During the Progressive era, one of the single largest leaps forward in the growth of the American State was the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which enabled of the federal government to directly tax the citizens.  Many progressives were socialists, such at Upton Sinclair. Others like John D. Rockefeller, Jr. are harder to pigeon hole. Henry Ford certainly tried to run the lives of his workers both on the clock and off. If any word summed up the Progressives, it would be Paternalism. It was the State’s responsibility to be the wise parent to the citizen-child.

By the end of the Progressive era In the 1920s and especially into the 1930s, there was a growing sense that capitalism had failed. FDR, contrary to some popular theories, did not usher in socialism to American society. FDR was a believer in Paternalism and left the US with a legacy of paternalistic programs such as Social Security. When today we speak of the United States as having a mixed economy, I see it as Capitalism/Paternalism (the Nanny State) rather than Socialism.

During the 30s in Wiemar Germany, not only was there the belief that capitalism had failed, this was coupled with a notion that democracy was also a failure (in Europe, democracy was a still new thing with some notable prior failures). Out of this social demoralization arose the NAZI party promising to be a middle ground between Capitalism and Communism and it explains the willing acceptance of the German people to Hitler’s dictatorship.

Hitler was a Statist and his particular brand of Statism was Facism, not Socialism regardless of the use of National Socialism to appease the German Worker. Stalin was also a Statist, but his brand was State Capitalism disguised as the Communism of Lenin which in turn was a forced maturation of the Socialism of Marx (Lenin believed one could force Joe Six-pack to jump directly into Communism without an intervening period of Socialism to empower the worker).

Libertarianism is the anti-thesis of Statism in that Libertarians believe in the smallest State possible to maintain society. The State’s powers should be limited to External Defense, Domestic Security and Judicial – basically, Military, Police and Courts. The Anti-Federalists of U.S. Constitutional Debates would undoubtedly have considered themselves Libertarians had the concept existed.

Statism, in any form, should always be resisted as it is the natural tendency of the State to grow in power at the expense of the rights of the Individual.

The Cooling Sun

As most scientists know, the Earth emits as much radio energy as a small star and with the advent of WiFi, Bluetooth and the iPhone, we as a society are continually emitting ever increasing amounts of electromagnetic (EM) transmissions.  These EM emissions are interacting with the solar wind, forcing it back upon itself and therefore interfering with the Sun’s ability to generate sunspots.  This is predicted by peer-reviewed models showing ever lower solar cycles in the future and is proven by the delayed start of cycle 24.

There is a scientific consensus that humanity is emitting ever larger amounts of EM radiation.  It is this radiation that is the cause of Anthropogenic Solar Cooling (ASC) – a major threat to not only the Earth, but life on Mars and Venus as well.  The science is settled as almost every solar specialist with whom I have spoken on this issue agrees with the ASC hypothesis (there is one exception to the consensus, a Leif Somebody, but we ASCer’s write him off as a skeptic, a crank and a neer’do’well).

It is only a matter of time before the Mainstream Media realizes the scope of the approaching catastrophe and headlines ASC to boost failing circulation.  This free publicity will shift priority funding away from other research and get Al Gore and Greenpeace to further publicize the threat of ASC by using it to raise huge piles of cash from the ordinary and pseudo-scientifically intimidated citizens.

We MUST stop ASC now – Turn off your cell phone, wireless router, motors, lights, generators, and all other electric devices to reduce your EM footprint and save not only all life on the Earth, but on Mars and Venus as well.

Can’t get your EM footprint any smaller?  Please visit my website and consider buying EM credits to offset your emissions.   The poor third-world people who live in harmony with nature and lack the ability to generate man-made EM waves will gladly sell their unused EM credits using my corporation as the sole broker.

Be Free, Be EM Free ™

UPDATE (10/6/2008): For those who doubt the scientific validity of ASC, here is poof of the delayed start for Solar Cycle 24 – NASA moves the goalposts on Solar Cycle 24 again

Continued growth in anthropogenic EM emissions will soon reach a tipping point and Solar Cycle 25 may never start at all!

