A Plea for Rational, Responsible Economic Environmentalism

There is, in fact, no scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, let alone the alleged extent or most likely causes. And the recent exposure of emails by the CRU cabal may have mortally wounded the efforts of the crisis-mongers pushing the human-caused-global-warming scenario.

(Kim Strassel: Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.)

But the diminishing stature of this faked crisis is actually a cause for some concern. Just because these latest crisis profiteers have tainted their crisis-of-the-decade, that doesn't mean we need the pendulum of public concern for the environment to swing too far back in the other direction. Why? Because we'll always need clean air and clean water.

Clean air, clean water, and the broadest possible bio-diversity are good things, and economic activities (and government policies that impact economic activities) should take them into account.

For those who tend to think that unrestrained free-enterprise is perfect, let me remind you that people making decisions for profit only, without regard to the environmental impact of their decisions, have caused some horrendous pollution and damaged the health of many millions of people world-wide.

On the other extreme, for those who act like the environment is their god, let me remind you that moderated free-enterprise has led to many scientific achievements that allow us to measure and quantify our environment while providing livelihoods for billions of people.

So, let's be rational. Let's encourage economic growth that takes the environment into account and work to improve both our economic engines and our environment.

United Nations Inquiry

Okay, it's not quite Thanksgiving yet, but if someone's wondering what to get me as a Christmas present, here's something I'd like:

Please list all the good things the United Nations has accomplished, excluding all the good things where the United States alone was responsible for 90% or more of the good thing (by dollars or people), and total up all the United Nations has cost, adjusting for inflation and breaking out the costs borne by the United States as a separate number.

I'm not someone who thinks the U.N. has never accomplished anything good, but I also don't think we should keep it if it's not producing more value than it consumes.

Here's my analogy #2,357: If you have a car that gets you to work sometimes, that's a good thing. But if it fails to get you to work most of the time and if repairs and maintenance cost more than a new car, how long would you keep the old car?

I just want to be honest about the U.N. and determine it's real worth.

Any takers?

Global Warming FAIL

For all my non-Twittering friends, "FAIL" is shorthand for disapproving or disavowing something. No, I don't Twitter either, but I'm familiar with some of it.

So, Global Warming. It's common knowledge that real scientists have formed a solid, near-universal consensus that global warming is fast approaching irreversible, catastrophic damage to Earth's climate due primarily to human activity and we should do everything and anything we can to reverse our activities, even if it ruins national economies, for the sake of human survival. Wow. And it's common knowledge because most reporters and commentators in the mass media believe that, and keep repeating it in articles and on TV. Movie writers and producers reinforce it by weaving it in as an underlying assumption or outright plot-points. And they usually have lots of quotes from "scientists" who earn their livings from the grants they get, and the more dire their predictions, the more funding they're given.

Too bad the consensus isn't true. It's not even close to true. Follow this link to an article citing a petition signed by over 32,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D.'s and scores of Nobel laureates, all of whom are not part of the alleged consensus.

So if your elected representatives support the idiotic Cap & Trade legislation, you might want to point this out to them. If they have functioning intellects.

"Whatever You Need, We'll Give It To You"

I've been listening to the pontificating on C-SPAN as the House prepares to vote on Pelosi's health insurance (not health care) reform bill, and must conclude that some of our national politicians are ignoramuses themselves or they're intentionally pandering to an ignorant constituency.

Do the ignorant ones think that an insurance company is a stingy rich uncle with unlimited money and everyone can have anything they want if they can just convince the uncle to be more generous or if they can take the uncle's money by force of law?

Modern insurance works on one fundamental principal: Each insurance program must take in more money in premiums than it pays out in benefits. This is true regardless of whether the organization behind it is for-profit or non-profit, and certainly includes civil governments. Insurance is a means of allowing a group of people to share financial risk, not a magically infinite source of money.

Some have said, "We're making health care a right." Oh, really? You're going to make something with a price tag a civil right? You're going to put it on the same level as the right to life and the right to liberty? And what will you do when the well runs dry? And when the group of patients need two dollars worth of health care for every dollar paid in insurance premiums, what will you tell those who complain that their rights are being denied?

The truth is they're not talking about improving health care. They're talking about changing health insurance in a manner by which the civil government will control how health care is rationed, rather than allowing freedom of choice.

And some of these folks are claiming, with a straight face, that the Federal bureaucracy is going to cover hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the increased costs by making things more efficient and reducing fraud? Oh? Like they have with Veteran's health care, Medicaid, and Medicare?

Here's my two cents' worth of opinion: make the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare effective, efficient, and fraud-free, and then I'll have a basis to believe the Federal government can do a better job with public health insurance than the free market and non-profits are doing now.

