Infantile Egoism and Environmental "Science"

Betsy Gorisch is a geologist with an interesting theory, which she articulates at the American Thinker entitled Infantile Egoism and Environmental Science. I was of course aware that children often think that their thoughts and actions have great effects on the material world. One thinks of adults who practice "magic" as being a little off. No amount of incantations by you or me can change the materiel world, make someone love us, cause someone else to have a disease, and so forth. But I had not realized that the condition had a name, but it does: infantile egoism.

Gorisch takes a number of examples from everyday life of people who associate phenomena with the actions of people.  This association occurs despite the fact that it has happened many times in the past, when either the technology had not been invented, or even when the human race did not yet exist.  One that I find fascinating is honey bee deaths termed Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD.  Gorisch writes:

A species of infantile egoism appears to occur amongst humans more generally in cases where they see themselves as similarly responsible for natural environmental dysfunctions and destructions. The primary symptom is a perception that human activity is the probable cause of dysfunction and destruction in otherwise fully functional and harmonious natural systems. The by now both famed and largely, if not entirely, debunked mass extinction of honeybees is a notable recent example: honeybees have been said to be dying in the mysterious but certainly, according to believers, human-triggered phenomenon known as colony-collapse disorder (CCD). Its colloquial names include “bee-pocalypse” and “bee-mageddon.” People throughout the U.S. have been warned to prepare for life without honeybees, including the dietary deprivations that would result from an end to both honey production and, far more destructively, natural crop pollination.

Human development and use of neonicotinoid pesticides, known colloquially as neonics, and genetically modified crops are the best-known alleged culprits. The neonics have by now been largely ruled out, as CNN published in a less widely known but equally human-agent suggestion in 2010: CCD may be, at least in part, the result of cell phone use. But no evidence has ever been produced in support of the cell-phone theory.

A less well-publicized but perhaps more probable CCD cause may be a function of chaotic population decline-and-expansion patterns, which are poorly understood and unpredictable. They are also not discussed in media coverage, as they provide no guilt with which humans may rationalize imposing burdensome penitential power upon themselves. As Bjorn Lomborg pointed out in 2013,

Honeybee deaths are also nothing new. The Breakthrough Institute reports that, in 1853, Lorenzo Langstroth, the 19th-century bee-keeper who invented the modern hive, described colonies that were ‘found, on being examined one morning, to be utterly deserted. The comb was empty, and the only symptom of life was the poor queen herself.’ In 1891 and 1896, large clusters of bees vanished in a case known as May Disease. In the 1960s, bees vanished mysteriously in Texas, Louisiana and California. In 1975, a similar epidemic cropped up in Australia, Mexico and 27 U.S. states. There were heavy losses in France from 1998 to 2000 and also in California.

Bees are interesting creatures, and having time and the space, I kept a few colonies for several years. Eventually, all of my hives succumbed, and I abandoned the effort. I suspect that despite extensive reading on bees, that I simply did not provide the right environment for bees to stick around, and they absconded. So much for my career as a beekeeper.

Beekeepers are a fairly small, self select group of people, and the theories as to why the bees don't seem to want to stay where they are put don't really affect anyone outside the group.  Pollination companies that supply bees for pollination services will also develop the ability to provide bees as needed, and will continue to travel with their bees to wherever they are need.

On the other hand, though, are the alarmists who promote the theory of man caused climate change.  As Gorisch notes, the climate has been changing since the world began.  At one time, it was so warm that their were no glaciers at all.  It has also been so cold that humans barely survived.  Gorisch continues:

Much of what is adduced to support a finding of climate change by human causation in the present Holocene epoch has been altered if not both deliberately leaked and/or outright faked, rendering most (if not all) of it highly suspect. Other evidence has been denied, such as the by-now nearly 20 year period without warming that should, following the scientific method, be considered to have ruled the entire theory out -- as Richard Feynman famously said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” I would expand his statement to include a theory’s being wrong if it does not agree with real-world evidence. Instead, frequent attempts are made to neuter the contrary evidence by claiming that the theory itself accounts for it, rendering the theory itself unfalsifiable -- it is credited with predicting everything that happens, so nothing can rule it out. There are a great many sources confirming these statements; daily high-level and in-depth updates, drawing on numerous solid research authorities on the matter, are available at the Watts Up With That blog, among others.

The unfalsifiable nature of the global warming theory should have rendered it dead on arrival, but so few people today understand science. They view it as if it were a revealed religion, instead of being the method by which men and women struggle to understand our world and God's creation.  Too, many people suffer from being too close to the earth. If you live in Manhattan, for example, the buildings seem so big, the people crush you from every angle, and you get a magnified sense of what so huanity can do. It might help if these people reflected on occasion on the apparent insignificance of our species on the face of the planet and in the universe. We are just not that big, or powerful.  Remember that 70% of the planet surface is water, and the oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide.

