Week #10

March 23^rd, 2013

I will be providing the same answer to this blog post as the question proposed in Week #10s second discussion board in regard to what my proposed energy plan would be.

The first question of this blog post is a loaded question – what defines “cheap?” If you mean the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on wind and solar energy than the answer is no – it isn’t cheap. If you mean the fact that I can afford to pay my energy bill every month sure. But again, this topic will be tied into my response to the overall picture of this blog – in that no more taxpayer dollars should be poured into ineffective alternative energy ideas like wind and solar. More time needs to be spent developing other, newer, better ideas that WILL work on a grand scale and become affordable for all.

Good old Jimmy Carter – the worst president to date before Obama was elected. He said in a speech as he donned a sweater because we were facing an energy “crisis” and needed to do our part to conserve energy. This is the embodiment of government intervention even though it is laid out to the public that we must all “do our part for the greater good.” Which are words that make my blood run cold.

If it hasn’t been clear so far, let me say emphatically NO on government intervention whatsoever on energy. I believe my first sentence to this discussion board assignment was something to the effect of “I am here to tell the American people that the DOE is hereby dissolved.” When our government was put together I don’t think the framers had visions of creating huge arms of government that was not in their parameters to do so in the first place – including regulating energy.

For the sake of the assignment I will utilize the involvement of the government to achieve mollification of both sides of the political aisle:

Drilling and fracking for the oil and natural gases we have under our feet for the next pick a number – 25-30 years (or more if available). This will provide us time in the interim to develop and study newer more cutting edge alternative energy technology. Toward the end of this time frame we will sustain our energy independently and save billions and billions of dollars to propping ourselves up on hostile nations for oil. The end result is two-fold and a win for everyone (although it will never happen and everyone can never be satisfied simultaneously) as we gain independence from foreign nations AND create efficacious alternative technology that will provide us with many years of better, “greener” days.

I will be taking no steps toward reducing my carbon footprint because man-made global warming is a fallacy. If I was to in the future and I have no way to tell you what I may do, it would be on volition because it would save my family and me money – that’s it. We recycle, I pick up trash if I see it (and won’t get hurt doing so), and I drive a pretty fuel efficient car (not because of the environment but because it saves me money on gas). There is nothing else I wish to do at this point.

This topic is irrational to me because its premise is to guilt you for being alive, that you are somehow evil for being here and being capable of rational thought and reason, for progressing (a term I loathe in the political sense but in the rational sense I’m ok with) as a species through innovation and ingenuity. Indeed we have made huge mistakes along the way and should right them but not by the hands of government. 

Week #9

March 16^th, 2013

This topic is the existence of the course – “climate change”, “environmental awareness/consciousness”, “carbon footprints”, “being/going green”, “reduce, reuse, recycle”, and all the other buzz phrases out there. All of this transpired years ago by the environmental wackos from the left to inject fear and guilt with the population as a means of control. This “epidemic” has spiraled out of control and saturated every facet of our lives whether we realize it or not. To draw a distinction – I mentioned in my opening sentence that the reason this colloquium course exists is because of the handle this so-called “man-made crisis” ruse has on science and academia which trickles down to ignorant individuals and most importantly the indoctrination of young minds – students (who of course can be highly influenced).

In regard to believing if anthropogenic global warming is actually caused by me the answer is emphatically no. There are too many variables – agendas, career politicians, backroom deals, and emotion that are now placed in science, so instead of studying the subject objectively “facts” are twisted to suit theories to further expound upon perpetuating this “crisis.”  The atmosphere is an open system and it is impossible to study on a computer model which is a closed system. Furthermore, these computer models cannot operate themselves which leaves the data to be studied at the whim of the scientist who is conducting the experiment.

I briefly touched upon the medias involvement in the matter already. They are in the back pockets of the leftists in Washington and therefore champion (w/o questioning) whatever agenda necessary. The fear mongering they participate in is exactly what Washington wants – to instill panic, fear, and guilt which are akin to the ultimate goal of control.

Do I make lifestyle changes on volition due to this “crisis?” No, not unless I find true value in them or it saves me money somehow. I will not waiver or succumb to the irrationality that is “climate change.” Observe it is no longer called “global warming” as it has been exposed as fraudulent, therefore forcing the agenda to be tweaked and re-adjusted to make it suitable for consumption if you will.

Perhaps life will improve for my son and grandchildren if the government abided by the parameters set forth by the constitution and quit meddling and breeding regulations to fix problems they began in the first place. Solar and wind energy are worthless technology with no efficacious benefits not to mention neglecting any fiduciary responsibilities to the tax payers who are forced to continue to fund it. Somehow I don’t see life being better for my children or children’s children whether it be by a small, limited government or this spinning marble being healed from evil man. 

Week #8

March 1^st, 2013

The eucalyptus was indigenous to Australia and has made its way to other continents and eventually to the United States.

There are pros and cons of this tree, however in this particular instance of bringing the tree to FGCU, I must argue against it for several reasons.

The benefits to the eucalyptus tree are the financial stimulation they bring to certain poverty stricken areas. The trees grow extremely fast and the wood is able to be chopped off and the root quickly regenerates which in turn provides areas with a cash crop to bring money in. The next “pro” is a catch-22 in that the roots need an extreme amount of water for survival and in turn dry the soil and surrounding area out but lessen the malaria population for the local residents.

As aforementioned these trees draw a lot of water lower the water table underneath the ground and reduce the soil salinity. Another pitfall is the oil these trees generate is extremely flammable and combustible and the branches have been known to fall due to their high density therefore causing potential dangers to campers.

These trees also disrupt local ecological biodiversity and displace current wildlife because they cannot survive on the food that is provided.

For this particular situation, I must contest the notion to bring these plants to the campus as they provide no value – financially or economically for the staff, students, and local wildlife.

Sources:

Wikipedia.com