Imprecision and Bogus Econ

Just read a couple of different articles. One about evolution and one about how many jobs the most recent U.S. Federal stimulus program has created. They both annoyed me a lot, and for the same reason. What do these topics have in common?

Confusing or misleading imprecision by the authors.

Evolution: The author used the term repeatedly, but never specified when he was talking about evolution within species or among species. They aren't the same thing, but this author, and many others, seem to think they are.

Jobs: The author of the article I read, the interview subjects, and the reports cited estimate how many jobs have been created by the Federal government passing out tax money. In this article and in others, there's little or no talk about what kind of jobs.

For one thing, there's a big difference between creating a minimum-wage job and a job for a highly-skilled person. For another, there's an even bigger difference between a temporary job and a permanent job.

So, the Federal government takes $15,000 in taxes from you and I, then passes $12,000 to a company that will create jobs. (I don't really think the Federal government would have such a low administrative overhead, but I don't want to get into that issue here.) That company hires 12 people for one month each. Some reports were initially claiming that the Federal government's actions had created 12 jobs, but then people started catching on, so some folks started adjusting the counts to equal full-time employees for one year, making the example above equal one job created. Except that those were temporary jobs. When the handout money ran out, the jobs ran out. That might not be so bad if the Federal government could keep taking enough money from taxpayers to keep shoveling money at companies and organizations to keep people employed, but they can't. So, the Feds have "created or saved" X number of jobs. Please. They created or saved X number of temporary jobs. Does anyone think a very short-term temporary job is as good for the economy as a permanent job? Of course not.

But, a temporary job is better than nothing, right? Well, what was the cost of that short-term job? Money taken from taxpayers, both individuals and companies. What might that money have been used for, if it hadn't been taken as taxes and redistributed? Most individuals would have used their extra money to buy things. Which would have... wait for it... stimulated the economy! Except that this is longer-term stimulation. Most companies would invest their extra money. In what? Primarily raw goods, services, and payroll. Which would have... you got it: stimulated the economy! And again, with much longer-term repercussions.

These ignorant folks waxing eloquent about the success of the Federal stimulus package may have been some of the same folks who claimed that the cash-for-clunkers program was a great success. Well, if success was subsidizing car purchases for a month or two, then it was successful, alright. However, many of those purchasers were enticed to purchase a new car to replace their old car sooner than they otherwise would have. The secondary impacts include this: For each one of those people who would have otherwise purchased a car next year, now they won't. All the cash-for-clunkers did in these cases was to shift a small number of future purchases to current purchases, weakening the future economy.

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder if any of our bone-headed politicians have even read an economics textbook?

Political Global Warming

Many of our glorious politicians declare repeatedly that global warming is a crisis, and they must do something to save us all. Even if it means spending all our money and all our children's money. But that's okay, because they base their rhetoric and fear-mongering on cold, hard science, right?

Thanks to their intrepid fund-raising, uh, I mean campaigning to educate we ignorant masses, everyone now knows the truth that global warming is caused primarily by rising levels of atmospheric carbon gas. And the rises in atmospheric carbon gas have been measured very carefully, and have indeed been going up and up, for the last 20 years and beyond.

So, then, what do you think is the warmest year in modern recorded history? Last year? This year? If atmospheric carbon gas causes global warming, and it has been going up every single year the last 2 decades, then you would reasonably expect...

1998.

1998 was the warmest year in modern recorded history. Despite that nasty continuous growth in gaseous carbon. Huh. What could possibly account for that incredible anomaly?

Could there be some other factor at work? Could carbon gas be a non-decisive factor after all? Of course not, that would mean the impossible, that our politicians weren't basing their agitation on scientifically established facts.

I guess we'll just have to wait another century or so, and let our great-grandkids figure it out.

In the meantime, does anyone know where I left my sunglasses?

Exercise-Induced Asthma

Well, chalk up one more malady in my medical chart, add a problem I didn't even realize was a problem, and then cross that problem off the list.

During my annual physical a few weeks back, my doc asked me some questions no one ever asked before. My answers prompted more questions, and she began to suspect I might have exercise-induced asthma. I didn't know there was such a thing. I figured the trouble I've had breathing after running for a few minutes was normal. Those who know my history well know that there was a period of 20 years or so when my health was too poor to run, but I can clearly remember the same breathing problems while running in my twenties.

Well, Doctor Drew gave me an Advair sampler disk, which is an inhaler-gizmo with long-term anti-asthma drugs. She urged me to try it, and I did. Wow! What a difference!