Judging by the number of shows on popular television featuring vampires, werewolves, demons, and people calling forth demons, I suspect that a lot of people sense that the world is not under their control.  Infantile egoism helps them to feel that, even if the can't do anything, they at least know why.  But a solution based in infantile egoism is not based on reality.  Instead, it might help, if more people prayed to God, and, as they used to say, minded their own knitting.  I may not be powerful, but He is omnipotent, and can in his own time, effect changes.  It also helps if you are praying for His will to be done.

We have had this conversation before...

The Tenth Amendment Center has put together a three part series based on David Kopel's paper entitled The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century Part III can be found here It provides links to the other two parts. I recommend you read all three parts, and Mr. Kopel's original piece.

I sometimes forget (imagine that!) that I am now an old fart.  I can remember back to the late 1950s and the 1960s.  So, much of this history is not new to me.  But for young people, it may be.  I can remember a while back a young man saying something like "We've never had a conversation about guns.  We need a conversation, that's all."  The truth is we HAVE had a conversation, over the course of the Twentieth Century, and his side lost.  But, if we forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it.  In part Two, especially, the real goals of the gun grabbers were on display during the early phases when they thought they might win quickly and easily.

The Massachusetts referendum revealed the true objective of gun-grabbers no matter what jurisdiction they’re operating in. As the election drew near, it became apparent that the initiative was aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens, not criminals. At an anti-gun rally the week before the vote, Kopel writes, Senator Edward Kennedy admitted, “We won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

This revealing statement about the futility of gun control as a means of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals would later be substantiated in a 1982 document published by the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, a part of the Judiciary Committee. The document found, among other things, that an astounding 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were “aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations,” according to Kopel.

After the Massachusetts election, an official with the League of Women Voters who had vigorously supported the ban said, “I think a lot of voters have the idea this was designed to get guns away from the criminals. That’s not the real purpose.”

The real purpose, then and now, has been to take away guns from the law abiding, in order that the average citizen would not be able to oppose the government in any meaningful way. So, what is the lesson, if any? Why are we still fighting this battle? Well, first of all, the gun grabbers never give up. There is no settled law if the Left is against it.  The other thing we must realize is that the gun grabbers are not arguing in good faith, and never have.  Therefore it behooves us to call them out on their bad faith arguments.  When they say "We don't want to take away your guns, we just..." don't believe them, and don't debate on their terms.  They DO want to take away your guns: make no mistake about it.

A vital lesson from this gun control war is that the unless action is taken in the states themselves to nullify and resist unconstitutional federal gun laws, the threat will exist perpetually. Gun rights activists no doubt fought with the best of intentions and attempted to thwart gun grabbers at every turn, but their strategy demonstrated that despite victory after victory at a federal level, and even at a state level, the enemy eventually recuperates and makes another attempted assault on our right to keep and bear arms. The only way to neutralize the threat is by getting states to pass Second Amendment Preservation Acts.

Had such laws been passed from the very beginning when gun control war first began, we might not be having to fight it today.

More on the Genocide of Christians in the Middle East

Katie Pavlich has an article over at Townhall.com on the continuing genocide of Christians in the Middle East and the efforts to get the Obama Administration to officially acknowledge it as "genocide." The article can be found at We Must Act: Time Running Out to Stop the Christian Genocide in Syria and Iraq. Before ISIS, the region had 1.5 million Christians in a number of communities. Today, estimates are that 250,000 still survive. Actually, before Muhammad, the region was majority Christian. These people still speak the ancient Aramaic that Jesus spoke. The communities go back almost 2000 years. These people are carrying on the tradition of the Good News first brought to them shortly after the Crucifixion, that Jesus came to save the entire world from its sins by his death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. Katie writes:

“As many governments, legislative bodies, non-governmental organizations, and world leaders have already concluded, the available evidence demonstrates that ISIS’s actions rise to the level of genocide. Furthermore, we understand that recent information received from on-the-ground interviews in the region and other sources establishes without question that ISIS is committing genocide and makes clear that claims that it is offering jizya or dhimmi status are a publicity stunt or extortion payments that pervert these classical terms,” states the letter written by Andrews Kurths LPP and submitted on behalf of The Philos Project, The American Mesopotamian Organization, The Assyrian Aid Society of America and The Iraqi Christian Relief Council.

“The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) prohibits the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic or religious group by, inter alia, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction,” the letter continues. “Publicly available information strongly suggests that ISIS is subjecting Assyrian and other Iraqi and Syrian Christians living in areas under the control of ISIS to genocidal conditions. ISIS purportedly offers the Assyrian Christians three options: (1) convert to Islam, (2) assume dhimmi status and pay an associated jizya tax, or (3) leave the territory. The facts suggest that, in reality, there is no choice. Those who refuse or are otherwise unable to comply are executed, and in many instances the option of paying the jizya tax is not made available. The evidence therefore suggests that the jizya tax is not a real option and may be just a pretext to justify ISIS’s atrocities. That ISIS purports to permit Assyrian Christians to pay a jizya tax to avoid conversion, execution, or displacement does not preclude a finding that ISIS’s persecution of such Christians violates the Genocide Convention.”

