College Student Thinking Skills

I have often wondered how it is that so many college graduates are enamored of socialism and very ready to give up their sovereign rights as an individual to choose their own values and to live their own lives in accordance with their values. I have discovered a clue today while reading a short entry in a topical cluster of entries on Origins in the September 2009 issue of Scientific American. One of the entries is entitled Economic Thinking and is written by Davide Castelvecchi. He notes that:

In 1953 American mathematician Kenneth May conducted an experiment in which college students were asked to evaluate three hypothetical marriage candidates, each of whom excelled in a different quality. The students picked intelligence over looks, looks over wealth and wealth over intelligence.

Kenneth O. May was a mathematician at Carleton College, which is a pretty well-respected college. I am assuming his study was of Carleton students. In view of this outcome, I suppose it is not at all surprising that college graduates in general are about as likely, or even more so, to choose socialism over capitalism and free markets. They choose servitude over independence or is it that they choose that others should serve and they, the new elite, should dictate, never understanding that the vast majority of the college graduates themselves must wind up being those who serve the dictating elite. They choose falsely promised security and perpetual childhood over self-management and personal responsibility, with their open sky opportunities. Frankly, my dear, they are a confused and befuddled lot!

It was clear to me long before high school that I would pick intelligence over looks, looks over wealth, and that wealth was of no significant concern. It was also clear to me that I would pick capitalism over socialism, individual rights over servitude, self-management over servitude, and self-responsibility over promised security.

In the last few days an environmentalist commenter to one of my entries asked why I did not have more respect for the published advocates of catastrophic global warming due to man's emissions of CO2? I did not answer that particular question head on, because my original text had already answered it and the commenter had simply not bothered to read the text he was commenting on. Primarily, I am not impressed by their arguments and I am unfavorably impressed by their conflicts of interest. The most heavily published AGWs are those who are paid full time to publish on the subject, almost always by governments seeking to expand their powers. Those writing the articles are motivated strongly by a desire to become well-known and accepted by their peers in academia and the grant-giving agencies of governments by publishing dramatic results, which these days mean catastrophic predictions for the future of mankind. Almost all of these peers are dominated by socialists, man-loathing environmentalists, and in short those who would plan to pick a spouse with:

• intelligence over looks
• looks over wealth
• wealth over intelligence

Of course, once you actually make a pick, this contradiction of qualities valued is not realized, but the consequences of the confusion and the cluelessness are realized in the many bad choices made.

The Cooling Earth

The principal influence upon the global climate is always our Sun, though our galaxy can also have a major affect over the eons. Ocean currents respond to it. The oceans hold 99 times more heat than the atmosphere, so they in turn affect our climate. But it all comes back to the sun and the Milky Way galaxy. These are the big sources of energy and produce the big effects on cloud cover, at least aside from major volcanoes.

Astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn have long been measuring the Sun's magnetic fields. They have found that the magnetic intensity of sunspots has been decreasing for the last 15 years. If this continues, the Sun will have no sunspots in 5 years and its activity will be similar to the Maunder Minimum which is believed to have caused the Little Ice Age.

Other scientists measuring the solar wind, the plasma thrown off by the Sun, have found it to be weaker than at any previous time during the measurements which go back 40 years. This both indicates less solar radiation and less shielding of the Earth from cosmic rays. More cosmic rays create more cloud cover. More cloud cover cools all of the earth, except Antarctica. Antarctica actually warms with more cloud cover because its white snow and ice is more reflective even than clouds, which is not the case in Greenland.

Drs. Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory have been tracking the path of a subsurface jet stream called the torsional oscillation which began near the Sun's pole, as such jet streams do in the Sun every 11 years. These streams travel east to west and slowly approach the equator of the Sun over a 17 year period. When they reach a critical latitude of 22 degrees, they generate sunspots. The torsional oscillation of the last Sun cycle took 2 years to make a 10 degree change of latitude, but the torsional oscillation of the present cycle has taken 3 years to do so. This slow rate of travel has extended the solar minimum, which is a cooler period for the sun.

Many solar scientists now believe the chances that the Earth will be cooling significantly exceed the chances of global warming.

