Regnat Populus

The people rule.

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Weekly Full Of Win Post Winner:

Posted by Max Barron on April 26, 2009

This week has seen many excellent posts worthy of much “Internet Win”.  But, Manly Rash of Manly’s Republic gets the top honors for his post “A Liar Among Liars.”  Mainly because this post is chock full of squishy global warming idiots getting squished and there is even video!  I also saw no other blogs covering this particular angle, and I read a ton of blogs.  Of course, the snarky witticisms help… We all know how much I LOVE a good snark.

So without further ado I give you the week’s Full Of Win post:  (Please click the image or Headline to view the entire post at Manly’s Republic)

A Liar Among Liars – How Convenient

headupIt’s easy to spot a Liberal – among other things, he’s the one shutting down any debate about or inquiry into whatever cockamamie statist scheme he’s proposing. Liberals dread the cleansing sunlight of open inquiry and discussion because it tends disintegrate their arguments in much the same manner sunlight makes vampires crumble into a pile of ash.

That much will become painfully evident today at the audience with His Greenness, Pope Albert a Congressional hearing on climate change, where Al Gore – leading advocate of the climate change hoax who has lined his pockets with over a hundred millions dollars pedaling his pseudo-scientific snake oil – emoted testified before a bi-partisan committee at the behest of the Democrats.

The Republicans originally planned to summon Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to testify jointly with Al Gore as a rebuttal.


Posted in Full Of Win | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Suprise, EPA Says Humans Cause Global Warming

Posted by Max Barron on April 20, 2009

Gasp! What a shocker!  The EPA announced that six green house gases are a health hazard.  While we all expected this, there will be a plethora of unexpected consequences.  Though, the conspiracy lovers will likely say completely expected and intended.  On Friday, April 17th the EPA announced that CO2, N2O, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and perfluorocarbons are serious health hazards to current and future generations.  The exact impact of these chemical emissions have been the subject of much debate throughout the scientific community.  However, the EPA’s findings seek to end such debate and once and for all declare humans responsible for “Climate Change.”  And to regulate it accordingly.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a release, later adding, “The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.”

The findings likely also precede a fresh batch of new EPA regulations that will have disastrous impacts on the U.S. and world economies.  Naturally, the White House response was swift and telling.

“The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action, that’s why the president has repeatedly called for a bill to provide for market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean-energy economy that creates millions of green jobs.” Ben LaBolt White House spokesman

What does this really mean?  Not a whole lot, unfortunately.  I’m willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt here.  He very well may have “made clear his strong preference.”  However, that doesn’t mean that Congress won’t do what it does best.  Which is pass legislation that will comprehensively expand government control, in this case through EPA regulations, deeper into the private sector.  After all, what good is a government that doesn’t grow like kudzu?

The great minds at the Heritage Foundation have some interesting projections regarding the creation of “millions of green jobs.”  Given the history of fiascoes caused by the whole green energy movement, I find the Heritage projections far more realistic than that of the White House and President Obama.

With increased regulation through the CAA, there is a small initial increase in employment as businesses build and purchase the newer, more CO2-friendly plants and equipment. However, any “green-collar” jobs created are more than offset by the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in later years. [Chart shown below] illustrates the projections of overall employment losses from these restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation chart marking job losses

Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation chart marking job losses

The chart depicts an initial loss of approximately 300,000 jobs in 2010 with growth in 2011 and 2012 and then continued losses reaching upwards of 800,000 jobs by 2016.  So much for creating millions of green jobs.  At its best the Center for Data Analysis shows a positive of 400,000 total jobs in 2012 only to have those jobs completely wiped out in the following years.  The damage of this many job losses during our current financial predicament would be catastrophic.  With current unemployment at 8.8% and rising the last thing that we need to be doing is further regulating energy, and thereby crushing businesses.  If the economy were a domino line, energy would be the head domino.  If you knock it over, everything else is bound to tumble after it.

Energy is one of the primary costs of doing business.  It effects every aspect of production, transportation and administration.  The more expensive it is to do business, the less businesses survive and grow.  This in turn effects the price of goods (hiya trickle down economics, nice to see ya) and services.  Thus increasing the cost of living, especially on the poor and future generations.

