I'll judge you by the company you keep

I'll judge you by the friends you keep....

     In response to the recently trending sound-bytes of Leonardo DiCaprio, an average Hollywood talent at best, taking time away from his lucrative career in order to address the United Nations on his view of climate change, scolding the rest of us for being lousy Earth stewards,  I'm feeling a little fired up on a subject that just won't go away.  And rather than jumping to my usual response in calling him a hypocritical jackass, I'll approach it with the following....

    Let me go on the record first in saying I actually DO believe in climate change.  I believe in things I can see and feel directly; things that are tangible and easily documented.  Anyone who has lived for at least 15 years and has the ability to look out of a window would agree. Of course the climate changes, silly.  It changes every day, week, month, year and so on.  And never in the history of our planet has it ever trended in one direction indefinitely without undergoing change. In fact, the changes have often been extreme.  Just when you expect another cold winter, along comes a mild one. 

     "Deniers", as they are called are the boogeyman to environmentalists.  They are the straw-man, the monster under your bed, etc. There is no such thing as a climate change "denier" per se.  However, agreeing with one another as to what is the root cause for climate change is a completely different discussion.  

     Now I am sensible enough to realize this argument is not going to go away for a long time for no other reason than the climate change advocates stand to make literally billions of dollars every year by convincing enough people that there is a problem and then proposing a solution for a nominal fee.  Others anoint themselves "ambassadors" on the subject and receive heftily lined pockets for speaking engagements on the matter.  But the argument technically should die. Why? For two reasons. First, we are powerless to do much if anything about it due to our own meager insignificance in comparison to the size of the Earth, its climate and the primary drivers for its amazingly dynamic ever-changing personality. Secondly, the climate soothsayers are currently batting a perfect .000 in every major prediction they have made over the past 30+ years; everything from the supposed outbreak of acid rain, to all glaciers melting by the early 21st century, ocean levels dropping by over twenty feet to the botched hurricane predictions after Katrina. Why on Earth have we not tagged these people as quacks decades ago and moved on with our lives?  Because their pop-culture spokespeople are provided with a continuously renewable supply of adoring and worshipping fans that elevate them to deity status and will willingly hang from every idiotic word that falls from their lips, period.  And congratulations to them all.  Their blind adoration toward the Hollywood environmentalists has swelled their egos to the point where they truly believe their own emotionally driven opinions, by default, will always trump scientific fact.  And they rarely speak in terms of facts, only opinions. A "fact" to one of these people is an opinion they sincerely wish were true, not one that actually is. 

     A quick review of the facts we know; The Earth has been evolving and undergoing dynamic climate change ever since it first cooled over 4 billion years ago.  Sedimentary rock can do wonders to support this evidence while ice core samples or even the analysis of tree rings can do the same to explain more recent events.  Continents, via Plate Tectonics move in different directions across the Earth's surface at about the same rate your fingernails grow. Over millions of years, this has lead to dramatically different land masses (large continents, inland seas, mountain ranges, etc.) which can greatly affect climate.  Ocean currents and global water temperatures can affect them it well.  Also, there are anomalies such as the Earth's rotational wobble cycle which takes some 26,000 years to compete. That has been theorized as to be a major driver for ice ages. Then throw in your solar activity, volcanism, etc.  All of these take place on a massive scale - a scale far more massive than little ol' us.  The Earth is very large. So are mountains and continents. The Sun is obviously far larger than all of those combined. To think that we are so powerful as a species to have dramatically affected the Earth's climate is a tad on the narcisissitic side. One thing to consider is if you take every human on Earth and stand them all front to back and side by side, they'd all fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.  We are really very small and insignificant in comparison to the Earth and its dramatic geological history. Even if you discount the the time period prior to when the first life forms appeared on Earth, the global temperatures on average, have been MUCH warmer than they are right now. Ice ages are relatively short. In fact, some theorize that we are still technically coming out of the last ice age. 

    Now I find it perfectly plausible that human energy consumption along with its gaseous byproducts that we have exhausted into the atmosphere for the past 100+ years or so may very well have some measurable affect on the overall climate.  Despite my pride in our advancements as a species, I'm not exactly proud of that side effect.  But remember, the climate is a sum of ALL contributing factors which most certainly includes many of which I just mentioned.  So I have to ask a simple question to those who believe we alone are the sole perpetrators for climate change... "What was causing it before we all got here??" Or at least "What caused it prior to the Industrial Revolution?"

