I believe that one reason for my decline in posting over the last few months, besides time constraints due to business, is that so many things that I want to say, have already been said, and far more eloquently, by others. Case in point is a Two-fer from Big Lizards last week:
And here’s a nice round-up of forbidden knowledge from the Republicans in the Senate, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK, 100%), ranking member (and former chairman) of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW). Inhofe is a national treasure, one of the few Republicans not only willing to stand up against the greedy socialists at the UN (many Republicans do that), but also willing to put in the time to educate himself on the actual science involved.
This makes Inhofe a much more potent danger to the regime of so-called “anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change” than his colleagues. Hardly any other senator or representative, on either side the aisle, is willing to go so far as actually learning something about what he’s talking about.
In the meanwhile, my brother sends me a link to another page of the Senate EPW Republican minority website, in which Inhofe finally nails the climatistas: He catches them confessing the real reason for all the hoopla about globaloney. This is a true “cognition” moment when all the pieces abruptly fall into place:
- A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations….”
- “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Yes. Now you understand why I have consistently referred to the climatistas as “socialists”: Because they are.
Watermelons. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. You will find a wealth of information in this piece on the fraud of man made Global Warming, and political (instead of Scientific) process behind it.
The other piece echos somewhat the Robert Kaplan piece from my previous post:
Since the US military is the only entity capable of policing the world, why shouldn’t Japan totally rely upon them? That is how my online correspondent sees the situation: Japan pays enough to buy its protection, so what are Americans complaining about?
I told Asean that paying others to protect your own country is a sure way to lose face. He shrugged; most Japanese think merely losing respect is a cheap price to pay for never having to fight. Japan suffered so much from the last war — in which Japan was the imperialist aggressor — that many Japanese simply refuse to fight again, ever… no matter what the provocation. They won’t to fight even to protect their own interests, land, or culture; they are content to outsource national defense in a way that Americans cannot even imagine.
Is this a position worthy of a once-proud nation of Samurai warriors? How can they face their ancestors, who would have fought bravely and died rather than surrender?
Aside from the craven and disgusting nature of this attitude, their strategy of self defense by proxy is doomed to fail. It has several problems:
- Refusing to fight does not let you avoid war; rather, it invites war.
- Mercenaries are not loyal to you; they always have their own agenda.
- Americans cannot be everywhere; we’re not omnipotent: It’s impossible for the United States to fully protect Japan even if we wanted.
- Finally, the most likely reason outsourcing national defense will fail is the “men on the wall” syndrome: Just like the hobbits of the Shire, the Japanese have not fought a war for a long, long time. They have forgotten how to fight, and even that there is any need to fight.
Lot’s of good food for thought in both. And, sadly, a great deal of truth…
From the Daily Mail (UK):
At the age of 27 this young woman (Toni Vernelli) at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
I agree completely that people of Ms. Vernelli’s political/social proclivities should voluntarily be sterilzed. In fact, I hoper that it becomes vogue, and a full fad/trend for such folks.
Is there any way that we could convince Lawyers to go the same route?
There are a number of solid scientific, and economic reasons to dislike Biofuels made from new growth vegetation.
Like this article, or this, or this.
My personal dislike of this particular subset of Biofuels leads me to an unusual agreement with an article in the New York Times:
Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.
Most experts agree that Biofuels can only make up for about 15% of our Oil usage. Balance that against the slow death by starvation of millions, who could be helped by that food.
But it gets worse.
Renton Righelato from the World Land Trust and the lead scientist in the study, said: “It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels. Most concerning is the trend to clear new land for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate and disastrous release of carbon into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods.”
Forest soil stores between one quarter and a half of the carbon in the forest - and that too is released during clearing.
“Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market”, says the study’s co-author Dominick Spracklen from Leeds University.
So, not only are we content to let people starve to death, to fill our gas tanks, but we are actively promoting the destruction of forest, and converting farmland, to increase the problem.
All so AL Gore and his ilk can feel “Green” and self satisfied while they jet around the world, telling the rest of us to use 1 sheet of toilet paper.
I typically ignore the writings of newspaper columnists in the pacific northwest, as they tend to be as predictable as they are boring. Every once in awhile, though, a piece just cries out for a response.
So, for reference, I give you Joel Connelly, from the Seattle PI, and his piece “Deniers of Global Warming harm us“.
