An analysis of “Failure To Launch Syndrome now Threatens the US Economy”, by Ph. D David F. Lancy

     “Failure to Launch” Syndrome is a problem described by psychologists as the lack of preparation, ambition to work, and self- supportiveness seen in the new generation of young adults. Ph. D David F. Lancy describes in his essay the causes of this problem and its devastating effects he believes it will have on the US economy. His research used correlational observations based on the new generation’s behaviors, parental influence, and motivations in society. Lancy uses two sets of scientific variables to determine his reasoning. In the first case, parent’s and society’s influence and presence in a child’s life is independent, while the child’s work ethic and motivation is dependent. In the follow up case, the work ethic and independence of the millennial generation is the independent variable and the outcome of the US economy is dependent. The argument made in the essay continues to use these show how these variables work together and how Failure to Launch syndrome is evident in our younger generation. Lancy describes, “ It arises from a perfect storm created by our modern child-rearing philosophy”.1.

      The researcher reveals how the causes for the syndrome are all around us rooted in our society. To describe how the problem is created, Lancy uses the example of aircraft technology being tested. An airplane can only be proven to work with test runs and experiments. With each failure the technology will be modified and improved. Failure to Syndrome is created because a number of things are wiping out the small failures made in the life of a young adult, and therefore removing the modifications made. Young people are “launched” into society without a proper test run.

      One of the variables that Lancy argues is causing the failure is that parental influence is being replaced. As shown by many psychologists, children pick up knowledge and ideas from observing others. They replicate actions and ideas incorporating them into their play, with similar make-believe activities. Unfortunately, as the writer reports, the observation of parents and society is also known as “fitting in” and is becoming an outdated social norm. He also adds that societies that exist in second and third world countries continue to practice these social norms, raising young people with better work ethic, which will later lead to economic problems. Lancy reports the reason for this change to be the common fact that children do not need to observe their parents anymore. He writes “Automobiles, smart-phones, part time-jobs, and the atmosphere of highschool and college allow adolescents to retreat from the world at large into a distinct youth culture”. On the contrary, he also adds factor of “helicopter parents” on the other side of the aisle just as easily inducing Failure to Launch syndrome. These are parents that work to take away every obstacle from a young adult’s path and as a whole removing the idea of failure from their mind. Lancy gives the idea that this way of parenting will fail the individual in the real world.

      In the second part of the essay the consequences of how Failure to Launch Syndrome will threaten the US economy. The main idea implied is that the new generation with a low work ethic will generally avoid “hard” subjects, like engineering, math and science. These are fields, Lancy reports, that are considerably outscored by immigrants, whose societies are not affecting young people like the millennials in America. With the absence of hard, competent workers, fields like these will either outright hire less American workers or move to countries that have workers meeting the requirements. The essay furthermore gives the opinion that young adults are now given less incentive to work because of too much safety, as it quotes, “ ´…more and more able-bodied men are out of work and are not even looking for work `”. This sources further states, “´It’s been more than ten years since I’ve been able to hire any young man born in the US and keep him for more than a month. Number one, these young guys nowadays have no idea of craftsmanship. Number two, they don’t have any interest in learning. None whatsoever`”.2. Lancy seems to reveal the answer to this problem as he writes, “ Our special children do not conform to social rules. They are given a pass on etiquette, politeness, and cooperation. They learn to ask from others- not to give. They have difficulty accepting the subordinate role of apprentice or employee and adhering to routines and following directions”. 3.

      From learning about the issue of Failure to Launch Syndrome in David F. Lancy’s research, it’s reality is clear. The extent of the reality is to the point that many mental health centers are now treating the problem. When Lancy compares young adults in the real world to airplanes on test runs the example seems to apply well to today’s society, and has roots to an even bigger philosophy. The “test run” example contains the idea that individuals will learn from their own mistakes when competing with others. Another comparison can be made to business competition in the real world. Competition between two companies will yield higher quality products and lower prices due to the businesses trying to outscore one another. Similarly, competition in the developing of young adults will cause them to make mistakes and eventually have more knowledge, work incentive, and wisdom. The “Helicopter parents” described are extremely guilty of removing this competition from young adults. They are so heavily devoted to save their kids from Social Darwinism, the theory that groups and individuals are subject to the same natural selection as plants and animals, that they hurt them more in the long run. They succeed in saving the individual from the natural selection they fear so much and simply leave them with no selection at all, which describes the nature of Failure to Launch.

