What Are We Teaching Our Young?

Here's how a local paper begins it's article about Vermont's "Doodle for Google" winner:  "A creative and environmentally conscious fifth-grader from Winooski won a big honor....".  Right from the start, you see the coming slant.  "Environmentally conscious" has long been synonymous with belief in the liberal meme's of the various crises facing our planet, from the "crying Indian" of the 60's & 70's (newsflash, he wasn't Native American), to the "global cooling" and "imminent ice age" of the 70's & 80's, to the claims of the "destruction of the rain forests" in the late 80's, to the hysterical claims of the 90's & 2000's of "man-made global warming" which, thanks to the "mysterious" lack of warming over the last 20 years, has now become "global climate change".

I want to make one thing clear:  I am NOT denigrating the young lady's accomplishment.  Beating out the competition to earn the right to represent her state in such a nationally publicized PR event really is a big, big deal for a 5th grader.  Besides, her doodle is really quite good.  What had me and others pulling our hair out was a comment she made during her interview for our local CBS affiliate:  "The oxygen is running out on our planet, so it's good to have something to create that oxygen for us to breath." Penny Ly said.

Young Miss Ly has been taught that our planet is running out of oxygen and her solution is to create "artificial plants that could convert carbon dioxide into oxygen".  Pardon my cynicism, but didn't Mother Nature already take care of that for us?  And where in creation did she get the idea that the planet was "running out" of oxygen?

Liberal/Progressive environmental theology, that's where.

The theory of catastrophic oxygen depletion has it's origin with a leftist professor, Dr. Ralph Keeling, Associate Professor at University of California, San Diego and director of the CO2 Project at the Scripps Institute.  He has been studying oxygen levels in the atmosphere and within the oceans since 1989 and has illustrated his results with the "Keeler curve" (any jealousy of Art Laffer?).  He claims that his observations have not only confirmed his hypothesis, but also indicate that the oxygen depletion is accelerating at a dangerous pace.  As reported in an article with the alarming title:  Stunned Scientists Warn, World Could Run Out of Breathable Air,  "According to the data Keeling has meticulously collected since 1989 the world is running out of breathable air - and the rate that it's losing oxygen is now on the verge of accelerating."

Let me get this straight.  A "scientist" (I shouldn't use quotes, he has gotten his doctorate from established, ivy-league universities.  But still....) is basing a conclusion of such magnitude on a data set spanning less than 25 years?  I know that university professors survive on grant money and the best way to win grants is to come up with some world-threatening crisis, but come on.  This claim is obvious hyperbole.  Like everything else concerning the Earth's climate, levels of oxygen, nitrogen, helium and other gasses that make up our breathable air are constantly in flux.  To claim that a reduction over such a short span of time constitutes an emergency is ridiculous.  Of course, the good doctor is totally convinced that the trend is real and also that it is caused by man.  By the consumption (burning) of fossil fuels, creating CO2 that displaces Oxygen, eventually resulting in a planet uninhabitable by humans.  We need to ACT NOW!

Dr. Keeling isn't alone in his alarmist views.  As reported in a story published in the Weekly World News, a contemporary of the National Enquirer,  a Yale University-backed study puts it this way:  "Unless we find a way to rein in our carbon emissions very soon, a low-oxygen ocean may become an inescapable feature of our planet. A team of Danish researchers published a particularly sobering study last year. They wondered how long oxygen levels would drop if we could somehow reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2100. They determined that over the next few thousand years oxygen levels would continue to fall, until they declined by 30 percent. The oxygen would slowly return to the oceans, but even 100,000 years from now they will not have fully recovered. If they’re right, fish will be gasping and squid will be panting for a long time to come." 

Wow.  Just, wow.  First, everyone knows that reducing CO2 levels to "zero" is impossible.  Even back in the horse & buggy days we had "carbon emissions".  They also admit that reducing carbon emissions will have no effect on the level of oxygenation, that it will take over a thousand centuries for the oceans to fully recover (how do they determine what level "fully recovered" is?), and end with the tagline, "fish will be gasping and squid will be panting for a long time to come" in a blatant attempt at tugging the heartstrings of the uninformed reader in order to elicit an emotional, rather than rational reaction.

