It Is Just Weather Mr. Gore
Mar 16, 2010 Political
Whenever there is a huge snowstorm (and we had quite a few of those this year) the sane part of the population (those who do not believe in man-made global warming) make comments about global warming and how it must not be real. When we discuss these things and other events we are quickly told by the global warming alarmists that these events are just weather and there is a difference between weather and climate.
The Holy Father of global warming did the exact same thing at a global warming conference when he said that recent weather events were consistent with global warming.
But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting. Business and Media Institute
We had several blizzards this year and this is not consistent with what the alarmists have said. Some of them lamented about winters without snow blah blah.
The snow runs contrary to what they have told us even as they claim that the snow is a sign of global warming.
But are the alarmists who routinely mock people as ignorant for not knowing the difference between climate and weather going to call out Gore for his lack of understanding of the issue?
If the snowstorms are not evidence that global warming is not a problem because they are weather events then all the soaking rains we had are not evidence because they too are weather events.
Would one of you self righteous alarmists contact Mr. Gore and inform him of his egregious error?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, climate, global warming alarmists, weather
From Global Warming To Ice Age
Jan 11, 2010 Political
Scientists are now predicting that we might suffer a mini ice age of 20 to 30 years. This prediction changes the assertions that we have to act now to keep the seas from rising and the Earth from melting or any of the other apocalyptic stuff spewed by the global warming drones.
According to scientists who believe in global warming and who are on board with all the Al Gore hokey stuff, we might be in for an ice age before we get back to serious global warming.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics. Daily Mail UK
I guess if you can no longer hide the decline you need to embrace it. The world is very cold this month and was very cold last month. The last decade is reported to be the warmest on record (our records do not go back very far) but this new decade is starting off as a very cold one and if we get into an ice age of 20 or 30 years then we will have a climate and not just weather. We will have cold and not global warming.
Then the true deniers, those who deny the Earth warms and cools in cycles and that the warmer periods are generally the most productive in history, will be screeching about global cooling and the new ice age heading our way.
Al Gore will open a chain of SUV dealerships so we can all increase our carbon footprints and stop the world from freezing.
But wait. According to Al and his drones we have increased our carbon footprint. We have allegedly put more carbon in the atmosphere than there has been at any other time (not true) and the scientists could not hide the decline and are now predicting a mini ice age.
So does carbon cause warming or cooling? It is hard to keep track of because Al said we would get warmer because of it and these other fellows are saying that we will have an ice age despite it.
It is all so confusing and unpredictable.
Perhaps that is why we call it nature.
Either way humans will be here in the next decade and the decades after that and we will not be dying of the heat. No matter what happens it is not worth the money that it will cost to do cap and trade or to impose other rules regarding this issue.
In other words, let nature take its course.
I know liberals think they elected a messiah but how arrogant must they be to believe we have the ability to change the climate in any meaningful way?
Hmmm, Mars got warmer when the Earth did. That would tend to take away the man made aspect to all this. But what do the Earth and Mars have in common?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, climate, decline, denier, global warming, ice age, lies
A Very Bad Idea
Oct 12, 2009 Political
Even as the focus is on healthcare, the climate bill, known as Cap and Tax, is sneaking through Congress, with even some RINOS like Lindsey Graham undergoing a pod- like body snatcher transformation, as he signs on to the flawed and expensive legislation-previously he had been against it. And he was right to have been against it- it is a very bad bill.
It does nothing but allow the government to take over a good portion of everyone’s lives, and will cost jobs- it will cost a lot of jobs, including union jobs.
Nestled in Ohio’s Amish country, Bill Belden’s 124-year-old family owned brick company has thrived on the region’s rich red clay and shale, and cheap energy from abundant coal.
Which he’s convinced that a climate bill being considered in Congress will end.
A cap-and-trade system forcing businesses away from fossil fuels, especially coal, will mean higher electricity and natural gas costs, he says. And layoffs at the Belden Brick Co.
“We’re already under severe economic strain,” said Belden, standing beside towering stacks of fresh bricks outside one of the six plants that ring Sugarcreek.
The town, about 80 miles south of Cleveland, calls itself “the Little Switzerland of Ohio.” Signs dot the highway hailing the annual Swiss Festival, quaint bed and breakfasts, and restaurants that feature traditional Dutch Amish cooking.
It’s brick, however, that’s Sugarcreek’s economic foundation.
A lifelong Republican, Belden said his criticism of the Democratic-run Congress over global warming isn’t about politics, but economics. “We’ve got to compete in the world and to do so we need low cost energy,” he argues.
kansascity.com
Of course it isn’t about politics- until the liberals make it so, by making it much harder to keep costs down- cheap energy is what is needed right now- our economy demands it.
It’s a 30-minute drive up Interstate 77 from Belden’s plants to the United Steelworkers Union office just outside Canton. Former steelworker Joe Holcomb, now a district representative for the union, says that a dozen years ago the union had 65,000 members in the state. It’s now about 50,000.