      On the basis of parental guidance, the writer covers his opinion that parents are being replaced, but leaves out the variable of the absence of parents in society. Lancy covers the truth of society having an intolerance of social norms regarding the role of parental influence on the child, but does not acknowledge one of the most prominent social norms being broken in parenting. According to pew research, 46% are living with two parents.4. Children with the guidance of two parents are now a minority. Lancy’s statements implying that children follow their parents are true, but there is no constant example to follow with the absence of parents. With broken families and neglect to the millennial, it is obvious why so many are unable to replicate the hardworking attributes of the older generations. This factor clearly contributes to the working outcome of people, since children with single parents are disproportionately less likely to get a college education than their counterparts in traditional families.5. An even worse chain reaction that will multiply Failure to Launch syndrome is the fact that millennial affected by this issue are now having children of their own. It is easy to notice the practices of these new parents. They are often are single and hand the child of to their parents and other non-parent guardians for their own convenience. This variable to Failure to Launch is the same if not much worse than Lancy’s argument of influence replacement.

       Regardless of disagreement on the causes, Lancy is completely correct on the on the dangers served for the US economy as a result of Failure to Launch syndrome. The syndrome has affected millennials that are now losing incentive to work, which builds up to a loss of human creativity, ambition, and knowledge of the free-market. It is mentioned by Lacncy that two of the things influencing children in place of parents are highschool and colleges. This influence can be great in the case of real education, but not in the sense of indoctrination and political correctness. The nature of many American colleges are intolerant of traditional social norms and are unknowingly similar to “helicopter parents”, burning out any natural challenge in the way of the young students. This is to the extent of wiping out the slight challenge of hurtful speech for the young adults, as many colleges around the country have adopted “speech codes” or specific “free speech zones”. Anyone brought up with this treatment would have a clear disadvantage in the real economy. To make matters worse, the education system often makes the young adults believe that they are being hurt by a false enemy, like the privilege of others, business owners, or capitalism, when in reality, they are being hurt by the by they were raised and themselves as individuals. As a result of these flaws, people from other countries and cultures are winning over the jobs in America that many of the young adults here simply will not do. Many of us are familiar with the racial stereotype of Asian students being very intelligent, while Lancy’s research shows that this is probably because their culture raises children in ways that better prepares children for hard work. The millennials then view hard work as “intelligence”. Currently, there are 93 occupations in which 20 percent or more are immigrants.6. Lancy mentions that the syndrome keeps young adults from choosing challenging occupations, like engineering. This is shown to be true based on the unemployment rate of engineers at 1.9% and the unemployment rate of college majors of humanities and Liberal Arts at 9.4%.7. The students are choosing the major that is arguably easier than the other, even though it has much less economic demand with a chance of leaving them unemployed.

1.“Failure to Launch Syndrome now threatens the US Economy” David F. Lancy

2.L. Sax, Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men (New York: Basic, 2007).

3.“Failure to Launch Syndrome now threatens the US Economy” David F. Lancy 11/19/16

4.“Fewer than half of kids today live in a traditional family” Gretchen Livingston 11/19/16

6.“Jobs Americans won’t Do?” Steven A. Camarota 11/19/16

7.“Unemployment Rates by Occupation” 11/19/16


 A Review and Response to Leonardo DiCaprio’s “Before the Flood” Documentary

Leonardo DiCaprio begins Before the Flood explaining a picture that he used to look at as a boy, depicting the beginning, flourishing, and fall of man. When I began watching this documentary, I went into flashbacks of my public school indoctrination, singing songs about global warming in grade school music class, or given assignments in the sixth grade to draw the future of the earth after industrialization, where in each assignment the enemy was more or less the American free-market. My mind also shifts to a mural I observed at a public high school in Minnesota, with a painting on the right showing the evils of industrialization, cars, machines, business references, and even a John Kerry yard sign swirling down a drain. The left painting was an environmental community of kids surrounded by windmills and flowers. Hopefully, many more 90’s children will have their flashbacks and realize that the alarmism ideology has indoctrinated them to hate the very economic system that provides everything for their privileged lives. Before the Flood, as expected, is starved of information and hard evidence, but more consistently takes the route of emotional response with the gimmick of a famous actor. DiCaprio is an environmental Leftist, specifically, in my opinion, of the “Degrowth” movement, which claims that prosperity can be achieved without economic growth, and is intensely tied to the belief of climate change. The actor shows this when he says that his recent movie, The Revenant, takes place in the beginning of the industrial revolution led by European settlers. If a few white settlers building a campsite is too much economic growth for DiCaprio, the Degrowth movement would suit him well. Throughout the rest of the documentary, Leonardo DiCaprio divides the scope into why he believes in man-made global warming, why many others do not believe in it, it’s effect on other nations, and how it can be prevented.