I decided to do what the authors of these articles neglected to do:  research other educated opinions.  Surprise, surprise, I found evidence of profound disagreement with these alarmist views.  Physicist Frank Heile answers the concerns of reduced amounts of oxygen produced via photosynthesis this way: "....short term fluctuations in the rate of oxygen generation in photosynthesis compared to the short term rate of oxygen consumption in respiration does not matter. The huge buffer of oxygen in the atmosphere totally damps out these short term fluctuations - it is only the long term balance of generation and consumption of oxygen which will make any change significant to the total oxygen content of the atmosphere. By long term I mean millions to billions of years! Any short term change in the atmosphere oxygen percentage would be insignificant compared to the ecological disaster of photosynthesis significantly decreasing on earth.  The disaster would be in the food availability, not in oxygen availability."

OK, we've got one source saying that even totally eliminating CO2 emissions would have absolutely no effect on oxygenation levels in the atmosphere and another who points out that it would take eons before any significant change in atmospheric oxygen percentage would even occur.

The magazine Popular Science also tackled the question of human activity causing the Earth to run out of breathable oxygen.  In the article, Will We Run Out of Breathable Oxygen if We Produce Too Much Carbon Dioxide?  Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is quoted as saying, "Even if we were to burn another 1,000 billion tons of fossil fuels, we would only decrease the oxygen in our atmosphere to 20.88 percent."

Now we've got some numbers we can work with.  According to the NOAA website about 9 billion tons of carbon was burned in 2010.  Popular Science says even burning another 1,000 billion tons of fossil fuels would only produce minor reductions in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere.  That's more than a century.  I'm fairly sure, if left to their own devices, innovative American entrepreneurs would come up with alternative energy sources long before then.  Oh, and to show just how minor the drop in atmospheric oxygen would be, current measurements of the atmosphere are:  78.09% Nitrogen, 20.95% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon, 0.039% Carbon Dioxide, and small amounts of trace elements.  Water vapor accounts for another +/- 1%.

Utilizing the basic math skills I learned in graded school, I come up with the following equation: 20.95% minus 20.88% for a total reduction of...............(drum roll please)........... 0.07% over the course of 100 years! Based on a microscopically (in geologic terms) small data set, we are supposed to drastically reduce our standard of living and submit to the demands of enviro-extremists and -extortionists that countries (specifically the United States) pay literally trillions of dollars to combat the menace of Global Climate Change.

The real danger in all of this isn't just the prevarication of our supposedly objective scientists, it's the indoctrination of our youth in a groundless ideology.  The generations who will someday lead our nation are being led astray by ideologues with a socio-political agenda.  If we don't put a stop to it, America will no longer lead the world in innovation, poverty stricken people in the third world will lose a significant source of funds for clean water, agriculture and animal husbandry and the last flickering of the Enlightenment, the movement & philosophy that gave birth to the idea that man is sovereign in himself, is competent to rule himself and has an inviolate right to live his life as he chooses will dim, and die.

Bundy vs BLM

Everyone's been excitedly reporting/pontificating on the situation in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.  So, I may as well join the chatter.

The root of the conflict is the fact that Mr. Bundy ceased paying grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, after he "fired" them for not fulfilling what he says is their obligation to work with the ranchers to manage the range land and instead using the rancher's fees against them by changing the classification of the land to protected habitat for the desert tortoise and actively working against the interests of the ranchers.

The government has since gone to court and won two judgments in federal court ordering Mr. Bundy to remove his cattle from the disputed property.  He has consistently refused, saying he doesn't recognize federal authority over what he considers state land and his pre-emptive grazing rights, a legacy of his ancestors' settling of the new territory acquired as a part of the Louisiana Purchase.  He says that this is a matter for the state to settle and the feds should stay out of it.  He also claims that after he ceased paying his grazing fees to the federal government he tried to make the payments to the state but was refused.  Various state authorities have said they have no record of him making any attempt to pay the fees to them, adding that they wouldn't have been able to accept such payment because the land is owned by the federal government, not the state or county.