Breathing is no longer my weak link while running... now it's my muscles, as it's probably supposed to be. So, despite my lungs not being fully recovered from the flu yet (it's dragging out a really long time), I'm running again and enjoying it even more than usual. What a blessing! Maybe I can finally start working on increasing speed or distance.

Breathing... I can personally recommend it!

The Cutest PC in the World!

In case you haven't see it, here is the cutest PC you will ever see:

Do You Trust Your Doctor?

Do you trust your doctor completely? When they're prescribing medication, you shouldn't. It's a lot of extra trouble, but if you want to do your best to make sure you're pursuing the best health you can, you should research everything you can about medications they prescribe. This article gives some good background on how marketing drives much of pharmacology industry, to the detriment of our health.

Being God's Pockets

From an article in the NY Times: The paramount moral challenge... in this century, is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape.

Regardless of whether you like the NY Times or not, regardless of whether you can think of other serious issues to give your attention, this is certainly an area where the Body of Christ can and should make a difference in the world. We're familiar with the idea of being God's hands and feet by being missionaries and personally going overseas to preach the Gospel. But you can also stay home and give money to support other people who work as missionaries. And you can also provide very small no-interest loans to desperate people around the world, through organizations like Kiva. You don't have to do this instead of contributing to missions, you can do it in addition. As little as $25 can make a huge difference in people's lives.

That's why I've tagged this NY Times article. Read the first page and you'll see how a mere $65 changed the life of a Pakistani woman named Saima, who was in a very nasty situation. And you'll see how the effect of that loan grew to help other families through Saima.

Typically, multiple people each put up a small portion of a loan, sharing the risk. Note making zero-interest loans is not a way to plan for your retirement. But it is a way to help improve lives and make poor societies more stable, and therefore likely to produce fewer terroristic maniacs.

The more financially stable families there are in a country like Afghanistan, for instance, the less power groups like the Taliban have. So please consider making a loan to a hard working, but poor person, just because you like helping people, or to make the world a little safer place for you, your family, or for the missionaries in those countries.

An Old, Unknown Empidemic

Your family probably has a very serious health problem that you've never heard of. The latest flu? No, this has probably been an epidemic since people started working in factories and office buildings, but has gone unnoticed and unheralded until very recently. So I'm writing this little note to add a little heralding.

From WebMD: "Seven out of 10 U.S. children have too-low vitamin D levels, putting them at risk of heart disease, rickets, and weak bones... Vitamin D deficiency is a serious health threat..."

70%! Every family is probably affected. Your family is probably affected!

While the linked article is about children (of all ages), do a little more research and you'll find that vitamin D inadequacy and deficiency is also prevalent among adults.

Doctors have been increasingly aware of the seriousness of vitamin D inadequacy and deficiency, not only for physical health, but also for mental heath. And they've been increasingly aware that they have not been adequately monitoring the problem, which prompted the study at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine behind the article linked above. "We expected the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency would be high, but the magnitude of the problem nationwide was shocking."

So, read the linked article, read other articles, then get everyone in your family tested to find out what your vitamin D levels are, and if they're low, start getting more. If you take vitamin D supplements, make sure they're vitamin D3. Get it locally to start with, and while you're taking those, you can save money by ordering online. This is where I get my vitamins, and no, that's not an affiliate link so I'll get a little commission if you buy something there. It's just a link directly to a reliable source of inexpensive vitamin D3, from a large vitamin manufacturer.

By the way, my doctor found my vitamin D inadequacy a few years ago, and I started taking supplements, and it makes a big difference to my energy levels and helps me keep a positive attitude toward life. I'm sure, because I have a compartmentalized pill box with a box for each day of the week. That let's me see when I've forgotten to take my vitamin D, B-complex, fish oil, thyroid pill, and blood pressure med. When I forget them for a day, I can see a real difference. When I forget them for 2 days in a row, I see a much bigger difference. And a few times I've run out of D when I had the other things, so I learned what it was like to take everything except D, and wow, does D make a big difference!

Remember, 70% of U.S. kids have inadequate vitamin D, and 10% have full-on vitamin D deficiency, and it causes a wide variety of mild to very serious health problems. And since it's easy to test for, and cheap to take supplements, don't ignore it!!

Running Record

Logging when I'm not too tired and not too forgetful afterward.

2Jul2009, some distance, in some number of minutes. I've been going on fun runs around the neighborhood, so I don't track how far, and usually don't track how long, though I'd guess in the 20-40 minute range. I learned 2 things while running tonight: 1) I'm not fast enough to outrun mosquitoes; and 2) Lightening bugs are as awesome now as they were when I was a kid!

