Joe Kraynak

Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America

I haven’t read the book, but I watched Thomas L. Friedman on Meet the Press last Sunday. Based solely on what I heard during the interview, I can’t believe that this book is a number 1 bestseller.

Why? Because I remember hearing this same sort of thing back in 2000.

In fact, if Friedman had a paper bag over his head, I would’ve sworn it was Al Gore. One of Gore’s central themes during his 2000 presidential campaign was to use global warming as a way to stimulate economic growth through the development of green technologies.

If you’ve read the book (or you happen to be Thomas L. Friedman, not Al Gore pretending to be Thomas L. Friedman or vice versa), please let me know what you think. Maybe you can convince me that it’s worth reading. Friedman certainly didn’t convince me through his appearance on Meet the Press.

Energy Crisis? Google to the Rescue

You might think that given the high cost of gas and the pollution spewed out by burning coal and other fossile fuels, our government would be spearheading the development of alternative fuels. As with most things, however, the solution is having to come from the private sector. Fortunately, an innovative and relatively new company is stepping up to the plate.

When most of us hear “Google,” we think of the search engine that helps us find stuff on the Internet, but Google is now taking the lead in tapping alternative sources of energy. As reported in the recent Geotimes article, “Changing the World One Kilowatt at a Time,” by Megan Sever, Google is putting its efforts behind three alternative sources of energy - solar thermal, high-altitude wind, and enhanced geothermal powers. Google’s goal? To have clean technologies that are ready to start to scale up and that will cost less than coal within 10 years.

Is Google doing anything to help with the current gas prices and future oil shortages? The article didn’t mention anything about this, but I think tapping any sort of clean energy source to produce electricity can contribute to resolving any future oil shortages. After all, the main thing preventing hydrogen from becoming an economical replacement for gas is the fact that it costs more (in electricity) to produce than the power it generates. With plenty of cheap electricity, we can start producing the hydrogen we need.

For more about Google’s plan, check out “ RE<C (Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal).”

Global Warming or Cooling?

I’ve posted a couple pieces questioning the science that fuels global warming alarmism: “Global Warming? I Dunno” and “The Politics of Global Warming.” This morning, I woke up to an article on FOXNews entitled “Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age, Says Scientist.”

Here we go again.

I don’t put any more stock in this ice age alarmism than I do in the current decade’s global warming alarmism. The truth is that we just don’t even have enough good scientific evidence yet to determine whether the Earth is warming up or cooling down let alone to determine what’s causing the warm up or cool down.

I’m just keeping my fingers crossed that we have the capacity to produce enough greenhouse gasses to prevent the next ice age. I may just need to keep my car running constantly.

The Politics of Global Warming

In “Global Warming? I Dunno,” I discussed my reservations about buying into the global warming alarmists belief that Earth is warming due to human activities. The May 2008 edition of the Trumpet carries a report written by Brad MacDonald entitled, “A Really Inconvenient Truth,” in which he exposes some of the political pressure tactics used to promote the global warming alarmists’ agenda.

Of course, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and we do need to manage our natural resources wisely, so I support many of the goals of the “alarmists.” The problem I have with them is the way they’re going about it—politicizing science and browbeating scientists whose research results contradict their own conclusions. That’s no way to get at the truth, however inconvenient the proper approach may be.

Global Warming? I Dunno

Several years ago, I had a heated discussion about global warming with one of my wife’s friends - a self-proclaimed scientist. She had jumped on the global warming bandwagon and thought that anyone who disagreed with the “facts” that the world was quickly warming up and humans were the primary cause was an idiot. This particular evening, I was the idiot she decided to attack.

The latest on global warming? “U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease.”

I’m no scientist, but I do have a Jesuit education, which qualifies me as a lifelong skeptic. I wasn’t arguing with her that recent past years were warmer. I could feel that myself. I also thought that maybe humans were the cause. My point, the point which apparently made me an idiot, was that I just didn’t know why recent past years were warmer. I read everything I could get my hands on about the topic, and none of the data convinced me that anyone really knew.

I think my saying that I didn’t know was actually a more scientific approach than why my so-called “scientist” acquaintance was taking. “I don’t know” fuels scientific curiosity and exploration. If you pretend to know and jump to a particular conclusion, then exploration stops, and you never have a chance of discovering the truth. That’s pretty much my definition of “ignorance.”

Even in the days of the poet Robert Frost, “scientists” were lining up on the two sides of this issue. Frost’s poem ”Fire and Ice” gives us a historical perspective on this debate. 

Fire and Ice
  
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. 

Robert Frost

Is the world heating up or cooling down, and if so, why? I dunno.