Like Brown, Holcomb and union members see the climate bill debate in Washington as a path to new manufacturing jobs and way to push those numbers up again – or at least stem the slide. That’s why the national union strongly backs the cap-and-trade legislation.
If energy prices jump, Holcomb says he’ll put up a windmill and generate his own power.
But he’s not exactly a tree-hugging environmentalist. He recalls the push decades ago to clean up Ohio’s rivers and sooty air from factory smokestacks. The water became cleaner, the air healthier, but factories closed, production became more expensive, jobs were lost, he said.
His warning to those in Washington: Don’t make the same mistake.
“If we’re just going to put a bill in and say we’re going to clean the air … but not create jobs, we’ve already seen that happen. We’ve got to do it in a way that’s going to bring jobs into this country and not let them go out of here.”
Many of the union’s members work across town, producing specialty steel at a mill owned by the Timken Co., a $5.6 billion global manufacturer of high-grade precision bearings for everything from cars and locomotives to jetliners and giant wind turbines. Of its 25,000 employees worldwide, about 5,000 are in Ohio.
It’s electricity bill for the steel mill and five other Ohio facilities runs as much as $50 million a year.
Ward “Tim” Timken Jr., company’s chairman, said the United States has no business capping carbon pollution and fossil fuel use unless other countries act as well.
“This whole notion that the U.S. is going to lead and set the example because it’s the moral thing to do is foolish,” he said in an interview at the company’s technology center adjacent to the Akron-Canton airport.
Timken, a member of one of Ohio’s most influential Republican families, said he doesn’t understand why the steelworkers would support the climate bill.
“These guys have to wake up and realize that their jobs are stake,” he said.
If the bill became law, “there would be some very difficult decisions to be made, quite frankly. I’ve got a global footprint. A quarter of my work force is in Asia. I’ve got manufacturing in Eastern Europe,” he said. “These are very real threats that we’re talking about.”
kansascity.com
The liberals continue to mistakenly believe that the jobs we shed will magically be reinvented, and perhaps that might be true in a long run (if you believe in unicorns), but we would see a depression the likes of which we have never seen, because, unless other countries signed onto the same restrictions we impose on ourselves, this bill will have the only true effect of impoverishing our country unnecessarily. And all in the mistaken myth of “Global Warming”- a myth that has no basis in reality, just in the minds of liberals who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Quid enim est veritas? What, then, is the truth? The single question whose answer gives us the truth about the climate question is this: By how much will any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration warm the world? We now know the answer. The oceans, which must store 80-90% of all heat-energy accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of the radiative imbalance caused by greater greenhouse-gas concentration, have shown no net accumulation of heat for almost 70 years, implying a very small influence of CO2 on temperature (Douglass & Knox, 2009). The devastating analysis of cloud-albedo effects shortly to be published by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville will show that the UN has wrongly decided that cloud changes reinforce greenhouse warming, when in fact they substantially offset it. Repeated studies of the tropical upper troposphere (e.g. Douglass et al., 2008) show that it is failing to warm at thrice the surface rate as required by all of the UN’s models, again implying very low climate sensitivity. The clincher is Professor Richard Lindzen’s meticulous recent paper demonstrating – by direct measurement – that the amount of radiation escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere to space is many times greater than the UN’s models are all told to believe. From this, the world’s most formidable atmospheric physicist has calculated that a doubling of CO2 concentration, expected over the next 150 years, would cause 0.75 C (1.5 F) of warming, at most: not the 3.4 C (6 F) that the UN takes as its central estimate.
Most analysts would stop there. Yet some might ask, “Suppose that the single satellite on which Lindzen’s results depend is defective. What then?” They might consider the economic cost of attempting to mitigate the “global warming” which, as our Monthly Reports demonstrate, is not actually happening. The figures turn out to be startlingly simple. To mitigate just 1 C (2 F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN’s exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming. Preventing the 3.4 C (6 F) warming that the UN’s climate panel thinks would occur in 100 years would take 225 years without any transportation, and with practically no electrical energy. The national security advisor would at that point advise his head of government that there has never been any security threat less grave, or more expensive to prevent, than the non-problem that is “global warming”. It is the fearmongers that are the real national security threat.
americanthinker.com
Yes, it is the fearmongers, because these people want your money, and more importantly, they want you to live as they think you should- they do not trust you to be able to live as you yourself wish to. This is contrary to the American Dream, where you as an individual are able to chart your own course. A denial of freedom of choice- but this does not bother these control freaks at all; no, they want the power to dictate what you do and how you do it.
Their whole policy is based on a lie, a very big lie.
And that is always a very bad idea.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, climate, depression, job loss, liberal lies
Obama Lies (Again)
Sep 18, 2009 Political
As Ronald Reagan would have said, “well, there he goes again”, as our Resident lies blatantly in our face, apparently forgetting that Google is just a click away, and checking on anyone’s words is just too easy. And crosschecking with other members of his party reveals that they just do not care how blatantly they insult the American people with outright lies.
Recently, (within the last two months), we have had both Henry Waxman and the Resident come out and lie about the true costs of the Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House of Representatives. First, the head of the Energy Committee, Henry Waxman says that the cost to the consumer (that would be you and me) would be about “40 cents a day”- Really?