Remember my post about CODE WORDS put forth from the left? Well, DENIERS of Global Warming is replacing Sceptics. Why? Read on…
From the outset, Mr. Conelly repeats that canard that “THE WORLD’S scientists near consensus on human causes of climate change”. Even if this statement were true, it is necessary to point out that not all the worlds scientists are Climatologists, or in any field remotely related to the the study of earths climate now, or in the past. One might, in the Connelly world, take a Podiatrists view on a Brain Tumor as authoritative.
Mr. Connelly then spends a good piece of his article decrying the “deniers” temerity in daring to criticize the hypocrisy of the “oracles” of the glabal warming hysteria movement, and their oppulant lifestyles and personal modes of travel. Mr. Connelly calls this “drive by shooting”, and posits that it is a means of distraction from having “real science” to back up the “deniers” position. This fits in well with the general outlook of the left, of Do As I Say, Not As I Do. They are above criticism because their hearts are pure.
The we get one of my favorite lines:
The deniers’ fallback position is to argue that what is happening is due not to human intervention but some sort of natural cycle.
He then goes on to disparage “a recent story” in the National Post (a “rightists paper” per Connelly) in Canada, that suggests a link between climate and sun spots (no great new revelation there; it has been know for decades that sun spots affect the suns output, and therefore, our climate). What he did NOT say, is that the NP has been running a series on “deniers” and the science that backs them up. And guess what? These guys are Earth Scientists!
Then comes the magnum opus:
Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.
That’s right! Not only does he equate man-made Global Warming sceptics with Holocaust Deniers, but the sceptics are EVEN WORSE. And this is why the new Code Word from the left is DENIER. By calling the Man-Made Global Warming Sceptics DENIERS, we are as bad, or worse, than Holocaust Deniers. Look for this phrasing to become prevelant in the main stream media in the weeks ahead.
What makes the global warming denial industry so dangerous?
It has the potential to preclude or delay necessary actions — caps on carbon emissions, development of new energy sources — that will assure human civilization’s future on the planet.
What this really means is that the sceptics interfere with the Lefts plans to increase their control of the economy, and the way you live, even while admitting:
Nobody is certain what will happen.
Connelly then goes on to cite a few example os the BAD effects of Global Warming. I could respond tit-for-tat, but that would just bore my fellow sceptics, and would not persuade those that call us deniers, anyway. What is more fun is when Connelly again does a drive by of his own:
One can argue that any country in which a large percentage of people believe that planet Earth was created in six days — and do not accept evolution — will believe anything.
Ahh, there’s that gratutious Christian bashing that no lefty column would be complete without.
And he sums with a CALL TO ARMS:
A belief that blocks or delays action is dangerous. No one will save us. We must save ourselves.
Save Ourselves, in the Connelly world, means drastic cuts in CO2 emmissions that will cripple industry, massive investment in alternative energies (like Wind Farms that kill birds, Bio Fuels that lead to starvation in thrid world countries, Solar that is massively inefficient - but NO NUKES!), and controls on your personal energy usage (through taxes or imposed caps).
A Moment of sanity is called for. The science is NOT settled. Practically evey day, some new piece of news floats up indicating that the Apocalypse is not upon us, that we are in the midst of what is, overall, part of the natural fluctuations of the climate. Not you will find it in the mainstream media, or hear it discussed in Connelly’s elite circles.
Far better to spend our time and resources in preparing for the inevitable. And keep wathcing and studying the climate. After all, the Climate Scientist that predicted Global Cooling back in the 1970’s may still be proven right…
But when the purveyors of Man-Caused Global Warming resort to name calling, and mud-throwing, they harm their own argument, and they harm us all.
Back in High School, in Western Civilization class (back before Western Civ was a BAD thing), when learning about the conditions that led to the Protestant Reformation (yes kids, Martin Luther was a person, not just an informal name for Martin Luther King).
One of the things that Luther was upset about was the selling of Indulgences.
Now, from a striclty Capitalist viewpoint, I can see Indulgences as a stroke of genius. One of the basic things that makes Capitalism work, is a flow of goods. People with an abundance of one thing sell or trade it to people who don’t have enough of that thing, but have too much of something else. IN this case, it was SIN.
Sinners could purchase and indulgence from the church, who theoretically had no sin, and a surplus of good acts available to sell. Sinners got absolution, and the church gained money, property, goods, whatever.
So you could be a truly vile person, and still be assured of getting to heaven, if you had the cash or other goods to trade to the church for absolution.
Today, the Church of the Global Warming has reinstituted the Indulgence. They call it Carbon Offsets.
