Hoax of the Century by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming | Posted on 04-03-2010

0

A great article by Pat Buchanan on global warming, climate change or whatever those crazy kids are calling it now-a-days.

What we learned in a year’s time: Polar bears are not vanishing. Sea levels are not rising at anything like the 20-foot surge this century was to bring. Cities are not sinking. Beaches are not disappearing. Temperatures have not been rising since the late 1990s. And, in historic terms, our global warming is not at all unprecedented.

Dennis Avery of Hudson Institute wrote a decade ago that from A.D. 900 to 1300, the Earth warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, a period known as the Little Climate Optimum.

How horrible was it?

“The Vikings discovered and settled Greenland around A.D. 950. Greenland was then so warm that thousands of colonists supported themselves by pasturing cattle on what is now frozen tundra. During this great global warming, Europe built the looming castles and soaring cathedrals that even today stun tourists with their size, beauty and engineering excellence. These colossal buildings required the investment of millions of man-hours – which could be spared from farming because of higher crop yields.”

Today’s global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

via Hoax of the Century by Patrick J. Buchanan.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Uh Oh! The private sector sees climate change as a sinking ship.

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming, Government | Posted on 17-02-2010

0

Looks like the climate scam is falling apart day by day. Just like Big Pharma with ObamaCare, these energy giants were trying to get in on the scam to make sure the government gun was not pointed in their direction. Now that the rational from our government, “we’re pointing this gun at you to protect you from the weather”, is falling apart, these companies are jumping off the ship.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won’t renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

via BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership – WSJ.com.

This is just more proof that the private sector is more efficient. Even in their scamming they react to changing conditions. Meanwhile, the government keeps pressing forward acting like nothing has changed. Then again, when all you have to do is stick a gun in someone’s face, you don’t need to change.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Boulder Busybodies Hit a Road Block…Freedom

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Global Warming, Government | Posted on 13-02-2010

2

I don’t think I’ve shaken my head as much reading an article as I have reading this Wall Street Journal article. I literally almost had to stop reading, thinking of all the busybodies who think their big ideas should be imposed through “incentives” and ultimately at gun point.

This spring, city contractors will fan out across this well-to-do college town to unscrew light bulbs in thousands of homes and replace them with more energy-efficient models, at taxpayer expense.

City officials never dreamed they’d have to play nanny when they set out in 2006 to make Boulder a role model in the fight against global warming. The cause seemed like a natural fit in a place where residents tend to be politically liberal and passionate about the great outdoors.

Instead, as Congress considers how to encourage Americans to conserve more energy, Boulder stands as a cautionary tale about the limits of good intentions.

Lol, “City officials never dreamed they’d have to play nanny….”. Isn’t setting out to be a role model being a nanny in the first place? You are trying to force all your citizens to abide by some vision that they would not have otherwise chosen for themselves.

Also, I’d love to know what the carbon footprint of all these city contractors fanning out to unscrew light bulbs is compared to the light bulbs they are unscrewing. If it’s like any other liberal idea, it’s probably worse.

“What we’ve found is that for the vast majority of people, it’s exceedingly difficult to get them to do much of anything,” says Kevin Doran, a senior research fellow at the University of Colorado at Boulder. ….

But Boulder has found that financial incentives and an intense publicity campaign aren’t enough to spur most homeowners to action, even in a city so environmentally conscious that the college football stadium won’t sell potato chips because the packaging isn’t recyclable.

Can someone tell Mr. Doran that free people will do what is in their best interest based on what they believe is in their best interest. The government doesn’t need to “get them to do” anything.

You have to love the logic here. I can just see the bureaucrats now, “How can we not get our vision implemented? I mean I told the vendors we can’t sell potato chips because of the packaging. You would think with people accepting that, they would open their wallets and doors up to contractors so we can be a role model. Now how are we going to get ourselves on the news and get Obama to talk about us?”

Since 2006, Boulder has subsidized about 750 home energy audits. Even after the subsidy, the audits cost each homeowner up to $200, so only the most committed signed up. Still, follow-up surveys found half didn’t implement even the simplest recommendations, despite incentives such as discounts on energy-efficient bulbs and rebates for attic insulation.

About 75 businesses got free audits; they made so few changes that they collectively saved just one-fifth of the energy auditors estimated they were wasting.

Hey, you didn’t waste enough money yet. Let’s waste some more. How about we give free light bulbs and labor to change them at tax payer expense. Then when we followup and we find that people bought cheaper, less efficient bulbs to replace our free bulbs, we’ll sit around and postulate how we can force them to buy only our green bulbs. Maybe you can have a green inspector stop buy once a month to check!

“We still have a long way to go,” says Paul Sheldon, a consultant who advises the city on conservation. Residents “should be driving high-efficiency vehicles, and they’re not. They should be carpooling, and they’re not.” And yes, he adds, they should be changing their own light bulbs—and they’re not.

Eh boy. Paul Sheldon must have been endowed by our creator to decide what we all should be doing. Darn idiots in Boulder should listen to Paul Sheldon. I’m sure he has a degree in government planning or at least saw “An Inconvenient Truth”.

In 2006, Boulder voters approved the nation’s first “carbon tax,” now $21 a year per household, to fund energy-conservation programs. The city took out print ads, bought radio time, sent email alerts and promoted the campaign in city newsletters.

But Boulder’s carbon emissions edged down less than 1% from 2006 through 2008, the most recent data available.

By the end of 2008, emissions here were 27% higher than 1990 levels. That’s a worse showing than the U.S. as a whole, where emissions rose 15% during that period, according to the Department of Energy.

More proof of Quinn’s first law, that liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it’s stated intent. While Quinn says liberalism, I think you can pretty much apply it to all government action. After wasting all that money, they did worse than the rest of the US.

In Freakonomics, the author talks about how parents were routinely a little late picking their kids up from a day care. In order to discourage this, the day care implemented a small fine (forget the exact amount). After the fine was implemented, tardiness by parents increased substantially. The moral of the story was that parents assumed by paying the fine, they were paying for the service, so they did not see a problem with being late. This is probably the same thing in Boulder. In pursuit of being a role model and being the first to tax their citizens for living (carbon tax), their citizens probably assumed that because they were paying their tax, they were already doing their part. Why change your behavior. By the looks of it, they even increased their carbon output assuming they were offsetting it with their carbon tax.

OK, here it comes. Here comes the gun!

City officials are frustrated—and contemplating more forceful steps. (Here it is!)

The City Council will soon consider mandating (Here it is again!) energy-efficiency upgrades to many apartments and businesses. The proposals under review would be among the most aggressive in the nation, requiring up to $4,000 a rental unit in new appliances, windows and other improvements. Owners of commercial property could face far larger tabs.

The goal: to spur $650 million in private investment in efficiencies over the next three years. (Sounds so nice doesn’t it?)

“Everyone needs to do something,” says Councilman Matthew Appelbaum.

I’m not sure if I can make it through this post. Reading this article the second time is torture. Ok, I’ll keep going. So what is there solution?

In the program, dubbed “Two Techs in a Truck,” as many as 15 energy-efficiency teams will go door-to-door. They’ll ask home and business owners for permission to caulk windows, change bulbs and install low-flow showerheads and programmable thermostats—all at taxpayer expense. The techs will set up clothes racks in laundry rooms as a reminder to use the dryer less often. They’ll even pop into the garage and inflate tires to the optimum pressure for fuel efficiency.

If they spot the need for bigger projects, such as insulation or a new furnace, the techs will help homeowners make appointments and apply for rebates.

Really? They are going to have idiots going door to door intimidating people into doing what they want.  Ok, that’s enough. I can’t continue. Click over to the Wall Street Journal and read the rest if you can stomach it. There is nothing worse than a government idiot with an idea!

via Boulder Struggles With Energy Conservation – WSJ.com.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 5.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Here comes the “War on Climate Change” – Updated

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming | Posted on 04-02-2010

3

This morning I was checking RT.com’s Youtube videos, and I saw that the Pentagon now is going to combat global warming. I guess this will be the “War on Climate Change” now. This is why Republicans are making a huge mistake when they think no military can be too big, not military budget can be too big, and no military policy can be a bad one.