For those who think this doesn't matter, I ask you to think a little broader than that. Right now, ISIS, which claims to be the new Caliphate, the new leader of all Muslims everywhere, is executing Christians and other religious minorities as fast as they can. Barack Obama plans, indeed wants Syrian refugees to come to America. His reasons can only be speculated upon, but we can expect that 13% of the "refugees" will be trained jihadis and will carry out rapes, executions, and generally create as much havoc as possible. They will also convert as many as possible, until they reach numbers that allow them to put in place Sharia law, replacing our Constitutional laws. The process may take a generation, so imagine your daughters and grand daughters wearing burkas, not being able to drive, and, well...living like they do in Saudi Arabia. As with any enemy, we either fight them there, or we fight them here. Or, we surrender now and give up our freedoms and liberties. Islam has no tradition of unalienable rights.  Instead, it has obligations, duties, and specific pieties that must be observed.  Your children and grand children will not have a choice to be Christian or not.  Only Muslims.  You decide.

West Virginia Gets Constitutional Carry, Over the Governor's Veto

According to BearingArms.com, West Virginia has become the eighth State to adopt Constitutional Carry. Residents aged 18-21 must still obtain permits, but those over 21 may now carry, not a prohibited person, without a permit. Congratulations.

This is what I had hoped for in every State, but feared I would never see it in my lifetime, and may not see it where I live.  But it is good to see it elsewhere.  Criminals carry, and are unconcerned whether they have a permission slip from the government or not.  Why, then, should law abiding citizens have to jump through hoops, and pay fees to be able to do what their criminal opponent does with impunity?

The bill also includes a $50 tax credit for receiving training.  $50 isn't a lot, but it does cover the cost of a 100 round value pack of .45s, so it helps.  Even with training it took me a long time to get down my holster, belt, and method of carry, and to practice my draw (which still needs work.) So, I encourage anyone thinking of carrying under the new rules to seek training and become proficient.  That said, it is really up to you, the adult, responsible, gun owner to seek out and take the training you can afford, that fits with your priorities, and can be of most benefit to you.

The On Going Genocide of Christians in the Middle East

With the Republican and Democrat horse raises in the news, the continuing genocide of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East and North Africa have faded from the news cycles.  Fortunately, Eileen Toplansky has kept on top of the issue.  She has penned another piece outlining the affliction facing Christians in the Middle East entitled Muslim Responsibility and Western Inaction. The article concludes thus:

Those who insist that concerned Americans are either racist or exaggerating the danger would do well to ask themselves "[w]hat if Christian terrorists were blowing up Muslims" as liberal Saudi journalist Nadine Al-Budair posits. She asserts that Muslims consistently "absolve [themselves] of guilt and she pointedly asks the following: Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross [.]

Imagine hearing the voices of monks and priests from churches and prayer houses in and out of the Arab world, screaming on loudspeakers and levelling accusations against Muslims, calling them infidels, and chanting: 'God, eliminate the Muslims and defeat them all.'

Imagine that we had provided an endless number of foreign groups with visas, ID cards, citizenships, proper jobs, free education, free modern healthcare, social security, . . . and later a member of one of these groups came out, consumed by hatred and bloodlust, and killed our sons on our streets, in our buildings, in our newspaper [offices], in our mosques and in our schools.

It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst - the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari'a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world

Jesus, of course, admonishes a different approach. He insists we as Christians should pray for our enemies. Believe me it is hard to do. I pray that God will guard the Christian communities from their Muslim attackers, and then pray that he will soften the hearts of the Muslims and turn them toward himself and away from the wretched book they are following. It is hard, but it is also necessary. For He died for them as much as for me.

Toplansky goes through the gory details of the genocide that continues under ISIS, and you can read all about it by clicking the link above.  She also says that:

The ongoing ISIS slaughter of Christians has resulted in the European Parliament unanimously passing a resolution referring to the Islamic State's (ISIS) killing of religious minorities under its control as "genocide" in the Middle East. But the Obama administration dithers and when asked, White House spokesman Josh Earnest claims that the word genocide "involves a very specific legal determination that has, at this point, not been reached." This should come as no surprise since the FBI has "released a new edition of its anti-terror video game, 'Don't Be a Puppet' that scrubs all references to Islamic terrorism" per the demands of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Thus, as Clare M. Lopez explains, "Islamic jihad is now excluded from a list of potential terror threats."

