Global Warming, Martian style

Luckily for us global-warming critics, new evidence of melting polar ice caps on Mars is suggesting that the phenomenom known as Global Warming (or more the hype of it) may actually be caused by solar activities, as opposed to human activities.

Two probes sent to Mars, Global Surveyor and Odyssey reported in 2005 that ice had been melting at the Martian polar ice caps for three consectutive years. At the Pulkovo Astronomical Society in St Petersburg, Russia, scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov says that the data collected from the probes is proof that the sun, not human activities, is responsible for the majority of warming on earth. By studying the data, Mr Abdussamatov says that he can see an emerging pattern in the climate data for both planets.

Mr Abdussamatov said "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr Abdussamatov's theory of solar-related global warming hasn't impressed other scientists though. Colin Wilson, at Oxford University, said "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion. And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

The conventional theory on global warming on Mars is that planetary wobbles, instead of solar activities, is reponsible for any climate change there. Earth and Mars tilt different ways, and most climate scientists and astronomers think it is merely a coincidence that both planets are between ice ages at the moment.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Mr Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

So, his theory has a long way to go before being seriously considered by the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, but hopefully it will do well. After all, there could be potentially thousands of factors to do with global warming-humans being just one of them.

The original article can be viewed here.

"Survival of the Fittest", and how it doesn't apply to humans

"Survival of the fittest" is one of the most important and most controversial theories of human development ever thought up. Indeed, it has been used to explain how many animals have evolved certain characteristics, like why giraffes have long necks and elephants have such size, among other things. The following post is an essay on how, thanks to a combination of two things, those two things being choice and reason, "survival of the fittest" has not applied to humans for at least 20,000 years now.

PART I

I'm going to start by saying that choice is by no means a uniquely human concept. Animals also have the ability to make choices. A dog, for instance, can make the choice as to where it sleeps for the night, when it eats it's breakfast, or where it goes toilet. What seperates humans, though, is through reason which is a uniquely human concept, we have the ability to make far greater choices on a far more advanced scale. Whereas a dog can choose where it sleeps, humans can choose to travel in space.

Sometimes, we make bad choices. We sometimes do bad things and we sometimes screw things up. This is where consequences and therefore learning from our mistakes of the past come into the scene. If we lounge around as children when we're meant to do homework and don't get it handed in on time, we will probably get told off by the teacher. In the workplace, the consequences are much greater. If we don't get work the boss wants us to do back to him in time, we might get demoted. Keep it up, and we may get fired.

No one likes being fired. The consequences can be dire, especially if you're living below the poverty line. Indeed, many poor people feel terrible when they lose their jobs. This is understandable. But what we're seeing in many Western nations throughout the world today is that less and less poor people seem to actually care. The welfare state has put responsibility on an increasingly stressed middle-class. But that's another story.

Because of the rather terrible consequences of losing a job, the irresponsible employee would, if he were to get back on his feet and get another job, need to learn from his past mistakes. Learning-and reason which is discussed in part II-is man's unique way of bettering himself if he is to adapt to changing situations throughout the world, such as the economic boom in China.

Learning from consequences from making mistakes is not forced upon us. It is a choice. Therefore, it is man's choice to learn from those consequences and adapt to new situations. It is his choice to survive.

Choices and consequences, put together, are the core principles of Libertarianism.

PART II

Part II is about how the concept of reason has influenced human choices and "survival of the fittest". Reason, unlike choices and the consequences thereof is a uniquely human concept, and is why, physical differences aside, humans have the ability to make far more advanced choices and plans than animals can.

Reason is the limits in which humans do our activities, make plans and make choices. In this sense, we must have a reason adequate do justify our activities, plans and choices. We have to reason with ourselves and other people everyday. Beacuse we have to reason with other people, as long as we have a system of choices and consequences, we need to be sensible about our choices and keep them within the human bounds of reason.

The other important use of reason is to prevent us from making bad choices we made in the past again. We saw the consequences of our bad decisions. Reason tells us that making such choices again is only going to be to our detriment.
__________________________________________________________________

Choice is the decisions we make. Consequence is the price we pay for making bad choices. Learning from the consequences tells us never to make such choices again. Reason prevents us from making them.

These concepts are the uniguely human way of bettering ourselves and adapting to new situations. This system is not entirely foolproof. It may take many months or years for us to know how this system works. These concepts, on a far larger scale than what applies to animals, are man's means of survival on this world.

Because of that, "survival of the fittest" is rendered unnecessary by humans. We use this system to make better choices about, for instance, inventions-which relies hugely on this process-to benefit all. We don't require "survival of the fittest" because of choices, consequences, learning from the consequences and reason we can be independent of nature.

The disastrous long-term effects of "sustainability"

Throughout the past few decades, we have seen an environmental movement build up such a hatred of mankind that can easily be coupled with Al-Qaeda (just look at the environmentalist quotes I posted on my previous post on the subject). Although on the surface this movement actually looks rather sane and no major threat to man. But, even the "sane" environmentalists propose something which will be disatrous to mankind: sustainability.