I want to make clear from the start that, from a philosophical perspective, I am 100% behind Mr. Bundy.  He, and the other ranchers, have spent 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars over the decades maintaining the land, building and maintaining roads & bridges, digging waterholes and keeping them clear and flowing, building fences and keeping them in proper condition, etc.  The BLM was created with the original intent of working with the ranchers to regulate the land usage so as to forestall overgrazing that would devastate the land, rendering it a barren desert.  It is clear that the BLM is no longer working with the ranchers, but against them, heeding instead the strident calls of environmentalists.

Unfortunately, none of that matters.  From a strictly legal perspective, Mr. Bundy hasn't got a (legal) leg to stand on.  Aside from his arguments being twice dismissed by the courts, there's the not-so-little matter of the Nevada state constitution expressly stating that deed to the property rests with the federal government.  It can be (and has been) argued that the Constitutional provision allowing for the government to acquire territory was intended solely as a means for the new country's government to create new states and expand it's reach.  Unfortunately, that wasn't made plain.  And, as has become the norm in legal wrangling, if it isn't specifically prohibited, it's allowed.  At least as far as the government goes (it used to be understood to be the other way around, with the government not allowed what wasn't expressly set forth as permitted while the people were given the rights to everything that wasn't expressly prohibited).  So, in this matter, in this narrow finding, I have to come down on the side of the government's right to evict Mr. Bundy and his cattle from the property for non-payment of fees owed.

Now, there are some interesting little tidbits on the sidelines cluttering up the playing field and bringing into question the motives behind the actions taken by the BLM.  The first is, since when does the government send over 200 heavily armed and armored men (including several snipers!) to descend on a single family over what is essentially a dispute over nonpayment of fees (the government claims that it is owed appx. $1.1M in grazing fees.  Contrast that with Mr. Al Sharpton, who reportedly owes more than $1.9M in unpaid taxes and, far from being targeted by sharp-shooters, headlines a fund raiser with President Barack Obama).  Also, I fail to see where the removal of his "trespass cattle" equates to defacto rustling and allows the government to take possession.  Unless it is claiming them in lieu of payment, a claim that hasn't been made.

In addition, there are the comments made by the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, the Honorable Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, who has labeled the Bundy's, as well as their (sometimes armed) supporters "domestic terrorists".  Senator Reid and his oldest son have connections with a Chinese solar energy concern who wishes to construct a multi-billion dollar solar farm on property just to the north of the Bundy ranch.  This land is also part of the protected tortoise habitat.  Far from sending armed men to dispute this project in the name of the threatened tortoise, the BLM has no problem with the project.  HOWEVER, regulations do require that they mitigate the impact on the tortoise by relocating them to alternate habitat.  Guess where the proposed relocation habitat site is?  Yep.  The Bundy ranch.  Another interesting facet to this is the fact that the head of the BLM is a former chief political aide to Mr. Reid.  Mr. Reid has a reputation for somewhat shady real estate deals in the past that have enabled him to create a multi-million dollar net worth on a relatively minor public servant's salary.

There has been a temporary reprieve for the Bundy's and their cattle.  The feds have withdrawn and have released the cattle back to the rancher, citing concerns over the escalation of the confrontation (several dozen people have rallied to the Bundy's cause. Many of them also "just happened" to bring along their firearms) and the potential for a misstep on either side to result in violence.  They will be pursuing further court action to resolve the situation.  Meanwhile, many of the supports that came to the Bundy's defense have decided to remain, against the possibility of future covert actions by the BLM against the family, with some even going so far as to claim that this whole extravagant exercise in power by the government has been a trial run to see what kind of a reaction they would receive from the common citizens to the government's overt use of force, saying that while they aren't advocating armed action against the government they all "stand ready" to react to any future unconstitutional aggression by the government.

For now, it appears that things stand this way:  Bundy 1, BLM 0.

But the game is far from over.  Stay tuned.