Maybe Obama will now say to conservatives, “You don’t support the troops.”, when conservatives question money being wasted on a fake crisis. Believe me I used to think the same things when I was pro-war. I now realize that all government, whether domestic or military is looking to do one thing. That is to grow and gain more power. Like terrorism, global warming is the perfect boogeyman. This time they have the boogeyman for the left.

President Obama is hurrying to create military climate change command, apparently planning to spend a big chunk of increasingly scarce Defense Department funds on monitoring global warming. Obama and the Democratic Congress are setting the stage to focus the Pentagon on doomsday environmentalism.

via YouTube – RussiaToday’s Channel.

Update: I guess now that more proof is piling up that scientists have been manipulating data for 20 years, Obama is just going to use military to force global warming on us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLL2Cjfed8

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Climate Changed: Settled Science or Myth

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming | Posted on 24-01-2010

0

It seems like the mountain of lies that is Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever they are calling it now is coming undone every day. Here is yet more evidence of lies, or as government folks call them, “mistakes”.

YouTube – New report feeds climate change skeptics.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

After Summit, ‘Cleantech’ Firms Reset Strategy – WSJ.com

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Global Warming | Posted on 23-12-2009

0

Apparently, so called green firms are looking toward local coercion to grow their businesses now that the global gun to the head fell through.

Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits to spur alternative-energy investments now are looking to national and local policies to get more wind turbines turning and nuclear-power plants humming, after the muddled outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.

The failure of the United Nations gathering to produce an enforceable accord to cut fossil-fuel emissions leaves the U.S., Europe, China, India and other countries to pursue the energy policies they already had.

In many cases, those policies are aimed more at strategic goals, such as economic development or reducing dependence on Mideast oil, than at threats posed by global warming.

via After Summit, ‘Cleantech’ Firms Reset Strategy – WSJ.com.

“Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits” should be considered fascist enterprises. No businesses should be looking to force to public into buying their crap in order to grow their businesses, but unfortunately that is how business works now in America. Look at the health insurance companies. They are going to have millions of new customers thanks to government force.

Also, as stated in the last sentence, so called green tech is not economic development. You don’t develop economically by forcing people to buy something that is more expensive, delivers you less energy, to eventually get back what you already had. I’m not more wealthy for trading in my paid for Ford for a new Mercedes with a car payment.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Breaking News! – Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming | Posted on 17-12-2009

0

This is breaking news on the Wall Street Journal. Hillary Clinton pledges $100 billion per year out of American tax payers’ pockets to hand over to the Mugabes of the world via the “Climate-Aid Fund”.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. is prepared to join other rich countries in raising $100 billion in yearly climate financing for poor countries by 2020.

The announcement could give a boost to deadlocked climate talks which have faltered over disputes between rich and poor countries over emissions cuts and climate financing.

Mrs. Clinton said the financing is contingent on world leaders reaching a broader climate pact at the U.N. talks in Copenhagen.

She said the deal must include all major economies, meaningful actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and a system to ensure all parties’ actions are transparent.

Mrs. Clinton says “$100 billion is a lot. It can have tangible effects.”

via Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund – WSJ.com.

So, let’s get this straight so I can get back to reading how to survive the coming collapse. We are already borrowing over $1 trillion a year. On top of that, we are going to borrow another $100 billion for this climate change scam. We are going to ask China to lend us money to hand it over to Mugabe. In other words, we are slaves to Mugabe. We are pledging our future and our children’s future labor to give $100 billion now and every year in the future to the Mugabes of the world. Did any of these political pigs want to ask us if we wanted to be enslaved so they could feel good about themselves?

Next time Obama goes back over to China to tell them how bad their leaders are and how they aren’t free, can he take the gun away from our heads first? Without the government gun to our heads, Americans would never fork over $100 billion to hand to tin pot despots.  I believe there was once a revolution over taxation without representation. Maybe it’s time for another one.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Green Revolution And It’s False Boom

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming, Government | Posted on 15-12-2009

3

I keep hearing politicians and pundits saying the US has to be at the forefront of the green revolution. This is the new internet revolution they say, and it will create tons of jobs in the future. That got me thinking about whether this is the case.

To start, what is economic growth, and why does it benefit society? Real economic growth is increased production of society as a whole (unfortunately our GDP focuses on spending). Increased production means that there are more goods and services for the society to consume and to trade with other nations. That is increased wealth.

Now, the internet revolution and the technology revolution drove up productivity, which means you can produce more with less. That is a pretty simple idea, and it’s easy to see how it increased wealth for us as a nation. Also, being the leader in these revolutions helped us get a head start. With these revolutions, even if  you weren’t the leader, you still benefited immensely from them.

So, the question is how is the Green Revolution like the technology/internet revolution? Does it increase productivity? It is hard to see how. Having energy produced by the sun instead of coal doesn’t increase productivity. If it was cheaper, maybe you could say the savings would be reinvested, and that would eventually lead to increased productivity. Unfortunately, it isn’t cheaper, which is why it hasn’t taken place freely, and it requires government force and subsidies.

Think about it like this. Let’s say as a nation, you have $100 in wealth. You need electricity for luxury and commerce.  Now, say it costs $10/kwh when power is produced by coal (I know nothing about electricity, so please don’t laugh). You would be able to get 10kwhs for you $100. Now, let’s say with green energy it costs $20/kwh. I don’t know the ratio, but I know it’s more expensive. With green energy, you can only get 5kwhs for society’s $100. Now, how does that make your society richer? Why are we all racing to be the leaders of the revolution that makes you less wealthy?

If green technology makes you less wealthy, how do you benefit as a society from the “Green Revolution”? The only way I can think of is you are the leader, and you steal the wealth of other nations in a zero sum game. Other countries buy the technology from your country, which would give you that income from that export. Meanwhile, that nation pays out the money for the technology, and then pays out for the increased cost of the power. This sounds like a huge wealth transfer.

As you can see, there is nothing revolutionary with the “Green Revolution”. It is no where close to the internet revolution and the technology revolutions. Those revolutions didn’t need government force to come into existence. They came to be because they drove up productivity, drove down costs, and increased our standard of living. They actually increased our wealth. The green revolution is the exact opposite. It requires government force, increases cost, and decreases our standard of living. Keep this in mind the next time you hear our politicians talking about the US needing to be at the forefront of this revolution. No worth while revolution requires government forcing it upon you.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)

You come talkin that trash, we’ll pull ya card

Posted by Jason | Posted in Foreign Policy, Global Warming | Posted on 07-12-2009

1

Tony Blankley in his op-ed this weekend explained the vulnerability we have that is growing substantially under Obama.

It is vital to understand that a weak dollar driven by excessive public debt directly threatens not only our prosperity but also our sovereign ability to protect our liberty in this heartless world. There is no better evidence than an event 53 years ago: the Suez Canal crisis.

When Egypt nationalized the British- and French-owned Suez Canal, Britain took offense and organized its retaking. But U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower disapproved of the effort. Unfortunately for Britain, it relied on America for financial help.

Britain could not maintain its currency, the pound sterling, at the pound’s needed reserve currency value of $2.80 without America’s help. Also, Britain needed petroleum, which was being cut off by the Suez crisis.

The “genial” Eisenhower had had enough. He instructed his Treasury secretary to sell off the pound, break the British currency and economy and refuse to sell Britain any American oil until Britain gave up its military action.

And so effectively ended the British empire, not at the hands of an enemy but by the ungentle touch of its closest ally.

Now the stately Financial Times is suggesting that the United States may be imminently vulnerable to a not-so-friendly China playing Ike’s role of spoiler of American sovereignty to our role as the dear old broke Britain of 1956.