Of course it doesn’t stop there.  Through the CAA (Clean Air Act) the EPA will be able to regulate virtually everything that emits CO2.  From cars, trucks, boats and aircraft to schools, hospitals and commercial buildings.  Via the Heritage Foundation:

In addition to increasing the costs of energy use, regulating GHGs through the Clean Air Act will expand the EPA’s authority to unprecedented levels. The ANPR will likely:

  1. Trigger the Prevention of Signifi­cant Deterioration (PSD) program, which could require permits for large office and residential build­ings, hotels, retail stores, and other similarly sized projects;
  2. Regulate the design of manufac­turing plants;
  3. Regulate the design of airplanes;
  4. Lower speed limits below current levels;
  5. Impose speed restrictions on ocean-going freighters and tankers;
  6. Export economic activity to less-regulated coun­tries, thereby compromising the U.S.’s ability to compete in the global economy; and
  7. Transform the EPA into a de facto zoning author­ity, granting the agency control over thousands of previously local or private decisions, affecting the construction of schools, hospitals, and com­mercial and residential development.

These regulations are just a small sample of the areas into which the ANPR would expand the EPA’s authority.

If this isn’t scary enough for you, consider the costs of energy.  Right now energy costs are rising (we can see that at the pump).  High energy costs help to fuel recessions.  Conversely, lower energy costs help bring economies out of recession.  It would make sense that one would keep energy costs low during a recession to prevent a full blow depression.  However, that doesn’t appear to be the wisdom of Capital Hill at the moment.  Of course, the Environmental Advocacy Group is hailing this move by the EPA as a great step forward.

“The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at the environmental advocacy group. “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity. EPA’s action is a wake-up call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future.”

The last bit is particularly interesting, given that every “green” initiative has caused damage to the economy.  The key difference with this ANPR (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) is that it will be catastrophic.  Imagine if we combined today’s recession with the results of the Carter administration.  Because that is precisely what regulating green house gasses through the CAA will do.  Restricting CO2 emissions by 70% would rip even a stable and flourishing economy apart.  The damage to our bruised economy will be unparalleled.

GDP loss due to CO2 regulation through CAA

GDP loss due to CO2 regulation through CAA

  1. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are nearly $7 trillion by 2029 (in infla­tion-adjusted 2008 dollars), according to The Heritage Foundation/Global Insight model (described in Appendix A).
  2. Single-year GDP losses exceed $600 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).
  3. Annual job losses exceed 800,000 for several years.
  4. Some industries will see job losses that exceed 50 percent.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) the U.S. GDP dropped roughly 6% in the fourth quarter of 2008.  I am certain that we all remember what that drop felt like, right?  Well, take a look at the chart to the right.  That displays a $339 billion per year decrease in GDP.  To say that Global Warming threatens our economy isn’t accurate.  Using the CAA to regulate CO2 emissions threatens our economy.  Be sure to read the full post by Heritage.

**Source articles:  CNN & Heritage Foundation

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Seas Are Rising, The Seas Are Rising

Posted by Max Barron on April 20, 2009

Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary

Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu

Rev. Al Gore, Reverend of the Church of Global Warming, has a protege in Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  Both are Nobel Prize winners, and both are Chicken Littles.  Dr. Chu took a page out of the Goreacle’s bible or perhaps a scene from “An Inconvenient Truth” when speaking this weekend at the Summit of Americas.  Shortly after meeting with environmentalists at the summit Dr. Chu donned his Chicken Little hat and commenced to assert that the seas are rising, the seas are rising!

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Dr. Chu stated emphatically that the most dire of theoretical consequences of “global warming” are a reality.  He stated it as fact and not theory.  After stating that global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade and that they are likely to rise another 1 degree Centigrade, he took it up a notch.

“there’s a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more.”

Despite all of the current evidence that suggests that the climate is undergoing a cooling period, and the decrease in solar flare activity, that the Earth’s temperature is rising.  I’m no scientist, but it seems a little odd to have record cold temperatures while the global temperature is rising.