With Carbon Offsets, I could, if I were, let’s say, a forcibly retired Vice President, jet around the country in a private jet, ride in limos and SUVs, and have a huge house complex that uses 20x the average amount of utilities for a home in America, and still declare myself Carbon Neutral.
And, like the old Church, the Ponitff of the Church of Global Warming, AlGore I, is getting a piece of the pie, becuase he buys his Carbon Offsets from a company Generation Invesment Management, of which Gore is Chairman. As Bill Hobbs notes:
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
Of course, this is all the worse, because, like Indulgences, there is a growing tide of realization that Carbon Offsets are little more than wishful thinking and promises. For some “lite” reading, check out this report at Carbon Trade Watch:
Carbon Offsets are nothing more, at their heart, than a transfer of wealth from the rich and guilty, to hucksters and charlatans. The unfortunate thing is that, unlike Indulgences, which fleeced sinners who had niether the time or inclination to truly make amends for their lifestyles, Carbon Offsets will fleece more than a bunch of Hollywood mental lightweights. It will also fleece numerous well meaning people, who truly think they are helping the planet.
There is a basic rule of capitalism that you should never pay someone for something intanglible, with no way to prove its value. You may as well stuff you mattress with the money.
Instead of buying carbon offsets, change your lightbulbs to CFLs (and LED bulbs coming soon). Wash most laundry in cold water. Turn off TVs and set computers ot Sleep or Hinernate when not in use.
And if you really want to put your money up front, invest in companies installing Wind Farms, or Nuclear Power, or other Clean technologies… But don;t be fooled into buying Indulgences.
Where is the Global Warming Martin Luther when we need him?
Forgot to order Roses for your Valentine?
Fear not! Now you have a handy excuse, that also shows how “in touch” and “caring” you are!
Courtesy of the Telegraph, we now know that:
Valentine Bouquets Are Bad For The Planet
The Valentine’s Day bouquet — the gift that every woman in Britain will be waiting for next week — has become the latest bête noire among environmental campaigners.
In the past three years, the amount of flowers imported from the Netherlands has fallen by 47 per cent to 94,000 tons, while those from Africa have risen 39 per cent to 17,000 tons.
Environmentalists warned that “flower miles” could have serious implications on climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions from aeroplanes.
Yes, that’s right! Now you can save $40 on Roses, and be Enironmentally Correct!
While Sir Richard Branson may lean left in his politics, there can be no doubt that the man understands Capitalism, and how to motivate people.
Case in point, courtest of Yahoo News/AP:
Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for the scientist who comes up with a way to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, comparing it to the 17th-century quest to revolutionize navigation by determining longitude.
“Man created the problem, therefore man should solve the problem,” Branson said. “Could it be possible to find someone on Earth who could devise a way of removing the lethal amount of CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere?”
Unlike the vast majority of the people screaming about man-made global warming, Branson is actually putting his money where his mouth is (honorable mention to actor Ed Begley Jr for being another that does).
Branson, whose business interests include Virgin Atlantic airline and Virgin Trains, rejected charges that it was hypocritical for him to sponsor the prize. He reiterated a commitment made in September to invest $3 billion toward fighting global warming, saying he would commit all profits from his travel companies over the next 10 years.
As part of that pledge, he launched a new Virgin Fuels business, which is to invest up to $400 million in green energy projects over the next three years.
And the best part is, whether you agree with the premise that Man is the primary culprit for Global Warming, or it is mostly natural, Branson’s investments will reap benefits for eveyone.
Hat tip to Orbusmax for pointin out this piece from KGW.Com:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
Taylor has held the title of “state climatologist” since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, “I just think there has to be somebody that says, ‘this is the state position on this.’”
So, what Kulongoski really wants is a mouthpiece, with a sheepskin that can lend his prognotications some credence. He is not concerned with the science, but with the politics, and making sure that the person who holds the title of State Climatoligist parrots the orthodoxy of the Church of the Environment, and it’s Pontiff, AlGore.
Why stop with the State Climatologist? Why not appoint Ehren Watada as head of the Oregon National Guard (assuming he is not in federal prison)?
Courtesy of Der Spiegel:
(James) Lovelock is a chemist, inventor, author and visionary environmental guru. Using a detector he invented himself, he was the first to provide evidence of ozone-consuming fluorochlorohydrocarbons (FCHC) in the atmosphere. More importantly, Lovelock is the inventor of the famous “Gaia hypothosis,” which holds that the planet (which he named after the Greek goddess of the Earth, Gaia), constantly controls all of its systems on land, in the water and in the air in such a way as to preserve life — almost as if the earth itself were a living organism.