Additionally, in Canada "Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant has called out Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his refusal to recognize as 'genocide' the sweeping targeting of Christians by ISIS in the Middle East." And so, “[t]housands of Yazidis have been summarily executed, killed, or, in the case of Yazidi women, kidnapped and sold into slavery by ISIS.

The lack of action by the Obama administration is a cause of concern, and we can do something by urging the administration to take action, and if they won't, as it appears thhe will not, we can ask our Congressional representative to at least pass a resolution stating that the Congress recognizes the genocide going on. Congressmen will be anxious to appear to be listening to their constituents. Until ISIS brings the war to our shores, we can not do more, but with God, all things are possible.

Gravity Waves and God

What may arguably be the greatest scientific discovery of the last 50 years is explained over at the American Thinker by Tom Sheahen in an article entitled The Discovery of Gravitational Waves. The discovery of gravitational waves places Einstein's theory of General Relativity on a par with Newton's Principia; as close to iron clad law as theories in physics get. Go read the article. I can not explain it better.

The discovery of gravitational waves was one of Einstein's predictions and shows that Einstein was on the right track with his theory. But, subsequent work has proven that objects that appear quite solid are in fact made up largely of empty space. A massive concrete wall seems solid enough, and if you crash your car into it, it will destroy your vehicle in spectacular ways. But the massive concrete wall is in fact mostly empty space. Which begs the question, why does matter have mass, and why does matter seem to attract other matter giving rise to the phenomenon known as gravity?

To answer the first question, the Higgs boson was proposed in 1964. The Higgs boson is a "particle" or a "field" or ..a field that appears as a particle.  The fact is that Heisenberg's theory applies, namely that you can't observe the object without changing it. In any case, the discovery of the Higgs boson, in 2013 is reported in Physics here. The theory behind it not only accounts for why matter has mass, but why mass attracts mass, making gravity possible, which in turn makes beings capable of understanding gravity possible. One can only wonder at the genius of the Creator, who could design a system so complex as to appear simple. What does all this say about the God who loves us so much?

Electric Vehicles Still Do Not Make Sense, Six Years Later

Dexter Wright makes a point that has been known since the all electric vehicle made a splash in the imaginations of people who have forgotten history. The history most people forget is that all electric vehicles have been tried before. See History of Electric Vehicles here. Wright calls his point The Dirty Little Secret About All Electric Vehicles Of course, it isn't a secret at all. But most do not want to hear it. However, Wright blurts it out for everyone to see:

As Elon Musk doubles down with the debut of new and more affordable models of his Tesla all-electric vehicles at the Geneva Auto Show, there is a dirty little secret that once exposed, will burst the mythology of the all-electric car. There is a myth that the all-electric vehicle is more efficient than conventional vehicles and that big oil hates the all-electric niche carved out by Musk and others. The reality is that the all-electric vehicle is less efficient, and has a larger carbon footprint than a Ford F-150.

Yes, I know that you know this, since those who read this blog are a pretty informed group of people, yet the degree to which the all electric vehicle suffers in efficiency compared to gasoline and diesel engined vehicles is shocking.  There are losses, significant losses, all along the chain that produces the electricity that we use. Fossil fuel is burned to produce steam, the steam spins turbines, which in turn spin generators. The electricity is sent out at high voltage, and at several stages is stepped down, until we get to your household voltage. Adding up all the losses results in an efficiency of less than 15% of the energy contained in the original fossil fuel reaching your house as usable energy.

Years ago I confronted a fellow engineer about this, and his reply was that while the efficiency analysis is true, the pollution itself was contained at the power plant site, and therefore more easily controlled. So, if our goal is to contain specific pollutants, he is right. A centralized facility emitting pollution (power plant) can be outfitted with scrubbers and other pollution control devises, and can afford to fund these devises, far easier that putting them on thousands of mobile pollution emitting devices (cars and trucks). Furthermore, maintaining these devises is more easily achieved on a centralized power plant than on thousands of cars and trucks. On the other hand, if we grant the global warming assumptions are true for this analysis, then if our goal is to stop global warming, the all electric vehicle makes things worse.  Carbon Dioxide, in any case, is not technically speaking, a pollutant, since it is an essential part of the life cycle on this planet.

Hybrid technology has been proven with actual buyers making the decision to buy hybrid vehicles despite the premium price paid.  For example, a Ford Fusion MSRP cost is $23,000, with EPA rating of 22/34 MPG city/highway.  The hybrid version costs $30K, buy achieves 44/41 MPG.  Depending on your type of driving, and your analysis of future gasoline prices, the hybrid may be the best option.  But the all electric vehicle does not make economic sense any way it is analysed.  As my earlier post, The Volt is a Joke pointed out that the Chevrolet product was at best an expensive toy, and Tesla's offering is at best a rich man's toy.  I'll stick with my Trailblazer, thank you.