“So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It’s not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It’s not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out,”

One can’t help but ask the question: “Is this based on some computer model, already proven unreliable and inaccurate, or is there some empirical evidence?”  Dr. Chu, a noted physicist, should know better than to use unreliable computer models for evidence.  He’s a scientist.  Scientists use hard data and empirical evidence, not computer projections.  Shame on you, Dr. Chu, shame on you.  Of course, he didn’t stop there.

“I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent — I remember this number — one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will — some of them will disappear,”

THE SEAS ARE RISING, THE SEAS ARE RISING!!  Perhaps if Dr. Chu spent more time researching and gathering evidence and less time in pews of Rev. Gore’s church he’d know that hurricane activity in the island states has actually DECREASED.  In fact hurricane activity has decreased in both hemispheres according to hurricane experts with MIT and NOAA.  Dr. Chu would also know that for seas to rise, the polar ice caps have to melt.  Recent data has shown, empirically, that the Antarctic ice shelf is actually gaining ice. It is also important to note that whereas the islands may represent 0.5% of carbon emissions in the world, water vapor and breathing represent 90%.

“Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that,”

Would this be the same prediction that the same scientists (whose work was misrepresented by the UN body politic) who took part in the study have quickly backed away from?  Of course, 29.5″ of sea rise doesn’t sound like a lot, so we have to assume that there is a reasonable probability that it would be a lot more.  After all, 29.5″ rise won’t wipe out an island.  As previously stated, the Antarctic shelf is growing, not shrinking, therefore; no rising tides.

“Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is — this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous,”

Once again, the computer models used by Al Gore for “An Inconvenient Truth” have already been proven to be dramatized.  I can’t help but presume that this is where Dr. Chu is getting his talking points.  Notice that Dr. Chu states that a three-meter height puts New Orleans in great peril.  Assuming that Dr. Chu’s statements are correct, and they’re not, but assuming that they are; this means that it will take approximately 400 years to reach that level.  Given how much the world’s climate has changed during the last 100 years, it is nearly impossible to tell what it will be like 400 years from now.  Dr. Chu has also neglected the fact that the only thing consistent about climate IS change.  There is no base line for climate.  Its very nature is to change, and change constantly.  Casting dire predictions of what could happen when current evidence shows the opposite, is something that Dr. Chu should know better than to do.

*Source story courtesy of Fox News*

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Myth that is Global Warming.

Posted by Max Barron on December 26, 2008

I would like to address all of the eco-nuts and green peacers out there.

Everywhere that we look today we see “green”.  Going “green” is the latest fad in just about everything.  The problem with going “green” is that it is a non-economically viable response to faith based myth called global warming.  Simply put, global warming runs to the contrary of everything that actually proven science tells us.  The very idea that human activity is shifting the climate is absurd on its face.  It is BUNK!

The beauty of the Man-Made Global Warming argument is that everything is attributed to it.  If it’s a warmer day than expected.. Look, evidence of global warming!  When we have the coldest weather on record… well that is caused by global warming as well.  There is NO empirical evidence (which is what science is built on) to support it.  If it wasn’t such a prevalent myth created by nut-roots and perpetuated by media and politicians, I would find the notion hilarious.  It has become fashionable to believe in global warming.

You see, folks, their entire argument relies on one thing… one thing that simply doesn’t exist.  That thing would be a static baseline for climate.  How ridiculous is it to say that climate has a baseline?  To say that climate didn’t change until the CFC years is just hogwash.  The climate of this planet changes constantly as has been proven throughout history.  Remember when the drive-bys and nut-roots were screaming about the polar ice caps melting?  What did they say when the ice began to reform?  Remember when the nut-roots yelled from roof tops about the warmest springs and winters on record?  What do they have to say now that there is a decrease in solar-flare activity which suggests a cooling period?  I won’t even bring up the aptly named “Gore Effect”. (Oh wait, guess I just did).  Just as a reminder, when the seasons change… so does the weather.  Try not to be alarmed when the ice caps melt a bit during the summer, the leaves fall in the Fall, you get a plethora of rain in the Spring, and the ice caps re-freeze in the Winter.  So called “Climate Change” is a naturally occurring event directly linked to the rotation and obit pattern of the Earth.  Man did NOT cause that, nor can we.