We lean early in the documentary that the actor derives his global warming theory from the wisest climate scientist in America, Al Gore. The emotional response begins with an old video of young Leonardo engaging in a conversation with the former vice president. Gore has been one of the most influential global warming activists and alarmists of the movement. DiCaprio says in the film, “Everything he says is real and is happening”. Back in 2008, Al Gore stated in a speech, “Navy submarines traversing underneath the North Polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will disappear within the summer months”. 1 According to the former vice president, who only speaks the truth, the polar ice caps melted three years ago. Al Gore now updates his hysteria to 2040, the new year he claims the ice cap will be melted.

Leonardo DiCaprio makes his own further claims in the documentary, saying that American Cities, specifically in Florida will be destroyed by rising sea levels. Over the past 20 years, the annual average sea level rise has been around 0.13 inches. 2 It is furthermore said in the documentary that “We don’t have time to debate climate change”. How open minded. As DiCaprio states the number of US Senators that do not believe in global warming, he specifically tears into climate denier, and “flat-earther”, Sen. Marco Rubio. “Marco Rubio dosen’t believe in climate change”, he says. This is however, contradicted a few seconds later with a video of Rubio saying, “I don’t believe the climate is changing because of human activity”. There is hardly anyone that is saying that the climate eternally does not change.

Another reason that the actor believes in global warming, like many Leftists, is that 97% of all climate scientists agree. This is a claim used by almost every global warming activist, including Pres. Obama, without a source or study ever cited. That is because it is a fabricated lie repeated enough times for it to become truth. The real scientific background for this claim is from a study by John Cook in Australia in Cook et al at the University of Queensland.3 The research to create this percentage found that only 64 papers written out of 11,958 by climate scientists state that man-made greenhouse gases caused more than 50% of recent warming. 4 Cook’s study did not differentiate between essays that stated that climate change was man-made and one’s that didn’t. Rather, it compiled all essays that even mention that the climate is changing. With the statistics and the research broken down to the essays written by scientists that believe climate change is mainly caused by man-made greenhouse gases, a “consensus” of only 0.54% agree. 5 When the statement is manipulated in terms of scientists that agree that the climate is changing over time, it is fairly accurate. Do 97% of all scientists believe in man-made global warming? Not even close.

DiCaprio then leads to the notion that people who don’t believe in his theory (“flat-earthers” like Marco Rubio and myself) are all sold out to big oil corporations like Exxon and Koch Industries. He furthermore attacks a free-market advocating group that receives funding from the Koch brothers, called Americans for Prosperity. He makes AFP out to be characterized as a marionette for Koch Industries, made to represent their personal interests. In the last three months I have worked for this activist group, I have become familiar with the issues they have fought for. On a list of about twenty-five of their biggest issues maybe two had anything slightly to do with oil or carbon emissions. Most were simple, public interest issues keeping government out of the way. According to the rich actor though, all the families supporting our causes, and my nineteen-year old self are just sold out to Exxon for wanting lower taxes. I was really unaware. It is also never mentioned that the Kochs have donated over $200 million to cancer research and continue to do so. 6 It was a good try, but Leonardo DiCaprio knows nothing about Americans for Prosperity or Koch Industries.

Leonardo DiCaprio then creates a large portion of the documentary covering the effects of climate change on other countries. He travels to India, where he documents his conversation with a local woman about the issue of burning fossil fuels. He is curious to ask about the possibility of a transition in India to fund wind and solar companies. In response the woman asks, “who will invest?” The woman is exactly right. Nobody will spend their money on a more expensive form of energy when coal is abundant and cheap to the individual. Leonardo DiCaprio at this point in the conversation does not seem to understand this woman’s position, as she is a working citizen understanding supply and demand. The poor communities in India are deprived of energy in their homes and have a lifeline of abundant coal, as the woman explains. DiCaprio, and other climatarians are advocating for government mandates to raise the prices of their only energy sources “in the best interest of the citizens”. This might sound fine for the American upper class activists, but not so much for the communities in poverty, that depend on cheap energy.

