Skip to main content

Global Warming, Communism, and Arrogance

On the whole I try to stay out of global warming discussions because I'm not well informed about it and don't have much to offer. With that preamble, let me bring up this comment by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. (read more)

Those are some strong words!

I am reminded of NASA administrator Michael Griffin's recent controversial comments,

To assume that [global warming] is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change... I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take. (read more)

The two men raise a thought-provoking point
that deserves consideration, at least on some level-

What is best for the earth (a constantly evolving and changing entity) may not always be what is best for society (as we know it today). what does that mean???


  1. And then there are things that are bad for both the earth and society.

  2. Confused Science is cold on Global Warming

    About two weeks ago the head of NASA expressed doubts that Global Warming is a significant problem. His statement was based on the thirty or so years that NASA has been monitoring the temperatures in earth’s upper atmosphere, which have shown little or no change. Although he did point out that the surface temperatures have shown a steady increase.

    I will also note that last week he announced that he regretted his statement, but he did not retract it.

    The point is if the head of NASA, likely the world’s most important research organization is uncertain, then modern science is obviously confused, which maybe costing all of us time we don’t have to burn.

    On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, a NASA press release of composite images taken of earth’s polar ice caps from 1979-2003 showed that they have melted about 50% over two decades, and the effect appears to be accelerating. Here is a link to their release:

    Scientific confusion invites those radio talk ‘Know It All, Guys’ to claim Global Warming is just another “normal” climatic phase. The thing NASA should be pointing out is that no normal climatic shift could ever melt half of earth’s ice in 20 years. This is extremely abnormal.

    A meltdown this rapid would be the result of a climatic disaster, such as a massive volcano, a jumbo jet sized meteor or maybe something like the removal of earth’s thick thermal insulation which also according to NASA, covered over 80% more of earth’s land surface, 200 years ago, then today.

    Not only can children prove at least 8 very powerful cooling effects that earth has just lost, but vegetation eats the CO2 that many theory scientists are solely blaming for global warming.

    The carbon taken directly from CO2 is one of the two main ingredients plants use to make their food. According to, the web’s interactive encyclopedia, the average tree removes 26 pounds of CO2 from the air every year, and earth just lost billions and billions of these CO2 eaters.

    I’m not saying the burning of organic compounds is not a big problem, but today’s levels of CO2 could still be mathematically balanced with enough new atmospheric photosynthesis occurring, which may still need to be 36% more then was occurring 200 years ago.

    There may be a few ways to actually get that much vegetation growing long before we could ever launch a space umbrella. And unlike the umbrella these methods would make a lot of money for a lot of companies and pay a lot of workers, they could also produce millions of tons of food and construction materials, create typical vacation paradises and greatly reduce other pollutants from earth’s air, while also cooling it.
    They could even help lower earth’s raising sea levels, and replenish endangered species.

    Out of the 8 other cooling factors that I could design experiments simple enough for third graders, several lost ones seem to add far more cooling then today’s 36% higher CO2 levels can physically hold of additional heat.

    The massive expansion of oxygen gas released from water during atmospheric photosynthesis has not been accounted for in global warming theories, and some people calling themselves scientists even deny it happens. Yet only a few denied that oxygen gas was released from a dense liquid that was already 82% oxygen. (H2O has 2 H atoms for each O but one O is many times heaver then 1 H atom).

    I am a manufacture and I work with other engineers that see this as clearly as the things we build. This is because they only use real science, no time to make up theories, and the thermal effects of expansion and contraction are a very large part of many engineer’s daily work lives.

    Land plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the other main ingredient of their plant food, hydrogen, to create ‘carbohydrates’. They then convert these into sugars, for use and storage. Our bodies also convert carbohydrates into sugars. Somebody called me an idiot, saying “plants convert carbohydrates into glucose, not sugar”. Save your email, simply speaking they are the same thing.

    Plants do not use the oxygen left over after removing the H2, from the H2O, nor do they combine it with another dense compound, nor do they store it, nor do they burn it, they just release it into the atmosphere to provide earth’s animals with fresh new oxygen gas to breath. Any encyclopedia will verify that Photosynthesis is responsible for at least 99% of the oxygen in earth’s atmosphere.

    Mathematically this expansion is so massive it would have been canceling out a tremendous amount of heat right above earth’s surface, if we had not have just removed 80% of earth’s thickest vegetation.
    This is because ‘Expansion’ is nature’s only one step supper cooling method.

