Would you rather have the Black Plague or piles and piles of gold?
Gold please, right? Well, if you're like anyone in Lubeck, Germany in 1347 you'd pass on both. At the time, the Black Plague was ripping through Europe killing over 30% of the population... That's a huge number by the way. Compare that stat to the Second World War, which lasted about the same length of time as the Black Plague and is the single deadliest conflict the world has ever seen.
During WWII, less than 5% of the European population died from both battle and genocide.
So imagine this horrible scenario, 30% of the people around you have died from an invisible plague. Who do you turn to?
Well the broken citizens in Lubeck, Germany (Not knowing that the plague is being caused by fleas traveling on the backs of rats.) decided that maybe this plague would halt if they were to appease God's wrath. They gathered up huge amounts of gold, jewelry, money, and riches then took them to the local churches and monasteries as an offering. The monks inside one of the monasteries were so fearful of catching the plague that they locked the citizens, their own followers, outside of their gates!
Soon, a large, desperate crowd grew outside the monastery gates and began throwing their coins, jewels, gold, and money over the walls - but the monks threw it all back! This continued for hours. Throwing riches back and forth over the walls until the monks finally gave in and let the valuables remain in their monastery. After the incident, piles of riches 3 to 4 feet high sat untouched for years.
Moral of the story? When you strip away all the excess, unnecessary complications of life and view it in the simplest form, as the people of Lubeck were forced - Would you rather continue on living your life as it is today or risk your life by hoarding the treasure in a Lubeck monastery?
If your life isn't fulfilling maybe the rare metals sound like a good gamble.
I'm not saying everyone should be a Transcendentalist, reject technology and modern economics, then move to Walden Pond by any means - I love capitalism, the free market, and advancing civilization. BUT to combat having a boring life, I've built the company Warrior West Projects (www.warriorwest.com) to encourage travel and 'experiencing' life in a true sense.
If you're into extreme sports such as this recent Warrior West Projects Dirt Bike Outing on the Red River:
And if you prefer bird watching over driving dirt bikes through flooded rivers we just want to spend time doing things you're passionate about with the important people in your life.
As we all know, Global Warming is in the news a whole lot more these days - which is definitely a good thing. Whichever side of the debate you fall on I hope we all realize Global Warming is, at the very least, an important issue to discuss with an open dialog.
My issue with the science of the Big Globe Warm:
1. We do not have the means/technology to predict the future temperature of the Globe with any decent validity and reliability. It's impossible to actually know what will happen with climate change. As humans, we could never grasp, organize, and predict the effect of the infinite variables involved in how warm or how cold our Earth will be in 10, 20, or 100 years. If we look back a couple decades, we'll find that in the 1970s there was also much concern over the obsolete theory of Global Cooling, and the coming of another Ice Age. Science has not improved that much in 30 years, it really hasn't.
2. So with that said, we have to use historic measurements to predict the Earth's future temperature. The issue there is the very basic factthat past performance is never a predictor of future performance. Example: The Stock Market. A stock price with an upward trend does not mean that the stock price will continue upward. It may continue upward, it may not. But that has to do with the actual health of the company and nothing to do with the chart itself. And just as it's very hard to predict the health of a public company, it is a whole heck of a lot harder to predict the future climate on Earth! Predicting stocks with any type of decent certainty is hard, and we know a lot more about the tendencies of stocks then we do a 4.54 billion year old planet. The past doesn't predict the future, and even if it did, we still wouldn't have anywhere near enough historic measurements about the Earth's climate changes to make a prediction - considering we've missed well over 4 billion years of measurements.
3. Correlation does not imply Causation. Two variables may be correlated but that is not proof that one variable causes the other. It could be a whole list of completely different variables causing an effect on both variables (such as the case of Global Warming). The only absolutely certain thing we know is that we are NOT certain what is causing Global Warming.
To be clear, I'm not saying there is no Global Warming, I am saying that no one knows with 100% confidence exactly what causes the Earth to Warm and Cool.
So ignore the issue? Heck no! Are you crazy?
I believe we should take very decisive action against Global Warming: I know, I know, this probably does not make sense. First, I form an argument against our ability to show proof of Global Warming. Then, I say we need to take decisive action against something we aren't even sure is there? Well, yes.
It's called basic Risk Management. And the risk we're trying to manage is far too high to ignore. It is well worth some economic expense to try to curb the actual possibility, of you know, not having an Earth to live on any longer.
The video below will explain the thought process a little further. Applying the Risk Management Theory to the Global Warming debate is finally applying some logic to a topic with so much uncertainty. I like it! The video below is not absent of some small faults but click play, sit back, and enjoy...