Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Ice Age

Please take a few minutes to read this excerpt from Time magazine (June 24, 1974). That was a Monday, by the way. I know that because LaWanna and I were married on Saturday, June 22, 1974. I add that tidbit for perspective.

How in the world a group of con artists shifted the story from "we are freezing and destroying the Earth" to "we are overheating and destroying the Earth" during the time I have been married is astonishing to me. The amount of money flowing to "green" industries is unbelievable. Buying "carbon credits" is gullible. It would take many pages to present all the fallacies of logic involved, but nobody would read it.

So, here is a portion of the article (and it is just one example). I am no scientists and not very smart. But I listened enough in school to be aware of concepts such as the importance of replication and realize that we can not accurately "replicate" 1000 year cycles. Even a guy from a Georgia dirt road can see many problems with the "science" of the thinking then and now. So how in the world did we come to a place where Al Gore receives a Nobel prize for his "work" on global warming? Are we really so blinded by "group think" that we need somebody online or on TV to tell us what to think? That is much more frightening to me than temperatures that fluctuate and large scale weather patterns that are difficult to predict. Here is the excerpt;

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered
year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling..." And it goes on and on. And it scared people. Many were convinced that dust, smoke, and chemicals in the air were preventing sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth and that our productivity and increasing population would surely make it worse. The prospects of an "ice age" within 100 years was cause for concern to more people than you probably believe. And this was before Facebook, Blogging, even before Al Gore had invented the internet. So all of you under 35 years old who think the resistance of your parents and grandparents to accept the ridiculous notion that we are causing the climate of the Earth to crash by driving a V-8 and using deordorant need to acknowledge that many "old folks" have seen the sales pitch before and followed the money trail. This article refers to a "massive 100 day study" of climate changes. That seems laughable now, when GRANTS (money taken from my pockets and your employer's pockets) total billions of dollars to pay salaries of people who only have work if they keep the flames of fear fanned. Do I think a "scientist" would alter or withhold data in order to secure a $2 million grant? Yep. So pardon me if I find humor in seeing a number of "global warming" meetings canceled in Washington because there is too much snow to get into town.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Elsie, You are Doing a Great Job!

According to Reader's Digest (March, 2010) Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, United Kingdom have demonstrated that cows that have names give more milk than cows that are nameless.

It is tempting to stop with that opening statement and just see what comments are made. But if you know me or read here often (and apparently some of you do), then you know it is not my tendency be parsimonious. So, what do you think are the ramifications of this study? Do you think large scale dairies will begin to name and pet their cows to increase production? Nah, I doubt it, too. Why do you think this effect is true? Do you think there are human applications?

I remember a case study from my undergraduate classes in management where a large factory increased the lighting to see if it would affect productivity. It did, positively. A number of preliminary deductions were made. Then the company reduce the lighting to see if the productivity would return to the pre-existing state. Actually, it increased again. That seemed very odd and illogical--until someone suggested that perhaps ANY attention at all caused employees to feel that what they were doing was important.

So, yes, there probably IS an application to human relationships. Perhaps just acknowledging a relationship (like remembering a name) has a positive effect. Certainly we all desire to feel that whatever we are doing makes a difference and that somebody notices. What would happen if each of became the "noticer" instead of waiting to be noticed? In honor of Elsie, maybe we could buy someone an ice cream cone to say "I appreciate you."

What flavor would you like?