For starters, lets look at the RMA. The RMA, as has been put by the Libertarianz, has "nationalized all land but in name". Apart from the effects on property rights the RMA has had which are disatrous in themselves, today I am looking at the technological and business side of the RMA and similar "sustainable" legislation.

The RMA, as described on Wikipedia, is this:

"The RMA requires the application for a resource consent for any activities that relate to resource use. As part of a resource consent an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), a report on the Environmental Impact Assessment is required".

Basically, if you want you do so much as build a doghouse on your property, you need to waste time-and money-waiting for the government to decide if it's alright.

However, a dog house is only a simple building, and will have no environmental impact whatsoever. Lets make the project larger. Lets make it a new hotel, like the Hilton planned for Wellington.

A hotel will be a boost to Wellington's tourism industry as it will provide more accommodation for more tourists. As it is a boost for Wellington's tourist industry, it will be a boost for the government, and local attractions, as more visitors can flock here. All around, it will be beneficial for Wellington, even if some people don't like the look of it (which could be changed otherwise).

However, the Hilton hotel took 14 years to get resource consent. 14 years. The leading advocate of the project died before those 14 years were up.

Waiting 14 years to get resorce censent for a new, low-rise hotel is a disgrace. After that, there are the years needed to build it, which could be at least two or three.

As many will agree, New Zealand's infrastructure is ageing. We are behind many other OECD nations in upgrading our infrastructure, and the resource management act is only going to magnify the problem.

25 or so years from now, we can presume from current trends that New Zealand is going to continue passing new "sustainable" legislation. When we actually have to upgrade important infrastructure, like dams, and have the money, it may be too late. The RMA would have already caused many blackouts, like the ones witnessed in the South Island. We are experiencing those blackouts today.

Why? Because the RMA is preventing us from building new dams, or at least upgrading current ones, to make NZ's infrastructure better. Although there are other factors, the RMA is the biggest culprit. Taking less than half 14 years to wait for a dam to be built is a disgrace, and a big problem.

The solution is, not just in New Zealand but increasingly around the world, to roll-back "sustainable" legislation and start building new infrastructure to last at least two generations.

It is natural for human populations to grow. If we don't provide the infrastructure and develop the technology necessary for the needs of the 21st Century, especially as nations in Asia and, recently, South America continue to develop, and the human population increases, we will indeed be facing economic and political crisis, just as the Stern Report said.

That's not very "sustainable" is it?

Sources: Wikipedia-Resource Management Act

The Environmental Movement; what it means to me

We have all heard of the Environmental Movement. It means different things to everyone; to someone it may mean the simple protection of the environment; to others, it may mean the burning of SUVs and condos.

So, here and now, I'm discussing about what the Environmental Movement means to me.

Environmentalism has been in full-flight for at least three decades now. What have we seen? Rather than a better environment, we have seen the polar opposite from the "Environmentalists"; we have seen man's environment deteriorate.

Indeed, before the environmental movement started, Russians were seeing the terrible effects of "collective ownership" in the USSR. Many Russians had to regularly endure terrible pollution from factories built well below the standards of the average American factory.

The pollution in the USSR was a result of two things, the lack of property rights (thus no incentive to make the land clean and tidy) and the lack of the incentive to produce cleaner factories (competition didn't exist, so nobody cared about environmentally friendly products like we do in the West).

So, I suppose we have to thank the USSR for showing us that Communism is the solution. The removal of competition and property rights only has a negative effect on the environment.

However, many so-called "Environmentalists" pay very little attention to this. Instead, they pay attention to the far cleaner products of the Capitalist world.
Another strange thing about the "Environmentalists" is that, in the 1970s, many of them were saying that the world was cooling down, and that the Earth could be facing an Ice-Age. It seems that they have changed their story, probably because they were proven wrong in their attempt to end Capitalism.

Although, on a more worrying basis, they seem to want us extinct:

"I would wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip of England, World Wildlife Fund leader, speaking before the United Nations on March 30, 1990, Ibid.).

"Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along" (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service, The Christian News, June 15, 1992).

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." --Univ. of Calif. professor Kenneth Watt (Cited by Gary Benoit, "The Greatest Sham on Earth," The New American, Mar. 26, 1990).

"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being." --Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; quoted by Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, June 1990).

"There really is no rational reason for saying a human being has special rights. ... A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder, Reader's Digest, June 1990).

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."
—David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

A bit worrying, isn't it? Those weren't made up; they're completely real.

So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world. It is a man-hating move, one that sees men as the same as lice.

To that end, I propose a solution for the environment: the restoration of property rights coupled with free-market competition. As of now, we see many regulations on businesses, which restrict their limits to provide clean technology. It is self evident that there is a market for environmentally friendly products, so deregulating the market so that that market and the businesses competing within it will flourish, and therefore the enviornment will as well.

Property rights will help protect valuable land because it is exactly that. Valuable, pristine land is worth far more than non-valuable land, so therefore it would be in the interests of the propietor to keep it that way, so he/she can make big profits come selling time. The same works for water as well.

Animals would flourish as well. To, once again, make big profits come selling time, the propietor would breed the animal so there's more of it, meaning animals could come out of near extinction.

Anyway, that's my rant on the Environmental movement, I hope you've got a few more ideas about it now.