6Jun2009, 5k Race for the Cure. I finished, and I'm happy with that. It was perfect weather, not too hot, not too cold, slightly overcast, but not too humid. I was less than perfect. As the race began, I was in a porta-pottie with "the runs." Got done and there were so many people, it took awhile before I could even get to the starting line. This also meant that the entire crowd was in front of me, and it stayed crowded the entire time I was running. The RFID tag on my shoe should give me an accurate time whenever they post it, but I got anxious and once I got started, I ran on the outside much faster than my usual pace. Faster than usual meant I was certain to have to stop and walk some, and I did. During my first slow-down, I started feeling like I might have to barf, so I made a conscious decision not to push myself. I know the timer at the finish line was 42 minutes and something, but I have no idea how long it was between the official start and my start. I'll find out in a few days, I guess. So, I'm a survivor of the race, though that's a different kind of surviving than those wearing the pink shirts...

The results are in: 30m 31s
50-54 age group, 74th out of 186
All men: 1446 out of 2762



5Apr2009, Cherry Blossom 5k Run/Walk from near the Washington Monument to the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery and back. I finished in 27 minutes and 13 seconds! The best time I've ever run 5k since my thyroid problems started causing leg problems. [Correction: 2nd best time.] And somehow I ran the whole way - no walking!

Didn't get much sleep on the 12 hour trip home from Hawai'i, Carla & Niah picked me up at the airport, went home, changed clothes, and off we went to the Metro station. We got to the starting area with just a few minutes to spare. Niah & Daniel ran with me, and Promise went with us to hold our junk. Carla and Rebecca weren't feeling up to going with us.

I easily got up to the front of the crowd, the starter counted us down, and off we went. That's when I learned there's a notable disadvantage to starting in the very front: there's no one for you to pass, and plenty of people that might pass you. And a lot of people passed me. I did okay the first 1/2 mile or so, and then started thinking I'd have to walk some before I hit a mile. But I got to a mile, and then I figured I'd try to make the half-way point at 1.55 miles. I made it and that got me jazzed up a bit, so I tried hard to make it to the 2 mile mark. I made that and heard my time and did a little pondering on what my final time might look like depending on how much walking I had to do before the end, but I soon realized I was on the last mile, so I decided to try to keep trudging along a little bit farther. Then I started trying to recognize where the end was. Sometimes when my pace gets too hard to continue, I can actually keep going by speeding up, which changes my stride, and changes how I'm using my muscles a little bit. With about a half mile to go, I sped up just a bit, and it was enough of a change. Then I estimated about 1/8 of a mile to go and tried to give a final kick. I kicked okay, but started losing breathing control, and then realized the end was farther away than I had estimated, and I had kicked too soon. I was about 50 yards away and about to slow down to a stagger when I remembered they'd have cameras taking photos as people approached the finish line. Well that was excellent motivation. I gave up on breathing control altogether and sped up to a gasping sprint to cross the finish line, stumble over to the grass and collapse. Promise and a race volunteer kept an eye on me to make sure I didn't need a doctor or something. I just needed to pant awhile until I got my oxygen balance back.

I finished 70th out of 410 men, and 3rd out of 20 in my age group. Not bad, eh? Well, I'd feel a lot better about it if I hadn't been trounced by Alexander Van Valkenbu, a nine-year-old who finished in 24:45. And after I had asked him nicely before the race not to make me look too bad. ;)

28Mar2009, 3.1 miles in just over 38 minutes. First 2 miles in 18m3s, but then had to walk a lot. Home treadmill, 1/2 degree incline. Cherry Blossom 5k in 8 days. My return flight from Honolulu is scheduled to arrive at 6:19 AM, and the race starts at 8:40 AM. If the plane's not too late, I should be able to get there, but not sure how much energy I'll have.

24Mar2009, 3.1 miles in 30m3s. Went 2 miles in just under 19 minutes before having to walk a bit, on home treadmill.

22Feb2009, 1.75 miles in 17m2s, home treadmill.

20Feb2009, running delayed due to bruised ribs, just ran 1.5 miles in 13.5 minutes, no walking, treadmill.

2Feb2009, 1st mile in 9m, total 1.75 miles, ~17m, hotel treadmill, Seattle

27Jan2009, ~1 mile, ~12m, 29 degrees, outdoor IN THE SNOW!, gently rolling terrain. (Last time I ran in the snow, 30 years ago, I ran a distance of 5 miles, but probably ran about 10 miles counting all the slipping and sliding!)

19Jan2009, 1 mile, 8m35s, treadmill

6Apr2008, Cherry Blossom 5k Run/Walk, 28:47

7Jun2008, Komen National Race for the Cure - 5K, 26:23