Climate Change? No Matter How You Look At It, ETHANOL IS THE ANSWER!
 |
IPSO FACTO - Using the Rauch-ocratic Method to Understand Global Climate Change
 Marc Rauch |
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
Author of THE ETHANOL PAPERS
More than a decade ago, I began compiling scientific commentary to show that "catastrophic man-made climate change" is not occurring. The highlights of that compilation are contained in my published report "Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming.".
The commentaries included are from top scientific people... people who have credentials and experience that compare or exceed any person that proclaims the AGW fairy tale. If you feel that you have heard all there is to know, you should definitely read this report.
 |
What I bring to the argument, other than the compilation of others' scientific opinions, is analytic reasoning in my own personal Socratic Method-style. It is expressed in the following account:
Is the global climate changing?
The climate is always changing; it has always changed. The changes have occurred over eons and over much shorter periods. There is definitive scientific and historical consensus of opinion on this, more importantly, there is abundant scientific and historical proof of this.
Is the change due to human activities or natural occurrences?
There is no scientific consensus of opinion that humans are responsible. There is only the exaggerated statement that "97% of all scientists agree on man-made global warming/cooling," which is a subjective, manufactured statement. And it's just a statement, not discernable scientific proof.
If climate change is due to human activities, which activities specifically?
Climate change can be caused by cosmic radiation and solar fluctuations. Climate change can be caused by geological events such as volcano eruptions, earthquakes, polar re-orientation, and asteroid or meteor collisions with Earth.
Climate change can be caused by cleaner air, or dirtier air (due to less or more particulate matter), affecting the sun's ability to warm large areas. The change in solar warming can affect wind currents and speeds, which could raise or lower temperatures, and change rain patterns (any change in historic rain patterns would have discernible effects on temperatures).
Climate change can be caused by urban sprawl and the conversion of natural landscapes into black-topped roads and parking facilities. The introduction of regular, consistent watering of lawns and fields can have effects on local micro-climates, which can in turn create greater wide-spread changes that lead to shifts in wind conditions and humidity (thereby affecting rain patterns).
Climate change might be caused by high frequency radio wave such as those emitted by the HAARP program.
Climate change could be caused by air pollution due to the introduction of gases in the atmosphere; gases such as carbon monoxide and bovine flatulence.
Is climate change bad?
Warming the planet may not be bad. There is plenty of scientific analysis that states that plant growth (including food sources) would dramatically increase, and the growing global population will require more food sources. This is particularly important if the growing human population also eats more vegetables and fruits versus more meat. Turning icy wastelands into useful cropland would be a great benefit.
Larger populations and agricultural fields will require more water. The reduction of locked water resources from melting glaciers can supply the needed water.
Why is it necessary to blame climate change on humans?
Putting the blame on humans puts a face on the problem - real or imagined. Otherwise, we'd just be hating beautiful, kindly, sweet mother nature, and it would turn the event into something that's perceived as inevitable and unstoppable. If it's inevitable, why throw money at the problem. Hope, even false hope can be very profitable. Climate change alarmists hope you will fall for their hysteria and they hope to die from natural causes very rich.
Can the activities be curtailed?
There's nothing we can do about cosmic radiation, solar fluctuations, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, or asteroid/meteor collisions with our planet.
If a rise in temperatures is related to having cleaner air so that the sun warms more efficiently, the only solution is an undesirable one: re-polluting the atmosphere (which has been suggested by people like Bill Gates).
If urban sprawl is causing climate change there is no solution short of eliminating population growth and/or forcing people to live without improved roads, structures, and open spaces.
If high frequency radio waves are causing the changes, we have to first get the government(s) to explain what the heck HAARP is for, and then get them to stop it.
If carbon monoxide and bovine flatulence are the cause of climate change, can we stop all living creatures from breathing or stop cows from farting?
If climate change is caused by engine emissions and pollutants, then the simple answer is to immediately stop using the fuels that cause the greatest amount of harmful emissions and pollutants: gasoline and petroleum diesel. There is an alternative fuel that can be used immediately while waiting for a time (if ever) when electric-powered motors can replace all internal combustion engines. This fuel is ethanol. But ubiquitous adoption of ethanol is opposed or delayed by most local and national governments who ironically use oil industry lies as the excuses to deny its greater acceptance.
What is the likely result of climate change?
If the climate is getting warmer there will be fewer snow skiing areas. Fewer ski areas could mean a dramatic rise in ski lift ticket prices.
If the climate is getting colder there could be more snow skiing areas. This might result in lower ski lift ticket prices.
Drastic rising or lowering of temperatures could result in the death of many living creatures, including humans.
Rising temperatures could result in more regions of the Earth being capable of supporting many living creatures, including humans.
Can the result be avoided? Is it already too late?
If the result is catastrophic and it's not too late to make changes then why haven't the believing governments already taken decisive action? Why wait to begin utilizing solutions that have immediate positive effects, like higher ethanol usage? What good are carbon credits? If factories in certain states are gross polluters, then how does buying a carbon credit from another state reduce the pollution in the factories that are producing that pollution?
If the result is catastrophic and it is too late to avoid it, then we should simply relax, do what doctors tell dying patients to do in their final days, grab yourself some delicious libations made from consumable ethanol and just enjoy the time we have left.
If the result is not catastrophic, but it would simply be better to have cleaner air and water, and it would be better for peoples' health, then let's just go to the easiest, most affordable, and most available solution to cleaning the air and water: ethanol fuel. Then, when technology allows, slowly switch to electric vehicles or whatever the scientific marvel of the day will be.
It's just that simple. And, no matter how you look at it, ETHANOL IS THE ANSWER!