This entire segment of the documentary shows how Leonardo DiCaprio does not understand the malleability of Capitalism. He says that they need to “Help the world before it is too late”. “They” meaning monster government, according to the statists know the interest of the people better than the individuals themselves. With the natural laws of the free-market; when abundance of a source diminishes, the demand will shift to other means and human creativity will yield alternative sources. In many countries like India, there is absolutely no demand for wind and solar energy because fossil fuels are inexpensive and far from gone, and government force meant to shift human interest will cause devastation. An explanation from Frederick Hayek is given in The Road to Serfdom , “The state should confine itself to establishing rules applying to general types of situations and allow the individuals freedom in everything which depends on the circumstances of the time and place, because only the individuals concerned in each instance can fully know these circumstances and adapt their actions to them”. 7 He further makes the final point, “Hence, the familiar fact that the more the state ‘plans’, the more difficult planning becomes for the individual”. 8 Here is a quick story about a climate changing catastrophe that was left to the free-market alone, “Russian farmers farmed northern Siberia for centuries. When the area became cold and desolate, the farmers moved south.” 9

In conclusion to the entire documentary there was not a single argument that I have not heard before. No new research, no new data, no new claims, etc. It was simply ten times more hypocritical because it was put forward by a rich, privileged actor, not even an average working citizen on our level. It’s easy for someone with extraordinary amount of power to disregard the free-maket to spread an easy idea. Don’t be persuaded.

Eric Lachlan


1. Revkin, Andrew C. “The (Annotated) Gore Energy Speech.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 July 2008. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.

2. Society, National Geographic. “Sea Level Rise — National Geographic.” National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.

3. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” IOP Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.

4. Michelle. 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs. (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

5. Ibid

6. Cooper, Michael. “Cancer Research Before Activism, Billionaire Conservative Donor Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Mar. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.

7. F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom:Text and Documents—The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Vol. 2),Bruce Caldwell, ed. (New York:Routledge, 2014), p. 114.

8. Ibid

9. Stossel, John. Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get out the Shovel– Why Everything You Know Is Wrong. New York: Hyperion, 2006. 205. Print.

 The Philosophical and Constitutional Case for “Free” Education

     The initial argument is always the same and is always meaningless: that education is important and necessary to advance society. The moral high ground is the key to winning the debate as a Leftist and is vital when advocating for government funded education. “Think of the future of the children in society!” To build a philosophical case against “free” college one thing must be clear: nobody is arguing that education is not important or that it will not advance society. The side of the debate is based on liberty, not emotion, and any emotional argument from socialists are thin air to libertarians. We are not arguing whether education should exist or not, we are arguing whether or not it should be monopolized by the government at the expense of taxpayers. Saying “college is important” to advocate for free college is essentially saying that products and human good come from the government, not the people. As Frederic Bastiat writes, “We disprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say we are against equality. And so on, and so on”. (33). As he further explains, socialists are unable to distinguish between government and society.

         The philosophical case against free education is really boiled down to the opinion that individual liberty comes before the good of the whole. As libertarians we believe that consumers have a choice whether or not to spend their money on a certain product and that workers have the choice whether or not to work for a certain employer. Education is, whether the Occupy Wall Street movement likes it or not, a profit gaining transaction. Consequently, if education becomes a free right for the students, workers providing that education no longer have the choice of whether or not to be employed. It comes down to pure freedom of association (which the Left shows time and time again that they don’t understand).

         The businessman [The school owner] must gain profit by offering wages and working conditions that will make employees [teachers] voluntarily work for them. This will then offer the chance for consumers [students] to voluntarily spend their money on the owner and school when the quality and consequences of the education are more valuable to them then the cost. In this case the spectrum is set with the teachers and other school employees giving their labor in a voluntary social contract and the students gaining an education and spending their money voluntarily. The transaction is perfect because both parties are benefiting and under control of the natural regulations from supply and demand.