    Unlike the similar cooling effect from evaporation (called ‘transpiration’ in plants) the O2 gas will never condense back into a liquid at earth temps, as all of the evaporated water eventually will.
    This means that the expansion of O from photosynthesis is 100% efficient at cooling the air near earth’s surface (where the problem is) as water vapors eventually re-compress its heat when it condenses.
    The bigger difference is that most of the Atmospheric Photosynthesis is now gone, and the rate of evaporation appears to be up, do to higher temps and more storms, if the Weather Channel is correct.

    This roughly 800 time expansion of O from H20 makes brand new atmosphere which contains only enough heat to balance its mass (to surrounding temps ) when compressed 800 times, so this newly released gas instantly draws radiant heat from the hot air, right above earth’s surface, to re-warm it.

    I have had many denials that this expansion even occurs, or that expansion even cools, but none were similar or provided any evidence beyond their words. Not one offered a simple way to demonstrate how a dense matter, without being consumed, attached or used, converts to a very sparse state, of the same mass, without expansion, no matter what they call the process.

    For matter to go from a very dense state to a very sparse one without expansion, alteration, reattachment or consumption, would mean that science has discovered ‘completely vanishing matter’.

    If you want to ask someone else about this, find a clever engineer, or science loving sharp third grader, but don’t ask a science theory writer, this effect is about as basic as effects can be, and they missed it.

    Go to and read about many other lost cooling effects that theory science has not accounted for or apparently even noticed. If I can’t back my words with real experiments and or natural examples that are simple enough for children to verify, do not believe me.

    I also list over a dozen ways we can start cooling earth back down, right now, not in maybe 30 years if we are lucky enough that the solar winds don’t blow the Space Umbrella out of the solar system.
    They are part of the article “Space Umbrella vs. Desert Irrigation” at
    Steven Craig

  3. save the beavers .. global warming is a fact!!!!

  4. Is that kosher? Copying and pasting your blog post as a comment on someone else's blog?

  5. I love the picture of Václav Klaus. It's so...curmudgeonly.

  6. global warming is a scam.

  7. Steve Craig said " normal climatic shift could ever melt half of earth’s ice in 20 years."

    First of all, I don't agree with the apparent statement of fact that half of the earths ice has melted in 20 years. Last I looked the antarctic ice sheet is larger than we've seen recently and growing and the arctice ice sheet is at 99% of what we've seen as average since we've been able to monitorm which in itself is not all that long, only a few decades (compared to the millions of years that the ice has been there). We simply have not lost 50% of the ice in 20 years. We've lost little or none or have gained a bit. Frankly your assertion is wrong.

    And a mere 15,000 years ago, glaciers existed as far south as South Dakota and New York City. Last I looked, they melted, much to our benefit, not to our detriment. Ice is essentially dead space. Loss of ice simply opens up land for flora and fauna to live in.

    The temperatures have been slowly climbing at a rate of around .7 degrees F oer hundred years since the Little Ice Age. It has all been good. Better crops, a better economy, more food.

    The last 10 years temperatures have gone in the opposite direction as what the alarmists predicted. The world has not been warming in the last ten years. If the computer climate models failed to predict correctly the last ten years, how likely are they to be correct in predicting the climate 20 years or 100 years from now. Not likely.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

How 4,000 Physicists Gave a Vegas Casino its Worst Week Ever

What happens when several thousand distinguished physicists, researchers, and students descend on the nation’s gambling capital for a conference? The answer is "a bad week for the casino"—but you'd never guess why.

Ask a Physicist: Phone Flash Sharpie Shock!

Lexie and Xavier, from Orlando, FL want to know: "What's going on in this video ? Our science teacher claims that the pain comes from a small electrical shock, but we believe that this is due to the absorption of light. Please help us resolve this dispute!"

The Science of Ice Cream: Part One

Even though it's been a warm couple of months already, it's officially summer. A delicious, science-filled way to beat the heat? Making homemade ice cream. (We've since updated this article to include the science behind vegan ice cream. To learn more about ice cream science, check out The Science of Ice Cream, Redux ) Image Credit: St0rmz via Flickr Over at Physics@Home there's an easy recipe for homemade ice cream. But what kind of milk should you use to make ice cream? And do you really need to chill the ice cream base before making it? Why do ice cream recipes always call for salt on ice?