Meanwhile, those dumb Democrats are still proclaiming loudly that there is a scientific consensus that catastrophe awaits us if we do not cut back drastically on fossil fuel energy use, even if it costs us a fortune, kills entire industries, and plunges the nation into economic depression. It is fearfully irresponsible of these people to turn to the use of government force to so harm the lives of other Americans without even doing their homework. But then, these are the same people who vote for House and Senate bills they have not read and the same president who tells us the bills do not contain the provisions that they do contain.

In fact, it is more likely we will need all the fossil fuels we can get to keep us warm. Any very modest warming we can get from generating more CO2 through a greenhouse effect will be welcome, though it will be a very small effect compared to the likely cooling brought on by a cooler Sun. With shorter growing seasons, any increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that man can contribute will be very helpful in fertilizing our food plants. So drill and drill some more. Nonetheless, the cooling of the oceans will probably cause a decrease in atmospheric CO2, so again, the effect of man will be puny.

With more than 6 billion people, it appears that the environmentalists will get their fondest wish. There will be mass starvation if we slip into another little ice age. If they are right that people are the problem, then there will soon be fewer of them. As always, the Democrats have misidentified the real problem.

68 million acres of non-producing oil leases

Nick Snow in the Oil and Gas Journal says that "the independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States charged on 28 August that government red tape and environmentalist hindrances are the primary causes of lease development delays, and it urged Democrats to cease the inflammatory and erroneous claim that US producers are just 'sitting on' 68 million acres of leased land as the fall campaigns get under way." The article is entitled "IPAMS to Democrats: Quit promoting dishonest energy claims."

IPAMS Executive Director Marc Smith says House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Polosi (CA) and Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (CO) made this false claim at the Democrat national convention in Denver.

Smith said that 100% of the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas leases in the Mountain States region have been protested by environmental groups. He says "Industry is in a classic Catch-22 situation whereby the government has created a cumbersome process that takes years to complete, environmental groups exploit the process to throw up legal roadblocks at every stage, and then Congress and the environment lobby turn around and blame the industry for not 'diligently drilling.'"

When Obama calls for producing more natural gas and reluctantly allows a wee bit of drilling, it may mean nothing, since he may simply be counting on the bureaucracy and environmental groups to keep any additional oil and gas from being supplied. Until the politicians do something to speed up the process of bringing new finds to production, the granting of a few leases may mean nothing. We must remember that the Democrats have nearly uniformly decided that any use of carbon-based fuels is bad because they result in CO2 emissions. Consequently, they want carbon-based fuel costs to go up, which delays in production accomplishes by delaying production and raising the costs of production.

Thanks to Lemuel Linder for pointing this article out to me.

Senator Opposes Drilling With Gas $10 at Pump

Senator Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, Republican, Kentucky offered an amendment which would allow more drilling for oil. His amendment was rejected by Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado. Mitch McConnell responded with a modified amendment which would be triggered on that date when gasoline at the pump reached $4.50/gal. Ken Salazar objected to the amendment to allow drilling. Back and forth it goes with Mitch offering new amendment versions at $5.00, at $7.50, and finally at $10.00/gal. as Ken objects to each attempt to allow oil drilling. The exchange is available here on YouTube.

Some Democrats actually want gasoline to cost $10.00/gal. It will satisfy their radical environmental desires to see mankind suffer an immobile life. Others will be happy to see the lights go out. Still others will be happy to stand by as people die from hypothermia in their homes. After all, people are the problem.

The Fallacy of Man the Vicious Animal Killer

A great many Americans believe that we are greatly endangering the animals of the United States by virtue of our high technology, mobile, and reasonably comfortable lifestyle. They believe that we have pushed those other animals of North America, which we commonly simply refer to as the animals, as though we were not animals ourselves, to the verge of extinction. Where they are not almost extinct, their survival has become more brutish and nasty than ever before. Cities now cover the continent and there is nowhere for wild animals to live anymore. We build roads everywhere and our mining, lumbering, and oil and gas fields are destroying animal habitats everywhere outside the cities. We have no right to deprive these other animals of their place in the environment and ought to return to the status of the Noble Savage in order to claim no more resources than it is our right to do.

This flies in the face of both simple everyday observation and the observations of many scientists who have studied a wide variety of animals. Since those scientists who do publish or broadcast alarmist claims of the deaths and extinctions, usually possible future extinctions, of the animal kingdom's denizens get far more publicity than do those who report that the animals are holding their own in most cases, let us concentrate on what we ourselves see, if we are observant at all. Certainly the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio ought to be among the worst states for animals if they are fairing badly in the onslaught of habitat destruction by voracious humans. I speak of these states because I hear news accounts more regularly about the deer, raccoon, fox, and rabbit populations in this area of the country than in others. I also travel about in them more than in other states over the time period since 1971.