…
No world power, no scientist, no politician, no consumer forsaking his or her familiar comforts, and neither emissions trading nor wind energy nor biofuels will be capable of preventing the earth’s demise, he says. According to Lovelock, it will at best be possible to delay the catastrophe for a while — primarily through the massive expansion of nuclear energy.
…
“Our situation,” Lovelock says, “is similar to that of a boat that suddenly loses engine power shortly before reaching Niagara Falls. What’s the point of trying to repair the engine?” To save what it can, Lovelock believes, the world must embark on a completely different path. Most important, it must abandon the notion of “green romanticism.”
…
Lovelock has nothing but ridicule for environmentalists’ favorite issues, such as “sustainable development” and “renewable energy,” calling them “well-meaning nonsense.” He is convinced that wind and solar energy will never be even remotely capable of meeting worldwide energy needs. In China alone, for example, a new large coal power plant is put into operation every five days, imposing additional burdens on the atmosphere. The only solution, according to Lovelock, is the massive expansion of nuclear energy worldwide.
…
“Fanatical Greens” who confuse nuclear power with nuclear bombs, says Lovelock, have discredited this source of energy. Do-gooders, he adds, are concerned about pesticide residues in bananas and the link between mobile phones and cancer, all the while accepting CO2 poisoning as a necessary evil. “They strain out the mosquitoes while blithely swallowing camels,” he says.
There is so little that I can add to this.
No matter how you slice it, Nuclear Energy is the cleanest and most plentiful of all of our options with currently available technology. Depending on who’s estimates you use, there are suffiecient Uranium reserves for up to 100 years, and other sources of fissionable materials that could last for serveral hundred years.
And research on Fusion power generation is ongoing, and will, someday, provide us with the ultimate achievement of limitless inexpensive energy.
Charles Krauthammer, whose name is only slightly less cool than Wolf Blitzer (though he surpasses the Communist News Network host on every other level), shows the way on Energy Independence:
There are three serious things we can do now: Tax gas. Drill in the Arctic. Go nuclear.
That’s the really important part. You can stop reading now if you like, and go on to the next post. Still here? Well, he gets down to the details:
First, tax gas. The president ostentatiously rolled out his 20-in-10 plan: reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. This with Rube Goldberg regulation — fuel-efficiency standards, artificially mandated levels of “renewable and alternative fuels in 2017″ and various bribes (er, incentives) for government-favored technologies — of the kind we have been trying for three decades. Good grief. I can give you a 20-in-2: tax gas to $4 a gallon. With oil prices having fallen to $55 a barrel, now is the time. The effect of a gas-tax hike will be seen in less than two years…
This also works on another level… The best way to wean people from a behavior that the government decides is BAD FOR THEM, is to TAX IT. Just look at Cigarettes… And those that continue to indulge, pay the freight. This will give the government some revenue that can be used to create a prize for the first practical process to create Hydrogen Gas, that costs less or pollutes less or uses less energy than it consumes, or something like that. Or fuel cells, or a Pocket Nuclear Reactor. Whatever.
No regulator, no fuel-efficiency standards, no presidential exhortations, no grand experiments with switchgrass. Raise the price and people change their habits. It’s the essence of capitalism.
Second, immediate drilling to recover oil that is under U.S. control, namely in the Arctic and on the Outer Continental Shelf. No one pretends that this fixes everything. But a million barrels a day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 5 percent of our consumption. In tight markets, that makes a crucial difference.
Combining these two, we should be able to cut our 60% reliance on imports to 1970ish levels (say 35%).
No one has a remotely good idea about how to make any difference in global warming without enlisting China and India, and without destroying the carbon-based Western economy. The obvious first step, however, is an extremely powerful source of energy that produces not an ounce of carbon dioxide: nuclear.What about nuclear waste? Well, coal produces toxic pollutants, as does oil. Both produce carbon dioxide that we are told is going to end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost impossible to recover once they get thrown into the atmosphere. Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out concentrated — very toxic and lasting nearly forever, but because it is packed into a small manageable volume, it is more controllable. And it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere. At all.
I have expanded on this topic in the past. Anyone interested can go to the old American Empire page and check the Energy category. I really like the finish too:
So much easier to say ethanol. That it will do farcically little is beside the point. Our debates about oil consumption, energy dependence and global warming are not meant to be serious. They are meant for show.