We basically have become China’s lapdog with all our debt that is being held by them. While our leaders like to act tough for the mainstream media in our country when it comes to China, the truth is China could tell the President right now what to do. They could blackmail our President with the threat of dumping the dollar and causing catastrophe for our economy. Every time the President goes to China it reminds me of the old EZ-E lyric, “you come talkin that trash, we’ll pull ya card”.

That is why the United States should not accept the shrewd but not yet inevitable prognosis of the Financial Times. In the next few years, we must start radically cutting our spending until our fiscal condition supports a strong dollar and low taxes.

Wonder if he was laughing as he wrote this? I’m sure he knows this will never happen with Obama and Democrats in charge. I don’t think it would happen with Republicans in charge, at least the ones that were in charge before this current Bolshevik revolution. We need people like Ron Paul, who understand economics, in order to ever make progress on this.

It is an open political question whether the majority of Americans love our country enough to make the painful sacrifice (vast reductions in entitlement benefits) necessary to guarantee our sovereign and prosperous future.

Are we Americans still brave enough to remain free? My guess is that neither the two major political parties nor the majority of the public loves America enough to campaign and vote on the hard, bitter truth about our condition.

via The price we pay for debt – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Unfortunately, I think Tony knows the answer. America has become a country of people standing in the government breadline waiting for their handout. While there is a huge group of Americans that want to remain free and want to work hard to take care of themselves, there is just as big of a group who wants the rest of us to pay for them. Then their is the largest group. They are those who feel that if something doesn’t effect them then they don’t care. Who cares if the government is taking freedom from my neighbor, just as long as they don’t take mine. This is what the politicians count on. This is why they say things like “95% of Americans will get a tax break under my plan”. So most of that 95% doesn’t care that the government pillages the other 5%.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Obama Brings Big Pharma Into The Family

Posted by Jason | Posted in Global Warming, Health Care | Posted on 27-11-2009

1

I’m not saying we are a fascist nation yet, but we are moving closer and closer. Obama’s dealings are looking more and more like Don Corleone. Making an offer they can’t refuse, Big Pharma is falling in line.

In June, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America sealed a deal with the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promising to contribute $80 billion in lower drug costs over the next decade to ObamaCare, plus a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign. In return they were to be spared from price controls and the reimportation of cheaper foreign drugs.

To hell with the people. Obama and Big Pharma are going to prevent importation of drugs from other countries, which would help drive costs down. In a free market, drug companies would not be able to charge one price to foreign consumers and another, higher price to American consumers. American consumers are subsidizing the research and development, so the rest of the world gets the benefit without the cost. In Corleone fashion Obama threatens price controls (death to your business) to Big Pharma, or they can be a team player and benefit like the rest of those who fall in line with “the family”.

The pharma lobby was unfazed. “Despite the shortcomings in the House legislation, we remain completely committed to helping the President and Congress pass comprehensive health care reform this year,” a senior vice president said in a statement. “This is a three-act play and a good critic doesn’t write a review after the opening scenes.”

Why would pharma be fazed, when the Don gives them his word that they’ll be taken care of?

So how has the industry responded? More or less as Lenin predicted. Big Pharma is now running ads against Joe Lieberman, saying his threat to torpedo the Senate bill could cause drug prices to rise by 20%. It is also funding a campaign that targets the fence-sitters Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln.

So after we’ve been told how evil Big Pharma is, how they only care about profits, how they careless if you live or die, and how they hold a gun to your head to make you buy their product, we are now supposed to believe they are looking out for the public, and those who stand against government health care are now the bad ones. Oh, how a little threat from the White House can change things.

via Big Pharma Sells Out on Health Care – WSJ.com.

Now we are supposed to believe that Big Pharma is actually giving something up to the benefit of all of us. Do you really believe they are doing something that isn’t in their best interest? This will lock out imported drugs, preventing price competition. It will prevent smaller drug companies from entering the market, thus preventing competition. It also allows the government more control over the drug business. Once Big Pharma enter the family, they can never leave.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)