This is not to say that we do not have an impact on our environments.  If you build a major factory, then chances are that the immediate area surrounding it will have a denser smog layer and be a touch warmer than the outlying areas.  This is because of running machinery.  It isn’t because you have destroyed the ozone.  Sure, if we dump enough non-biodegradable garbage into the earth we will eventually run out of space for it… and run out of crop lands (that will take a VERY VERY long time).  Certainly if you dump toxic waste near a river bed it can, and probably will, poison a water supply and kill or harm the things living in or drinking said water supply.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be responsible with our waste.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t recycle either (it should be voluntary and never forced).  What I am saying is that it is utterly ridiculous to presume that our activity changes the global climate.  I’m sorry folks, driving my car to work does not cause a change in the trade winds.  Nor can it cause a blizzard in the Sahara.

The fad that is global warming is political in its nature.  It is easy for politicians to capitulate to that crowd and receive little opposition on it despite the fact that most scientists call the theory garbage or remain skeptical.  Those few actual scientists (not bureaucratic panels filled with politicians) that have supported the theory have admitted to over-exaggerating and manipulating past data to support their conclusions – in order to garner attention.  Most notably of the Pro-Global Warming group is James Hansen.  This guy is a real piece of work.  They go on and on and on about the end of the earth because we use fossil fuels and natural resources.  They do this so that they keep that huge chunk of gov’t cheese coming in every year.  Without the Global Warming research grants and donations… these guys would be out of a job.  In all likelihood, they keep it up to continue lining their pockets from speaking engagements and the like as well.

Part of the trouble with the NASA crowd is that their own tests have shown that the Earth’s temperature has been steady since ’98 and has begun dipping down.  Since when is cooling a symptom of warming?  Not to mention the HUGE conflict of interest for Mr. Al “Global Warming” Gore himself.  This guy is making his fortune in the biggest rip-off  scam ever perpetrated across the nation.  Carbon credits.  Mr. Alarmist rings the panic bell and drives up sales for his carbon credit firm.  Yup, his company is paid to plant trees in order to offset the so-called carbon footprints of companies.  Essentially, Gore’s company goes out and measures a company’s carbon footprint (or the company can simply purchase a volume of credits of their choosing at a set price) and then the company pays an exorbitant amount of “green-backs” to get “Green”.  Gore then goes out and plants a few trees and bushes or builds a wind-mill farm to compensate for the amount of “carbon pollution” (CO2 – you know.. what we exhale) produced by the company.  You pay them for the amount of CO2 you produce and they promise to cut CO2 from someplace else by funding eco-friendly energy (wind farms – you know, those ghastly things that can’t power a city for a year and cost a fortune in upkeep) or planting shrubbery elsewhere.  This supposedly offsets the size of your carbon footprint by lowering carbon footprints elsewhere.  Want more info on Carbon Credits?  Go here for a nice brief article.

I would like for someone to show me some empirical evidence of man made global warming.  Unfortunately, there really isn’t any.  I hear all of the talk about “trends” and how we experience higher or lower temperatures than recorded history.  That isn’t evidence of anything really.  Even if it was suggestive… as I mentioned before these same scientists were caught manipulating historical temperatures to show that we have experienced a warming trend.

This is the opening of a paper written by Dr. Linden of MIT (it is a long 36pg read… but worth it)

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

Rather than reiterate all of Dr. Linden’s points I will simply let you read the paper and formulate your own conclusions.

The short and skinny of the entire Man-made Global Warming crisis is that is nothing more than a faith based political and monetary movement.  The vast majority of the proponent scientists are in it for the funding…  The politicians are in it for clout…  The Al Gores are in it for the money.  All of these individuals are tied to this theory like a rock climber on a static line 300′ up a rock face — that is to say nice and tight, like their lives depend on it.  Because they do.

If you want to stick it to the “liberals who hide their shame filled lives behind money-bought lunacy” then follow this linkvia

Posted in Politics, Rants | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »