybrid Civic from the same fate as the Hybrid Accord, which was recently discontinued.

King of Comedy

Well it seems that the field of Presidential candidates, is getting more and more crowded every day. Right now there are at least 25 people seeking the position.

But I never thought, that I would have to issue a denial. But here goes:

No, I am not seeking the office of the President of the United States. Also I'm not Elvis, I've never been abducted by a UFO, nor have I opened for Bat Boy.


However, you CAN go here and vote for me, as you favorite talking head:

Thankyouverymuch.

TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM. I REPEAT, TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM.

Shut up Orac

During my recent week in Chicago, My show was attended by Orac, of the marginally famous blog Respectful Insolence. I recognized him right away, because he was the only guy in the room that night, wearing a cape and wrestling mask. (I found out later, that on the few occasions he leaves the house, he likes to remain incognito).
When the show ended, we went over to the bar. After he was done signing autographs, I made the mistake of asking him a couple questions. They were honest questions, because I respect his intelligence. I’ve never been able to get an answer from political opponents on two issues: Is there any scientific basis for Al Gore’s claim of the oceans rising 20 feet? And whether there were any conclusive studies on the dangers of second hand smoke. He told me to send him an eMail, and he would respond. I did not know that I was setting myself up to be trashed. You can read his snippy review of my show, and the flimsy reply to Al Gore’s claim of 20 feet here. My response follows:

I'll try and keep this as brief and readable as possible. Going point by point tends to bore.

1. Ad Hominem attacks: Remember this was a comedy show, and ad hominem is funny. (Perhaps not so much when you are a target, but laughing at oneself is a good measure of a sense of humor.) Comics like Don Rickles focus entirely on ad hominem attacks. The biggest attack on Gore was not that he was fat, but rather a hypocritical Televangelist, who uses fear of apocalypse to enrich himself, promote his agenda, and gain political points. We all distain Pat Robertson for similar behaviors, but Gore is awarded with Oscars and a Nobel Prize.


2. I never said Global Warming wasn’t true: I said that people (not scientists) tend to explain every extreme weather event as a result of Global Warming. Certainly, if a 116 degree day in Vegas, or a devastating hurricane is evidence of Global Warming (As proponents such as Laurie David and RFK jr. often suggest), then the 30th coldest February in recorded history, must be evidence to the contrary. By suggesting that February was proof that Global Warming isn't happening, I was using satire, to illustrate that those who cite anecdotal evidence, are off base.
And yes, I am aware that some climate models do predict areas of the earth to go colder, but that is only areas that require the gulfstream and the Thermohaline Conveyor for their temperate climates. That doesn’t include Chicago. Anyone who thinks this past cold winter in the Midwest was evidence of Global Warming is seriously misguided, and deserves any ad hominem I can toss their way.


3. Scientist Envy: This was another ad hominem attack, I used to generate a little levity. Just between you and me, it’s semi-autobiographical. I was that geeky kid with allergies and asthma, who got beat up for lunch money, and creamed on the dodgeball court. And I understand how such a childhood can translate into bitterness and envy. I also know, that outside of a few large profile celebrities, who have no intention of giving up their high end lifestyles (See: Live Earth), most of the people campaigning hard for things like legislative restrictions on consumption, tend to be on the lower end of the income brackets; and are usually Starbucks baristas, bicycle messengers, or government employees (more ad hominem levity).
My speculation is, that smart kids who are bullied in school, grow up to be bullies themselves. Only, they become intellectual bullies. My liberal use of insults on stage is one symptom of that syndrome. Your need to publish the response to my question on your blog, without even asking me if I would mind, is another. (I’d have given you permission, I just would have liked if you asked first, and given me fair warning that I needed to prepare a rebuttal). Such behavior is indicative of someone still hurting from those dodgeball welts. I think perhaps, the reason you didn’t find the bit funny. is because it made those welts sting again. Your remark about getting laid a lot, doesn’t do much to alleviate my suspicions either.