     Now that all being said, I am not an excessive energy consumer.  I do not drive an RV to work nor do I rent limousines.  I go out of my way to recycle whenever possible. I turn off the lights in my house when I leave.  I have been transitioning to energy efficient bulbs, I turn off the water when I brush my teeth, etc. It's the little things that all add up. Some call it being a good steward of the Earth, I call it being "unwasteful".  I don't like to waste things, be it time, water, energy nor money.  

      Do you know who IS an excessive energy consumer? Leonardo DiCaprio, that's who. He has multiple homes, rents a super yacht that gets some 1/4 nautical miles to the gallon, flies in private jets and takes gas guzzling limousines to special events all over the world, burning large amounts of fossil fuels so he can tell you and I that we need to burn less fossil fuels.

      The exact causes for climate change are far from being 100% known and are thus far from being categorized into scientific "law" by definition. A general consensus of privileged elitist pop-culture icons who stand to make millions of dollars championing the cause will not cut it.  And like any other current hypothesis, you will have scientists challenging one another from opposing views.  And since the rest of us are NOT scientists, we can choose to listen to those scientists we have the most faith in their sincerity and accuracy. I know which ones I choose.  

     How do I decide on who to believe? Where do I get MY science? From people that do their research for the common good and knowledge of all, from those that write in text books and magazines in order to educate the next generation, from those whose intent is to share only the facts and the theories they have compiled with his/her own tireless research without attaching a political agenda to it. Not those who stand to receive kickbacks from environmental advocacy groups and the politicians that stand to get elected via their financial support. 

    So my suggestion would be that if you are aiming to gather international support for your cause, avoid hiring the wolf to be a security consultant at the hen house. And in the mean time, shut the lights off when you leave the house today and don't run the A/C with the windows open.  

     So in closing, quell your fears and stop bickering. Just as the law of supply and demand encourages problems to solve themselves, the concern with CO2 emissions will as well.  The natural progression of energy technology will continue to lean in favor of cheaper, or better yet FREE resources. (wind, solar, geothermal,etc.)  Why? Because there is an ever-growing international demand for both greater supplies of energy and increased costs savings, both of which together are known as "free renewable energy".  As a result, there is a race among the the potential developers of these technologies  to tap that gargantuan market.  They are incentivized more than every before to reach it.  Even if they are a hapless selfish bastard that is only in it for the money and could care less about the environment, the better result will still be the outcome.  It just so happens that this is a rare instance where our desire for self servitude (free stuff) also happens to coincide with what is ultimately best for the environment as a whole.  And the best part is aside from cleaning up after yourself and making a concerted effort to not be wasteful, you hardly need to do a thing.  There are plenty of engineers and scientists hard at work getting us closer to this solution every day. So perhaps, the next time you wish to blindly deem someone's life's work as "junk science" simply because their data doesn't make you feel very good about yourself, step back and think again. 

Take your lumps and move on....

     Any one of us at some point in our lives has been guilty of being able to dish out the criticisms of another person while not doing a very good job taking them back once the tides turn on us. Today I am seeing that once again. For those of you on the losing side of the aisle, still not able to accept the fact that a majority of Americans are not happy with the overall policies of the current administration (among other things), and hence the recent mid-term election results, let me put it this way...

     The reason the GOP has taken over the Senate is because of something I anticipated a short time ago; that is the Democratic party has officially gone too far in their collection of idiotic political attacks. You can push the envelope in your ads for so long until even the greatest cynic in the room gets a little tired of the whining. When your campaign baseline is completely devoid of policies, all the while full of accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia, a large enough population of voters becomes so turned-off, they literally don't want to vote for you due to the simple fact that who in the hell wants someone that behaves like that in public office?

     I voted for George W. Bush both in 2000 & 2004 and although I was generally disappointed in his performance for the simple fact that in my opinion, he missed multiple opportunities to get some real initiatives put into place, I don't regret my decision to support him considering my alternate choices were Al Gore and John Kerry. I rest my case.

     Now after making it a point to spend the last several years being constructively critical of the current administration, that being I point out his mistakes while not deviating from the notion that I still believe the President is a decent, well-intentioned human being, I'm going to do something a little out of character and respond to the excessive backlash with more harshness than I usually feel comfortable dishing out. 