In the 1970s, I lived in Cleveland. In Cleveland, not in one of its bedroom communities. We had rabbits, squirrels, and raccoons in the neighborhood on a regular basis. In 1980 we moved moved to Silver Spring, Maryland, a Washington, DC suburb. In our yard we see squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, mice, moles, and voles. In the woods along the Paint Branch Creek a few hundred yards away, I constantly see deer, as I did last weekend on a bike ride. I have also seen opossums there. In the woods near College Park, home of the University of Maryland, I have seen many raccoons. On my drive to my laboratory in Columbia, MD in the Baltimore - Washington corridor, I constantly see deer and foxes, both silver and red. Of course, I also smell skunks with great frequency. I have seen muskrats on the drive to work. I have had both skunks and foxes in front of my laboratory. I just returned from a bike ride along a bike path through a large residential neighborhood in Columbia and I saw three deer on this ride. When we moved here in 1980, the number of deer was starting to grow and their numbers were way up in the late 1980s. It has only been in the last 10 years that I have made frequent sightings of foxes.

On a trip to Virginia, I saw a coyote in a park east of the Appallachian Mountains. On trips in Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia, I am constantly seeing deer. Twice in Maryland, deer have run into family cars. Just over a week ago, a deer in Rochester, New York ran into my daughter Katie's car. Everywhere we hear and see the evidence of a burgeoning deer population causing more and more car accidents. Yet the deer populations continue to grow. Apparently, as we have become more wealthy and more people move to metropolitan areas, we hunt less and the hunting is apparently more of a factor in decreasing deer populations than is their foolish tendency to run into cars. Perhaps another factor favoring deer population growth in many areas outside the growing metropolitan areas was the long term reduction in the amount of land being farmed. In much of the country, land farmed in the late 1800s and early 1900s has reverted to forest and woodlands. But this has not been a necessary factor in the increased deer or fox populations, since they are growing even in the face of the growth of the Washington - Baltimore high population corridor.

Once upon a time, most Americans did not want to see foxes. They worried that the foxes would eat their chickens, cats, and small dogs. Nowadays, people are clearly more tolerant of them and even of coyotes, whose population is also growing. Reports are that puma and black bear populations are also growing. Apparently, when people are not dirt poor and when farms are better equipped to provide their farm animals with more protected housing, more and more people are not driven to exterminate carnivorous animals or to worry quite so much that the deer might eat a few ears of corn. Generally farmers are making very good money these days.

Maybe humans are not so voracious after all. Maybe they become less so as their lives become more secure and they feel less threatened. Maybe they even acquire some significant joy in seeing other creatures thrive and living well. I do. Yet, we see this happening even in cities and metropolitan areas. If this is the case, should we be so ready to believe that drilling for oil and then producing it and delivering it by pipeline is going to kill off the caribou? Well, that experiment has now been done. The results are in. The caribou herds are growing, not dying off. Similarly, we hear that some future possible few degrees of warming is going to decimate the polar bears. Well, the warming of the 1970s to 1998 did not do that. In fact, the polar bears did just fine. For them, it is not swings of a few degrees of temperature that matter so much as how much they are hunted. Rather the same situation as with the deer or foxes and coyotes.

There is no reason to prevent the exploration, drilling, and production of oil and gas on the Federally owned lands that dominate most of the western states or of the lands and waters of the northern areas of Alaska or anywhere else. We can easily both find and produce oil and have a habitat very suitable for wild animals. Apparently, the animals are more adaptable and sturdy than many give them credit for being. In fact, some animals just love oil fields and pipelines. In the late 1960s I worked in oil fields and on pipelines in the summers to earn money for college. In the oil fields along the south bank of the Red River in Texas, the copperheads and scorpions just loved the pumphouses as a place to live. Along the pipeline in north central Oklahoma and another in west Texas that I worked on, the prairie dogs loved to establish colonies straddling the pipelines. Why? Because the pipelines are heated in the winter to allow the oil to flow better. Prairie dogs are not fools. They like warmth in the winter. Working on the pipelines you had to be careful however. Sometimes, rattlesnakes by the several dozen would move into prairie dog colonies. They really like the ready-made holes and the warmth also.

