It’s Friday and time for our weekly shoot-the-shit topic. For the benefit of new readers, each week we select a topic for general discussion that may or may not be related to the central theme of this blog. Readers are free to comment making unsupported claims, insult anyone they wish to insult, use profanity or change the subject all together without fear of censure or seeing an invoice. 

We selected climate change because it has the potential to influence the industry and outdoors activities that we all enjoy so much. Our objective is not to convince you one way or another, instead we’d like to provide you with a baseline understanding so that you the reader can formulate your own thoughts, questions and opinions. There is a lot of bull being presented daily by both liberal and conservative media on the subject and it’s difficult for people to digest the issues. So, we’d like to share our views and thoughts with you. With that introduction let’s get started.

The earth is an ecosystem that is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Nothing about this planet is static but rather an ever-changing dynamic continuum. To look at 100 years of climate data and then draw conclusions and make predictions, on the basis of an infinitesimally miniscule time slice, is not only bad science but a vulgar display of arrogance. We refer to these observations as statistically insignificant and definitely inconclusive. It’s equivalent to predicting gastro intestinal problems by measuring a single fart. It’s simply not done nor is it credible.

The conservative media is quick to jump on the Obama Administration for its interest in climate change, so we took a look at what the EPA was doing in terms of grants for climate change related research and this what we’ve found. Between 2008 – 2014, the EPA awarded $49.9 million in  research grants to academic institutions in climate change research grants. We then looked at the prior 6 year period 2002-2007 inclusive and noted that the EPA grants totaled $60 million. Between 1995-2014, the EPA has awarded academic institutions a total of $121 million to research climate change. So, the numbers tell the story. Our data reflects only EPA investments in climate change research and you can safely assume the total investment to prove, or disprove, climate change is significantly higher, probably in the billion dollar range. Interested readers can look at the EPA’s data by clicking here. This is a huge pot of money that academia has its eye on. Let’s move to grants.

Writing a grant is a time consuming and tedious project. In fact, there are individuals who make a living just writing grants. The key to a successful grant is to link the research topic to a hot button. So, if a researcher interested in the mating behavior of roaches is unsuccessful in getting grant money, he revises his grant proposal describing the research as studying the effects of climate change on roach propagation. The researcher links his real research interest to a “hot button” to secure funding. The grant process is also highly political. The short story is that colleges and universities are all clamoring for grant money, from all sources, hence the recent obsession from academia with climate change research.

Researchers have “linked” climate change to human activity; more specifically, the use of fossil fuels. So, let’s understand what’s driving the increase use of fossil fuels.

The total number of living humans on Earth is now greater than 7 billion. This large global population is a recent development. As recent as 200 years ago the world population was estimated at less than 1 billion. So, we’ve added about 6 billion people to the planet in the last 200 years. Each of these individuals require energy, is a 98.6 F heat source and produce tons of CO2 from breathing; not to mention CH4, methane gas, through the digestive process culminating in fecal matter. In order to survive ALL organisms must convert potential energy sources into kinetic energy. In the process, we generate byproducts such as CO2 and CH4 methane gas; furthermore, this conversion process, potential energy to kinetic energy, is inefficient. This means that it takes more potential energy per given output of kinetic energy. In other words, we produce less kinetic energy than the amount of potential energy needed to produce it – a classical example is the internal combustion engine which has an efficiency of just about 30%. So, we think it’s safe to say that what drives fossil fuel consumption is a rapidly growing global population. Fossil fuels and its byproducts provide electric energy, fertilizers and pesticides that increase crop yields per acre of land, they directly provide lighting and heating in many of the worlds undeveloped nations and fossil fuels and their derivatives satisfy many other needs that support life. At issue, is the concern that in the process of consuming fossil fuels, CO2 and several contaminants are released into the atmosphere that researchers postulate are changing the global climate.

Proponents of the climate change argument share two goals, the first is an aggressive reduction in the use of fossil fuels and aggressively increase renewable energy sources. Both are admirable objectives, but as we all know, the devil is in the details.

Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels without a suitable substitute is equivalent to depriving auger to a bacterial culture in a Petri dish. Although carbon dioxide and sulfur are byproducts of converting the potential energy locked in fossil fuels into kinetic energy, fossil fuels, with current technology, are capable of yielding higher energy outputs than alternative energy sources. A barrel of oil has greater energy yields than current alternative energy sources. Because of that difference, a solar powered electric plant is less efficient than a fuel oil powered plant. The clearest way to present that concept is to say that a 10,000 sq. ft. oil fired electric plant produces more energy than a 10,000 sq. ft. solar powered plant.

The difference in technology efficiencies make alternative energy sources much higher in cost, and because energy has little price elasticity, alternative energy’s higher costs would dramatically reduce consumer disposable incomes and add significantly to the cost of production across the economy. In economics, the concept of price elasticity measures changes in quantity demanded as prices fluctuate. When a product or commodity is price inelastic, it means that quantity demanded remains fairly consistent regardless of selling price. Energy is relatively price inelastic, and because energy is essential to life demand for energy remains high regardless of its selling price.

To accelerate the economy’s conversion to alternative energy sources some believe that restricting domestic energy production from fossil fuels would drive its cost  higher; thereby, making the higher less efficient alternative energy source more cost effective. A move that would quite likely have disastrous consequences for the global economy.

The increasing global population is placing increasing demands on the planet for energy, food, water and air. We don’t believe that the academic community’s preoccupation with climate change is productive. We need to devote our efforts and research to improving the efficiency of energy production so we get a larger bang per barrel of oil, or cubic foot of gas or a ton of coal. We need our support systems to use energy more efficiently and we need to look for ways to increase food production per acre of land. We need to eliminate contaminants that attack and destroy bio regulators like plankton, forests and vegetation (The Guarding has an excellent article that illustrates the point “Earth has lost a third of arable land in past 40 years, scientists say” the problem is not climate change)

Before we sign off, we’d like to close by saying that terrorism is not driven by climate change and represents a much more serious and immediate problem than climate change. Terrorism relies on corrupt and weak local governments, and because investment is risk averse, terrorism’s greatest threat is that it impedes economic development in underdeveloped countries.

From us to you, have a great weekend, be safe and have fun but spend some quality time with your buds and family.

21 Days To Christmas!