      For eight years, many of you (not ALL of you thank God) referred to George W. Bush as a "stupid, jerk, idiot, rube, evil, redneck, moron, asshole that should be impeached, thrown in jail, hung, shot, etc.  Now criticism can be a good thing, especially when it is well prepared and presented. Even if I still disagree with you, I appreciate you forcing me to engage in a healthy debate and to take the time to fully think my own premise through before I speak. But rarely did I hear even the faintest resemblence of a constructive critique other than the usual flailing of arms, face turning flush with anger and running through a cadence four-letter words indicating how passionately you loathed the man, and sometimes even jumping to the conclusion that you seem to loathe all Conservatives.  And of course my immediate thought was "I'm a Conservative. Is that really what you think of me?" 

     Now other than occasionally making my own objective case in defense for the man, (and I did NOT always defend him), I generally bit my tongue and just let some of you have your outbursts. I mean afterall, it is all part of the game. You either like the President, or you don't.

     For those of you that still think the President is doing a fine job, if he is getting the things done that you find more important, that's perfectly fine. Party on with your bad self. But please spare the rest of us this childish banter in trying to insist that "at least he is better than George W. Bush". That's a poor argument considering so many of you have invested a large amount of energy in trying to convince the world that he is a mental munchkin. Arguing your case that "yours is still better" is like saying "I know my child is stupid but at least he's not as dumb as yours".

     This morning I read an article by a Mark Morford (I've never heard of him either) and it really allowed for me to have a breakthrough in trying to understand the mentality of some of the Left. Here is the link if you'd like to skim through it. (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/07/08/the-best-worst-president-ever/) Note that the substance of his piece, probably 85% or higher is spent either whining about the so called mess that George W. Bush left behind (still blaming the previous guy) and the rest casting aspersions about a group of people of whom he knows nothing about, creating false statements and opinions in order to back his own weak theory. Just to trump some of his points, first, the Dow generally his record highs under every presidential administration, especially those with two terms, even if there is a sell off at some point. The President has little effect, positive nor negative on the Dow. Second, he clearly doesn't do research, which I find alarming for a published writer. The housing crisis started under Carter, was exacerbated by Clinton and ignored by Bush. If anything, it was a cooperative effort. But I've also made the point that sadly, we need events like that to happen this country in order to force us to pay attention to our excessive lending and borrowing at an unsustainable rate. Most of us have been guilty of it. I have as well and have learned my lesson. My current credit card debt is a little higher than normal this month due to some vet expenses; $309.58. 

     Now my own opinion of the current president is different. I don't think he is evil, nor unintellingent, nor do I feel he hates his own country and I certainly do not wish one shred of ill against he or his family. But I do feel he is in way over his head, spends too much time making excuses, blaming the previous administration and the current Congress (and now, the Senate will get their turn) for his own weak policies and failing to take action on major issues in a way that actually solves the problem as opposed to just ensuring more votes for his constituents. His primary cards are Racism and Republicans and sadly there are those who have been making it a point to try and group the two together. Additionally I believe he has become arrogant to the point where he feels he knows more about combat strategy than our highly decorated top military personnel.  This I find alarming as you all should. Poltical leaders have egos, I understand. To a degree they can even be an effective management tool. But they need to be self managed. When you catch yourself thinking you know more about something than an expert, you should pull back on your own reins and listen to what that person may have to say. I don't think Barack Obama does that very well. 

     I've actually made the point before that I honestly thought that Obama wouldn't be THAT bad of a president once he became acclimated to the role. I was wrong on that. Now I have been relatively vocal on my criticisms toward the President via social media but I have been far from vicous.  In fact, "slightly scathing" is about as far as I will take it. My goal is to make a valid point while hopefully not hurting friends and family, all of whose importance to me in my life far exceeds any concern I have toward his/her political views. I really don't care if you are a Socialist Atheist. If you are a part of my life, I love you. Period. But holding myself back on having an opinion all together is not going to happen. To me that is un-American and goes against one of my greatest passions in my life. I've already had to give up one passion recently. I'm not about to fold on another.  

     So in getting to my original point, to those of you that don't like my opinions, you can of course unsubscribe to my newsfeeds, manually ignore them, or even go so far as to unfriend me if you feel so violated by my values.  But please drop this notion that it is perfectly acceptable for you to dish it out for eight years while I am forbidden to occasionally give a little bit back. There is a term for that. It's called "being childish".  So stop being childish, step up to the plate and take your lumps like an adult just like the rest of us did for eight long years.