4. Scientists have been wrong before: They have. And they will be wrong again the future. They could be wrong right now. We just don’t know. What I do know, is that any legislation passed to “rectify” global warming will far outlive any consensus. It is not the science I oppose, it is the solutions.
Look at the Kyoto Accord. India and China were both exempted from any restrictions on burning carbon, because at the time they were considered “developing” nations. They are now home to two of the hottest economies in the world, and China is now the number one producer of CO2 in the world. So what would have Kyoto done to slow Global Warming? Nothing measurable. On the other hand, it would most probably have been devastating to the US economy, and put outsourcing into high gear. Cheap labor has already soaked up a lot of American manufacturing; cheap energy would have been a final nail in our economic coffin, Meanwhile, the Kyoto Accord is still alive, and there are people who insist that America needs to sign on.
Incidentally, it is not true that Scientific consensus “overwhelmingly favors the contention that global warming is indeed due to a significant degree to human activity.” The latest survey put that consensus at 55.8% of climate scientists. Your citation of the IPCC report as an indication of consensus is incredibly misleading, since some scientists who oppose the report, had their opinions dismissed. Richard Lindzen even claims he had to sue to get his name removed from it.
And even if the consensus were 99.9%, does that make it correct? Scientific consensus was vehemently opposed to Plate Tectonic theory, for forty years. Consensus is not science, it is politics.

5. 20 Feet: This was the only point I really wanted to discuss, before you decided to make me a lengthy blog entry. You write: if half of the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted, sea levels could rise 20 feet (6 metres).” (emphasis mine)
That’s a big “If." You know, If flying space monkeys lifted up Mt. Everest, and dropped it into Lake Michigan, the resulting tidal wave could destroy Chicago, Milwaukee, Benton Harbor and Green Bay. But is there any science suggesting either occurrence is likely?
Here is a great example of how scientists are occasionally wrong (even Orac). You write:

“The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.”

But according to an article released just last week in Science, DNA samples indicate that Greenland did not melt 125,000 years ago. In fact: “The new discoveries suggest that southern Greenland has been ice-covered for at least four times longer than previously thought.”
And what about Antarctica you say? It’s been getting colder. And the ice is getting thicker.

Hardly reason to sell the beach house.

Assault and Blathering

Al Gore's new book the Assault on Reason hit the shelves. Advance reviews and excerpts indicate more of his trademark condescending sighs. 308 pages of Al Gore shaking his head and telling us that we just don't get it. He believes Americans are so used to getting their information from emotional thirty second soundbites, that we don't have the attention span to appreciate his smoldering intellect. Next he plans to sell his Anthropogenic Global Warming Policy, with a big rock show. Well if you can't beat them, join them.

The whole global warming debate has been an Assault on Reason. Our exposure to the topic is from fearful sound bites: meteorologists speculating why Chicago would see a seventy degree day in the middle of January, a mudslide in California, or a tornado in Kansas. The people delivering the message, are more likely to Rock Stars and Politicians, rather than Climate Scientists or Tree Surgeons; the ones who have taken the easy courses in college. From what I've learned, Al Gore probably doesn't even understand basic geography.

Global warming is part of the American conscience now. People at the bank no longer ask if it’s hot enough for you, if you brought the cold weather along, or had mistakenly ordered all that rain. Today, when the temperature becomes unbearably hot, people blame Global Warming. In the winter it is used as an excuse for cold snap, sometimes without irony.

Americans have stubbornly resisted any Global Warming Legislation, but it's not because we're unaware. With gas approaching four bucks a gallon, who isn't cutting back on the unnecessary trips? Do we really need another round of "Turn down your thermostat, and inflate your tires? Most of the ideas proposed thus far are ridiculously impractical, like taking a bicycle to work. (Fine if your a twenty year old kid living in Southern California.)

The only real solution is increasing taxes on energy. This would effectively price all the things that make America so delightful out of the range of middle America. Air Conditioning, big cars and pleasure craft would only be accessible to people like Al Gore. The resistance the Global Warming proponents note, is a well reasoned refusal to accept a lower standard of life.

Nobody wants to sacrifice, including the Live Earth Rock Stars. I doubt any musicians will be using un-amplified instruments, lighting the stage with CFLs, or using low carbon smoke machines. Madonna will keep her microphone plugged in, even though she rarely uses it when she's "singing." Just the oil used for transportation will be staggering. But according to their Press release: "The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action.. ... These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less. "

This, despite their original plan to perform: "seven major concerts on seven continents. "That would require a flight into Antarctica. The only reason behind an Antarctic show, is to make it an even seven, to coincide with the concert date of 7/7/07. A seventh show would only be a necessary expense, for an obsessive compulsive. There is a good chance when they conceptualized these shows, they hoped to photograph drowning polar bears, and collapsing ice sheets for a dramatic example of the crisis we are facing. But they forgot that Antarctica is on the bottom of the earth, and July 7th is midwinter in Antarctica . It is dark 24 hours a day. So much for photographing those ice sheets. Temperatures can reach 130 degrees below zero. Oh yeah, and the polar bears don’t live there either. The Live Earth website lists no Antarctic shows.

The Live Earth press department confirmed that an Antarctic show is in the works, but refused to offer details. Ditto for Al Gore’s office. Perhaps they just are having a difficult time locating a stadium in Antarctica capable of hosting such a grand concert, that isn't already booked.

According to Linda Capper Press Representative for the British Antarctic Survey, back in February, Al Gore's office contacted the BAS requesting a flight into the Rothera Research station in Antarctica this July, to bring an "undisclosed artiste" to perform there. Rothera is under British jurisdiction and hosts an over-winter population of 22 residents. Al Gore was probably fairly certain they would get the plane in, too. Back in February, he was boasting that Live Earth would present the "first ever rock concert in Antarctica."

Unfortunately planes cannot land in July; the airports close for the season in March. Ships cannot get in after April. because of the sea ice (which, contrary to An Inconvenient Truth, has not all melted). We all remember the story of the Russian Scientist who performed an appendectomy on himself one winter, because the only help his nation could provide was air-dropping a mirror, some clean scalpels, and a bottle of vodka. If they want to have any bands there this July, they would need to be there already.

So what band is going to perform in Antarctica? Linda Capper informed me that the Live Earth Show will be held at the Rothera facility. According to Linda : “We have a house band - 5 of our science team. They are very good indie rock-folk fusion. The remaining 17 will be the audience on location.” Wow. I can’t wait for that show. Is this anyone's idea of a "major concert?" A bunch of cabin-fevered scientists, playing songs, around a kerosene lantern. I've been to pajama parties bigger than that. I wonder how long the Live Earth producers will let them play, (or if they’ll even get to finish a song).

Live Earth is now running away from their original claim. According to the current website there are now: "Nine concerts in nine cities ACROSS seven continents." [emphasis mine] (Perhaps they should change the date to September ninth.) Seems more like a last minute cover-up, for a really bad idea. It appears that Al Gore, leader of the Climate Change movement, and Champion of Reason, would flunk Earth Science 101. Yes there has been an assault. And Al Gore is still holding the weapon.

MORE: My article made it to The Weekly Standard
MORE 6/13/07: Now it's on The Examiner
MORE 6/14/07: After the article actually made it on to the Drudge Report® yesterday, I heard back from Linda Capper:

Hi Tim.... just saw all the comments on your website - a lot of negative feeling out there.... phew!

Linda,
I'm sorry that you see it that way. I was just having a little fun. Al Gore himself said, "the task of saving the global environment is a task we should all approach with a sense of joy." Well what is more joyful, than the sound of laughter? 
We all share the same planet, so each of us has to do what we think is necessary to save it. Al Gore thought  he could help, by flying a band into Antarctica in the middle of winter. I thought I could help, by pointing out that he tried it.

Every Breath You Take

Today is the big day. It's the Environmental Pessimists version of a Star Wars Premiere. If Global Warming were a video game, there would be lines outside all the Wal-Marts. Today is the day that the UN sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) releases it's Global Warming report. Gosh, I wonder what will be in it?

Despite the anticlimactic leaks that have been circulated for the past month or so, I'd like to wager a guess: The Earth is going to warm, the oceans are going to rise, and humanity will be destroyed as plague famine and pestilence sweeps around the globe. Chiefly responsible for this Apocalypse is the United States, and unless our wealth is shared with the rest of the world, this dire scenario is inevitable. Americans will hang their heads in shame and wish they didn't live in a nation that as no regard for the rest of the world, before they fire up the SUV and take the kids to soccer practice.

Is it really scientific? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the founding members of the IPCC actually disputes the report. The report claims that there will be an increase in hurricane activity, and the WMO states there is no science behind that claim. Who more than weathermen would know that you can't make an accurate 100 year weather forecast, like these IPCC eggheads claim to do. Heck, most forecasters couldn't give you an accurate 7 day outlook if their life depended on it. I'm certain that this little point of contention will be completely ignored, as journalists digest the report for us simple folk, and tell us that more storms like Katrina are inevitable.

In a classic empty gesture, the French dimmed the Eiffel Tower for five minutes. Network news will rave about what a dramatic measure this is. Forget that the Eiffel Tower consumes roughly 20 megawatt hours per year and five minutes of illumination is 0.00017% of that. (There is even speculation that the energy to restart the bulbs consumes more energy than it takes to keep them lit for five minutes.) It isn't really going to do anything, other than make a dramatic news item. A more positive statement would be made if they stuck a windmill on top of the thing, and make the tower useful.

Meanwhile, the proposed solutions to Global Warming will be completely ignored. The UN, a power hungry gaggle of tyrants and dictators, will ask for the ability to regulate all CO2 emissions. The IPCC is generating fear, hoping that we give up our right to electricity Which means that they would have the power to regulate anything that causes those emissions. Which is essentially everything that humans do. It is astounding to me, that people who accuse President Bush, of using fear to coax Americans into sacrificing their rights, do not recognize that this report, is doing the same thing.

What should be noticed, is that if the IPCC gets their way, the Eiffel Tower would probably have to remain dark round the clock. And shut off those elevators. Because the only real solution to CO2 emissions, is to stop burning carbon. Since Carbon is necessary for close to 66% of our current electricity requirements, we would have to cut our electric usage by two thirds. You can forget electric cars.

Actually, forget about going anywhere. Since cars, trucks planes trains and boats all produce CO2. transportation would probably be completely shut down, and any form of travel forbidden. Home-heating, streetlights, and everything that makes America safe and comfortable would come under their scrutiny. Anybody who disputes this, ignores the propensity towards evil, common in dictators and tyrants. Would a tyrant who ordered a segment of his population to be chopped apart with machetes, think twice about banning American clothes dryers?

Even a bicycle emits CO2. Gasoline is essentially a carbohydrate, and produces the same amount of CO2 per calorie burned as sugar. Since the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible, riding a bicycle ten miles will produce the same amount of CO2 as driving a light moped. Animals also emit CO2 even when they're stationary, so if we give the UN the authority to regulate CO2, they then have the authority to regulate our every breath; and eventually the UN will be given authority over population growth.

Remember, when you see those photos of the Eiffel Tower blackened, that the people who commissioned the report will refuse to rest easy, until the whole world looks like that. Already we have the choice of whether we want to cut back or not, and the fact that we haven't is enormously frustrating for them.

North Korea is a respected member of the UN and satellite night photos of that country are startling. South Korea looks like an island floating off the coast of China, because North Korea is completely dark. Every light in North Korea turns off at 9PM local time. Since the pygmy pot bellied dictator who leads that nation is incapable of creating more electricity, his solution to the inequitywould be to curtail the South. It's the same urge that compels ugly girls to scratch the eyes of the pretty ones

Don't be fooled. The UN contains remnants of civilizations that once told us the future of the world was Global Communism, and it would produce more wealth than the earth had ever known. Evil tyrants never go away, they just find new Manifestos.