Many scientists can be bought with research money, and/or with fame, and/or with political correctness incentives. Some courageous scientists will buck such political delusions, but many non-scientists may not be able to or inclined to read their published work and make a critical analysis of it for themselves. However, most Americans do evidence significant analytical capability in their own line of work and this has made them the most productive workers in the world. So, when you see yourself that so many animals are flourishing, as you must see, or smell in the case of the ubiqutious skunk, trust in your own ability to evaluate the claims that man is eradicating the animals and appropriating all the resources of the planet to his own needs and leaving nothing for the other animals. This politically correct thesis is clearly nonsense.

So, do not buy the line that man must not drill for oil and gas in the Federal lands of the west or in the north slope of Alaska. Do not accept the idea that drilling in the oceans will pollute all the beaches and kill the fish. Actually, the fish thrive around the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Do not believe the nonsense when environmentalist radicals claim that the caribou will be eradicated by a single pipeline across Alaska or even by several. Use your common sense. Do not go gently into the night and the dank cave that those who worship the Noble Savage would thrust you into. Demand your use of energy so man can continue to be nobly productive and creative in building a world ever better for man and also for the animals who seem to be thriving even as we thrive.

Price of Corn Shoots Upward -- Ethanol Will Too!

In my 24 March 2008 post Corn for Real Food or Energy Myth?, I demonstrated how every argument for the use of corn to make ethanol was wrong. In some cases, it has long been clear that these arguments were at least dubious and more recently it has become clear that the entire policy is idiotic. On Friday, 4 April 2008, the futures price for corn to be delivered in May on the most actively traded contract hit $6 per bushel. Corn prices have risen nearly 30% already this year due to reduced stockpiles and an huge increase in demand for ethanol and livestock feed. Prices have shot up 89% in the last 18 months!

Recall from the earlier post that distillers can produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol from one bushel of corn. Presently, the cost of one gallon of ethanol is $2.50, so the 2.7 gallons produced from one bushel of corn are worth $6.75. This means that the cost of production in converting a bushel of corn into 2.7 gallons of ethanol and delivering it to the refiners, must be significantly below $0.75. This is really putting a squeeze on the ethanol refiners, so the cost of ethanol will likely have to go up. This will further increase our gasoline prices at the pump.

Just this last week, the oil industry was running ads, as the Democrats in Congress once again called them before committees to justify their profits, claiming that prices were going up due to the cost of a barrel of oil and the uncertain situation in the Middle East and in some other oil-producing countries, such as Venezuela and increased world-wide demand. This is true, but it was noteworthy that they did not complain about the effects of gasoline taxes, the requirement to use ethanol in gasoline blends, the many restrictions on their drilling for oil, and restrictions on using oil shale lands, most of which is on Federal land. Clearly, they were too afraid of the politicians who were challenging their profits. They told Congress their profits are in line with those of other industries. Democrats love to call them before Congress and grandstand that the oil companies are gouging the American public, but every rational examination of the situation always shows that they are not the guilty party. But the fools in Congress who are guilty use this means to divert attention from their hands in the cookie jar.

One of the interesting factors driving futures prices upward is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has projected that farmers are only going to plant 86 million acres of corn this year, which is an 8% drop from last year, when the area planted in corn was the highest it has been since 1944. This is rather puzzling given the increase in corn prices! One would expect the expected high demand and the resulting high prices to drive farmers to plant more acreage in corn. Why is this not expected to happen?

One reason is that soybean prices have also gone up in the last year since much of the increased acreage planted in corn was due to a decrease in acreage planted in soybeans. Another factor is that the cost of planting corn is going up. Apparently one of the reasons for this is that corn seed is going up in cost, which caused the price of Monsanto Company stock to go up last week greatly. They are the biggest seed producer. Still another factor is one predicted in the March article, the need for crop rotation, which was too much ignored last year. When it is ignored, more fertilizer has to be used and that means more expense or there is a decrease in corn yields. When more fertilizer is used, there are more pollution run-off problems and this results in problems for farmers also. Heavy rains are forecast to continue in the Delta and southern Corn Belt regions far enough into April that planting delays will tend to drive farmers to plant more soybeans and less corn, since soybeans do better in wet conditions and with late planting than does corn. Fertilizer supplies are also low and since soybeans do not need nitrogen fertilizer as corn does, this gives an incentive to switch acreage to soybeans.