All ASC believers need to spread the word.

Share with everyone how you intend to reduce your EM footprint below

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.

The Thinker

I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.

By Luke
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.

I was trained as a scientist from childhood.  My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world.  From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet).  One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic.  Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do.  Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t.  Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.

I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW – ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,

In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).

Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:

• The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
• The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
• the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
• The theory of prions – the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease – was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
• The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.

As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.

It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment -

• The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.

I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.

Originally Posted at Watts Up With That? – I am a Skeptic on September 14, 2008

Childhood indoctrination.  It’s a dirty word.  Hitler did it.  Stalin did it.  It can never happen here in the free world, now can it?  Of course not.

In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation, including my own daughter.  Particularly striking is the one I had with the 12-year old daughter of a friend.

(Warning: The following transcript may incite anger in libertarians and parents).

Dee:  So, do you believe in Global Warming?

Melissa: Oh, yes!

Dee: Oh? Do you think that people are responsible?

Melissa: Uh huh. They put all that junk in the air and it has to be causing the world to get warmer.

Dee: Is that so? That junk is called carbon dioxide and of all the carbon dioxide that is going into the air, how much of it do you think that people are adding?

Melissa: I dunno… Maybe 75 percent?

Dee: 75%? What if I told you it was less than 5% and the rest was all natural?

Melissa: Well how about all the polar bears that are drowning? The ice cap is melting.

Dee: Ummmm… How many polar bears have drowned?

Melissa: I dunno, but they’re going extinct.

Dee: Oh, really? Polar bear population had doubled in the last few of decades.

Melissa: You are making me mad.

Dee: Why is that?

Melissa: Cause you are.

Dee: OK, so where did you learn that the polar bears are dying?

Melissa: A movie they showed at the school.

Well, gentle readers, I knew to which movie she was referring: Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, I was there that day when the school’s earth science class sponsored a public showing and did my best to correct some of the more glaring errors made by Mr. Gore, but it seems that I failed in my task.

To this day, the indoctrination continues to warp the opinions of children too young to understand the science or politics behind AGW and who only care about the cute, cuddly polar bears having to swim 50 or more miles between melting ice flows just to stay alive.

Our Friend, the Polar Bear

Recently, the American Institute for Public Service, a national foundation that honors community service, recognized Cool the Earth for the efforts to educate the youth of the San Francisco Bay Area about the dangers of Global Warming. The founder of Cool the Earth, Carleen Cullen had this to say:

“What I love about working with young people is their absolute optimism,” said Cullen. “You tell them, ‘Hey, we’ve got this little problem over here with our friend, the polar bear, and with humans as well,’ and they’re not overwhelmed by it; they’re not skeptical or cynical. They just ask, ‘What can I do to fix it?’ “

Read the entire article at the SF Chronicle here: Carleen Cullen fights global warming or see it for yourself at Cool the Earth.

P.S. I haven’t given up hope for Melissa – she is a bright kid. I am planning on making a special middle school-level presentation to help her understand both sides of the debate so she can make up her own mind. Who knows, perhaps I can shame the school into letting a skeptic have equal time.

Update (9/10/08): I spoke with Melissa tonight and she is quite excited that an essay about her is so popular that Google ranked it in the top 10 out of 1.2 million hits for ‘Inconvenient Youth’. This seems to have spurred her into digging into the facts behind AGW to see the truth for herself.

On the other hand, in that same search, I found a video posted just this week which was also entitled “An Inconvenient Youth” and is of an 8-year old boy with a message for politicians to stop global warming. I am very sure he didn’t just come up with this on his own. Judge for yourself:

An Inconvenient Youth from Colin McCullough on Vimeo.

Originally Posted at Watts Up with That? – An Inconvenient Youth on Sept 8th 2008