What happens when the consumers’ right to purchase something becomes the right to something?

           If the students now have the right to an education (which is usually a self-proclaimed “right”) rather than a right to voluntarily buy an education, the choice for school owners, teachers, and their employees to give their labor vanishes. An unequal hierarchy is given to one side of the spectrum creating legal theft and the diminishing of rights to a specific group (social justice). Rather than both sides of the social contract gaining an equal, consensual deal in which they both benefit, one side uses the state to gain unequal benefits. In The Law Bastiat describes, “Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain- and sine labor is pain in itself- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work”(10). Furthermore, when a central government is powerful enough to rewrite natural rights at the will of a few, it is easier for consumers to advocate for a product, like education or health insurance, to become a free “right” rather than engaging in a voluntary transaction to purchase it. The power of the government will change everything.

         In the free-market, teachers chose to work their positions because education is high on demand, and the position will yield them a worthy income for the amount of labor and working conditions. In the contrary system, they will work because, regardless of supply and demand, education is a “right”…for the other party. When the voluntary selling of labor in the midst of supply and demand is disregarded by the state for the sake of a newly implemented “right”, the labor is needed by the state even when demand for the product disappears. This how the Soviet Union’s state run economy produced none of what the people needed and all of what they didn’t. But it must have been a good system because the fruits of labor were a “right to all”. As a resolution, if no citizen wanted to be a teacher, the state would have to resort to force in order to uphold “rights”. A common argument by Leftists to this statement is the notion that the teachers would be paid. This changes nothing of the infringement of voluntary action and the theft of labor without consent. Whether the bureaucracy would pay the worker low class wages, or the wages of the upper one percent is irrelevant to the natural right of freedom of association.

That is legal plunder, slavery, and kleptocracy at hand, regardless of the emotional clouds that the Left uses to hide logic.

In terms of free education and the philosophical reasons against it, the Constitution is violated.

Amendment IX states that no individual rights can deny or disparage the rights of another. In other words, natural rights end when they are taking away the natural rights of another individual. In the case of free education, Leftist claims that they have a “right” to free education is essentially taking away the right of workers that produce that education to decide not to work. That is a self proclaimed “right” to deny other individual’s right to chose. The students often start the movements themselves to put themselves on a hierarchy where their rights are upheld over others.

Amendment X grants powers not delegated in the Constitution to the states and the people. Nowhere in the document is the government granted the right to control education. If the government takes control of the payment of education (at the hands of many taxpayers that are not even using the service), it controls the quality and future of students.

Amendment XIII states, “Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Plain and straightforward, giving certain citizens the right to a product, the voluntary choice is taken from the producer. The Constitution clearly states that involuntary servitude cannot be used. As a matter of fact, paying the employees more in the bureaucracy would not make the contract any less involuntary than if it were pure slavery.

       As a conclusion, the logic behind the topic of free education and the liberty of both the consumers and workers comes down to the advocacy for one group to be given extra rights at the expense of other groups based on the social class of some. This sounds familiar because it is social justice. It is known that some college students have trouble paying for their college tuition and paying back loans (entirely because of the government subsidization of education. So yes, leftists want to fix the problem left by a government regulation with another government regulation). They then believe that because of some students, all students must be given extra rights and all workers in the education industry must lose theirs. No regard is given to the individuals.

Eric Lachlan

Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1950. Print.

Morris, Richard B., and Leonard Everett Fisher. The Constitution. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publications, 1985. Print.

 Advocating vs. Acting

The debate I had engaged with a Leftist was assigned the topic, “Offending People is a Natural Right”. Though displayed in a provocative way, I agree. This is the general argument that hate speech is free speech, which I take the stance that no speech can be banned on the basis of its content. This is because of the commonsense reasons that it is ,in fact, protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution and that something subjective cannot be regulated. The counterargument I received was this:

“Ok, then I dare you to walk through Compton shouting the “n” word!”

Of coarse the logic reaction is, “why in the world would I do that?” But I realize through this response that leftists literally have a malfunction ingrained into their minds. As I thought over this response I remembered a lot of material about the Left.