And then you had the Liar in Chief (there- I said it- am I a racist, too?) claim that the cost of this legislation was “… about the cost of a stamp…” per day. Oooohhh, not so fast here.
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
~ snip~
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.
These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June — the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to “no” — and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.
One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner hasestimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT’s John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, “the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.”
cbsnews.com
Even though figures vary, depending on who’s ox is being gored, the low end, MIT’s estimate of $800 per year is still way above either of the estimates postulated by Waxman or the Resident- by about a factor of around 500%– a rather egregious error, wouldn’t you agree? Other estimates are considerably more- and if it hits the upper end, (1200%), families that are having trouble making ends meet are in for a world of hurt. Do the Liberal progressives care? Obviously not, or they would say, “Perhaps we should hold off until people can absorb the costs,” but nooooooo.
“Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately,” says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. “It’s nice to see they’re not spinning each other behind closed doors.”
“They’re not telling you the cost — they’re not telling you the benefit,” says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. “If they don’t tell you the cost, and they don’t tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They’re just talking about global salvation.”
cbsnews.com
“Global salvation”- oh goody- yeah right, like that will work, what with China and India, who supply us with their smog on a daily basis (it takes two to three days for their air to become ours) NOT signing on to any treaty that inhibits their economic growth. All the Climate bill that was passed by the Democrats in the House- (Republicans were a little smarter than that; they want the Dems to “own” this FUBAR bill) will do is to make us poorer, and give the progressives the excuse to insinuate themselves in our lives, burying themselves deep like the blood-sucking ticks they resemble, but without the good points.
Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.
One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.” The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.
The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You’d hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the “most open and transparent in history” would be more forthcoming than this.
cbsnews.com
Yeah- transparent this Resident is not- (note the “blacked out”, or x’ed out section the Treasury Department redacted from the FOIA document )- liar he definitely is, and complicit in defrauding the American people- think of it- can you afford another 8- 15 % rise in your income taxes, just on the energy bill? This does not take into account the Health care bill, or any other legislation they are considering. All total, we could be looking at a 25% increase in our taxes- for what? So they, the government, could dictate the way we live our lives? How cool or warm we want our living area to be, the amount of water we use,the way we live our lives? How or what we drive?
This is an administration built literally on lie after lie – I truly do not think they are physically or mentally capable of telling the truth, and between the new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who can impose restrictive regulations that will rule your lives and make you poorer, and the Resident’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who first believed in Global Cooling and a new “Ice Age”– then reversed course and hyped Global Warming with Al “I’m a HUGE hypocrite” Gore, we will be forced to do what the government wants, and thus our liberties shrink some more. We don’t need this.
Cass Sunstein thinks “free speech” is overrated, and should be restricted anyway, and that expectations of personal privacy are unreasonable. He also believes hunting should be banned, not realizing that hunting is actually a good and necessary thing in controlling wildlife populations, but since he just thinks and has never actually studied the cause and effects of hunting as population control, this position is not unexpected.
John Holdren- ( the Science Czar, for God’s sake), thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized, if their genetics are not “preferred” by the government “elites”. Isn’t that just peachy? These are the people the Resident thinks are good for the country-
And you just hoped “Change” would be a good thing-
Silly Goose.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: climate, czars, lies, taxes, third-world status
Climate Bill Grows Government Power
Jul 6, 2009 Political
The massive climate bill that passed the House is a monster that gives the federal government even more power and allows it to be more intrusive in our lives. This bill, that passed even though NOT ONE member read the 1200 pages, is the government’s reaction to a trace gas called CO2. The environmental wackos and other assorted tree huggers (trees need CO2) are pushing for passage of this so that Obama can sign it into law.
This is another bill that needs to be rejected. It gives government a huge amount of power. The bill allows government to redistribute wealth, requires builders to meet California standards, and will require homeowners to make their houses compliant with the requirements of the bill before they can sell. If your house is not up to the California standard you will be required to get it that way before you can sell. This bill will also cost us jobs:
An analysis of the legislation by scholars at the Heritage Foundation think tank estimated that U.S. unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million — including over 52,000 Michigan jobs lost — in 2012, the first year of the program.
In addition, the assessment estimates a loss of $9.4 trillion in U.S. Gross Domestic Product by 2035.
~And it will have little effect on the climate;
While the bill does not specify the impact of its carbon dioxide cap-and-trade elements on the earth’s temperatures, John Christy — a climate scientist who once led the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment — told me the bill’s effects would, at best, reduce our planet’s average warmth by an undistinguishable[sic] two tenths of one degree.
John Christy who once led the UN’s IPCC (the thing climate alarmists always point to as a consensus) is saying it will have an effect of dropping the temperature 0.2 degrees. It won’t be cheap, it will cost us lots of jobs and it will not work.
That is Obama and his administration in a nutshell. From stimulus to health care to cap and trade, the results are all the same. More government and fewer results.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: california, cap and trade, climate, homeowners, job losses