Meanwhile, the government requirement for ethanol use in gasoline blends is not going to diminish, so the ethanol cost will be driven sharply upward as the supply of corn diminishes and food and livestock demand remains. In fact, hog prices have been so low that farmers have been holding them back from the market in hopes of better prices. Meanwhile, these larger numbers of hogs have to be fed. Cattle stocks are also running high.

So, analysts are expecting the new corn crop prices to fluctuate between $6.20 and $6.55 per bushel, further driving the costs of corn products, beef, pork, and chicken upward. Ethanol will also increase in cost and there will be probable increases in the subsidies for ethanol so that ethanol production and use in gasoline blends will increase as Congress has determined it will. So as taxpayers, food consumers, and as users of transportation your costs are going to go up, up, and up some more. Tell your local politicians how grateful you are for their wise policies with respect to ethanol, energy in general, the environment, global warming, and taxation!

Global Warmer's Attack on Science

Those who claim that man is responsible for the global warming between about 1970 and 2000 are fond of claiming that this theory has been proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt. Despite this, there are hundreds of climatologists and other scientists interested in the science of the atmosphere, the seas, the sun, the flora and fauna, and the history of climate both in recorded history and during prehistoric periods who are unconvinced. The world has generally warmed since the last Ice Age, but there have been many back and forth temperature movements. There have been ice ages with carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere many times what it is now. There was the Roman Warming, then the cooling that helped to bring on the end of the Roman Empire, then the Medieval Warming, then the Mini-Ice Age that ended about 1850. While warming has generally dominated since, there was a cooling period from 1940 until about 1970. Indeed, in the late sixties, there was alarm in the media about the coming Ice Age. Indeed, such a cooling as would accompany an on-coming Ice Age would be a human disaster, while the general warming after the last Ice Age, the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and the present post-Mini-Ice Age have all been very kind to man.

Despite these well-known facts, some computer modelers have determined that an increase of carbon dioxide due to the use of organic fuels must lead to great temperature increases. This despite the high carbon dioxide levels of previous Ice Ages. Despite the fact that the models cannot make predictions consistent with the known history back to the pre-Roman historical periods. Despite the fact that the models predict that the temperature should increase with altitude in the lower atmosphere, while in fact it falls. There is a problem in that carbon dioxide increases seem more often to follow than precede global temperature increases. This makes sense, since as the temperature increases, then the seas will evaporate off dissolved carbon dioxide. No matter how little truth is revealed by these models of carbon dioxide induced warming, they have many eager believers.

The fact is that variations in the sun's radiance accounts for most of the variations in the earth's temperature. There are also effects due to cosmic radiation and to cycles in the ocean currents which seem to be of importance. What is missing is evidence that man has significantly changed the world temperature.

These eager believers are largely socialists who have become somewhat weary of directly supporting socialism with its many known failures. They have turned to other arguments for essentially the same ends. They seek power over their fellowman, though always in the name of a paternalistic, or now an increasingly maternalistic, concern. There is always the pretense that the would-be thug-hirers have only the interest of the people at heart even as they threaten constantly to use force to get those many who are full of Original Sin to do their bidding.

Science draws men to pay attention to reality. This is not at all what those who seek power wish. It is much easier to control men who do not understand reality. So, the claim that science supports the idea that man has caused global warming, has two purposes. It may give those who claim this power in the short-run. If, however, there is a failure in time to convince men that man is destroying the world by using organic fuels, then the unconvinced will turn against science. This too suits the purpose of the power seekers.

The anti-man environmentalists seem to be on the road to the power to squeeze the economy and to deny men the advantages of inexpensive and sufficient power. They have shut down the construction of further nuclear power plants and brought on so much uncertainty about the future of coal-burning power plants that many projects to build them have been canceled. They supposedly support wind power, geothermal power, and photovoltaic power plants, except in their backyard or anywhere where some living animal might be inconvenienced or at least they might make a case that it might be. It is impossible to believe that the proposal in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American to cover 46,000 sq. mi. of the American Southwest with solar arrays will ever be allowed to happen. The environmentalists themselves will surely turn against any such project. Only projects to starve Americans of power are ever fully embraced for the long haul.