When I was younger as I listened to many people on both sides of the isle the topic of legalized marijuana was prevalent. As a Conservative back then (I have shifted to identify as a Libertarian now, and I support legalized marijuana) I felt strongly opposed to the legalization. However, I was very uninformed on the issue both factually and philosophically, for the obvious reasons that I had no interest in the drug. As I listened to my Liberal counterarguments I noticed a blatant hypocrisy: the Libertarians advocating the issue consistently supported the legalization based on the facts and lack of need for the regulation (whether they were users or not), while the Liberals on the contrary, argued the point with facts and the basis that they were users of the drug. They furthermore would advocate for the ban of tobacco, vaporizer pens/ e-cigarettes, and MANY other things, which completely blew my mind.

Considering these experiences I remembered an old blog post, which unfortunately doesn’t exist any more describing the condescending differences between Liberals and Conservatives in nature. “Conservative atheists chose not to practice religion, while liberal atheists want religion banned for all. Conservative vegans chose not to eat meat, while liberal vegans want meat banned for all.” Do all of these apply to all individuals on the Left? Absolutely not but there is a pattern.

With my considerations I realized why my debate opponent was acting this way on the topic of hate speech. Leftists are incapable of distinguishing the act of advocating for the legalization of something and advocating for acting on something. People believe hate speech is free speech? It must mean they want to use hate speech. People want to legalize marijuana? It must mean they want to smoke pot all day. This is what the opponent to free speech was thinking when he wrote his response. To him, there is no possible way that I could simply be advocating that everyone should be allowed to say what they want, my motivations were to use hatred infused speech (especially to racial minorities, the race card is always thrown under the radar).

Wouldn’t this contradict the fact that Liberals believe in social freedom, considering that the highschool political spectrum says so? Yes, it does, and they factually do it to themselves. When they want something banned one of the top arguments is usually that “we don’t need it”. The mentality in this way of thinking is really just portraying the idea that all laws should coordinate with the desires of the specific individual making the statement. Everything they voluntarily use is legal and everything they don’t is illegal. Not only does this uproot their self given moral superiority of diversity and open-mindedness, but it is completely selfish and arrogant.

Modern American “Liberals” generally believe in three social freedoms:

      1. Abortion
      2. Gay marriage
      3. marijuana use

These three things apparently grant the title of “Social Freedom”, as they also call themselves Socially Libertarian. They will literally support every ban on material objects other than these three things and still believe in this title.

The inability to distinguish the avocation for legalization and the avocation for the desire to act on the subject is real. Next time you engage with a Leftist pay attention.

Eric Lachlan

The Environmentalist LIES of Climate Change

What comes forth, is another report of progressive, scientific data that the Liberals shall not dare speak of. Recently, evidence is shown of natural climate changes that happen over periods of time: warming and cooling of the global temperature and glaciers and ice caps melting and freezing. This evidence however, is not Liberal college students’ politically correct science of temperatures rising globally, or of the North Pole Melting. This shows something completely different. The latest research from NASA has shown that Antarctica has reached it’s winter maximum of ice in history. This is the next dangerous report to the Environmentalists that helps disprove their reasons for controlling politics. With the mainstream opinion from Al Gore- That New York and other cities will eventually be underwater, we are enlightened with the fact that more ice has formed this year, than melted.

Liberal news will keep this following scientific data AWAY from their supporters. The results from NASA show that the new record set for the area of ice around Antarctica is now 19.44 million square kilometers, found by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). This leaves a steady increase in ice formation from 1990-2012, bringing the area from 18 million square kilometers to 19.44.  Furthermore, the area has increased by roughly 17,100 square kilometers from 1979-2000. Is this what the global warming since 1990 (supposedly the hottest decade to follow “on record”) is doing to the planet then? Freezing Antarctica more each winter? Now, before they start about melting in the North Pole, let’s take a look at the real data. The Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers, the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This leaves the Sea with a 1.19 square kilometer difference on ice since the average in 1979-2000, leaving the ratio of the area of ice frozen to the area of ice melted to be about the same.  Is this the ice that is supposed to melt and flood New York? This is not “Republicans making up data” as the usual response from the Left. This is research from NASA.

After a great example of research kept off the Liberal media, let’s take a look at Three Lies told by environmentalists these days.

  1. The 90’s prove global warming because the global temperature recorded that decade was the warmest in history.

    We can start this one with a short math quiz. If we have a set of numbers of 1 through 10, the average is 5.5. If we calculate the average a second time, but without 10 in the sequence, what happens to the average? It falls when the highest number of the sequence is not present. Consequently, when a global temperature is recorded on Earth, if one of the coldest countries does not obtain data, then average temperature would of course rise. When Environmentalists try to control your life with the global temperature of 1990-2000 as support, they will always forget to mention that the coldest country on the planet collected no data during the decade. Thousands of temperature observatories in the Soviet Union during that decade did not record temperatures due to the collapse of the government! These are extremely important numbers that add to the global average. If we would have recorded the global average the next decade, with Russian observatories working again but not any of the ones in Africa, what would happen then? The Environmental extremists would have heart attacks with the average becoming so cold!  Based on what happened in the previous decade, they would not be able to figure out why the global average was so dramatically changed. Even more shocking results are shown by a graph presenting the average global temperatures in history vs. the number of weather stations operating when it was recorded. From 1950-1990 the global averages stayed between 9.7 and 10.5 degrees Celsius with about 11,000 to 15,000 weather stations operating around the world. From 1990-2000, when the global temperatures rose between 11 and 12.4 degrees, only 5,000 to 7,000 weather stations were operating! This concludes the average global temperature in the decade of 1990 to 2000 to be one of the weakest global warming arguments possible.

  1.   Global warming is causing sea levels to rise.

    The response to this was mostly covered with the data from NASA involving the Antarctic ice sheets increasing. They freeze, while the glaciers in the north are slightly melting, creating a converse in the water on earth. Over the past century, according to National Geographic, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has increased by 6 to 8 inches. As a result, the alarmists will continue to completely ignore the fact that sea levels around the world are constantly changing and that 6 to 8 inches in 100 years makes absolutely no difference. From 1600 to 1700 the Sea levels dramatically declined, due to the Little Ice Age, and rose back up by 1800.  Why was this not a crisis like the environmentalists make our century out to be? What these facts show, is that sea levels rise and fall over time without humanity as a variable, proving that global warming does not change the Mean Sea Level. A further example of constantly changing water levels are in the Great Lakes. From 1995 to 2000 the water levels in Lake Huron/Michigan dropped from 177.2 to 175.8 meters. This time period was supposed to be the hottest on record globally (Which it wasn’t). According to the Left, the water levels should have risen, showing that the claims being thrown at us by the Left are not even slightly consistent with each other. Even more interestingly, when the water levels of Lake Michigan decreased, the environmentalists made it out to be the our fault, reasoning that we take more water from the lake than we give back! The way that this story unfolds is that the environment activists will wait for ANY slight natural change in the Earth, and blame it on the people. After all, without natural climate change the Left would have one less device to control America.

  1. Climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the twenty-first century, the Liberal media has turned the idea of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere into a negative thing. They have guilted many people into believing that running cars, using technology, and using other machine is causing climate change. It’s a great way to take control of our lives in retrospect. Take the Obama administration for example, with the attempt to outlaw normal light bulbs. With fossil fuels, environmentalists claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, and humans are the culprit by releasing it. As they naturally do, the CO2 levels on Earth have changed over the years. In 1959, the data was first collected with a CO2 level of 315.97 ppm. By 2014, this has risen to 398.55 ppm. This would appear to be caused by industry, however, only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade. Can the alarmists please explain mathematically, if humans increase the level,  how 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount from 315.97 to 398.55 ppm? What happened to the political views using science and reason? Similar numbers are shown for other greenhouse gases as well. 5% of all Nitrous Oxide is manmade, and 18% of Methane. These numbers are insignificant to the overall total. This disproves the myth that the burning of fossil fuels is a reason for climate change.

Thank you for reading and remember to NEVER give in to the Liberal media.

Eric Lachlan

“Annual Data/Atmospheric CO2” (accessed November 6, 2015)

“Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent” NASA, Earth Observatory, accessed November 6, 2015

Horner, Christopher The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Massachusetts: Regenery Publishing Inc. 2007)

“Sea level change in the Middle Ages and the Little Ice Age” F.J.P.M. Kwaad,

physical geographer (accessed November 6, 2015)

“Water Levels of the Great Lakes” NOAA (September 2015) (accessed November 6, 2015)

“Winter is coming to the Arctic” National Snow and Ice Data Center(NDIDC) November 4, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015