Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

On the climate

An excellent precis.

Trying to calculate something called “global average temperature” from this massive variety of ever changing data covering diverse locations, elevations, times, and weather is an exercise in statistical sophistry – either meaningless or misleading.

“Climate” is just the notional 30-year average of weather, so climate is controlled by the same big three factors that drive weather.

Notice one thing about the three big drivers of weather: not one is measurably affected by the trace amount of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.  Never does a daily weather forecast mention CO2, and never do weather-watching farmers or sailors note daily measurements of CO2.  However, there are over one hundred massive computerized climate-forecasting models run by bureaucracies that use CO2 as a key driver, with variable inputs and rules and differing results.  No one knows which model may have stumbled onto an accurate climate forecast.

CO2 is a rare (0.04%) colorless natural atmospheric gas.  It does not generate any heat – it just moves heat around.  In the atmosphere, it may slightly reduce the solar radiation that reaches the surface, thus producing cooler days, and it may slightly reduce nighttime radiative cooling, thus producing warmer nights.  The net effect is probably a tiny net warming at night, in winter, and in polar regions – all of which are probably welcomed by most people.  Even this tiny effect shrinks rapidly as CO2 levels rise.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the key nutrient of our carbon-based life on Earth.  It has always been there, usually much more of it than now.  It is nothing to be scared about.  If it increases, the net effects will be highly beneficial for all life on Earth.  It is time to stop the carbon dioxide scare stories.

Change is the natural order of things on Earth, and all records are destined to be equaled or broken.  From the first ray of morning sunshine to the frosts at midnight, temperature is always changing – every minute, every day, and every year, at every place on Earth.  The Earth keeps turning, the planets interact, asteroids come and go, and that big glowing pulsing nuclear reactor in the sky keeps moving toward the next phase of its turbulent and finite life.

No level of carbon taxes or emission targets will stop Earth’s climate from changing.  Nature rules, not politicians.  We must aim for resilience and be prepared to adapt.

There’s so much good, science-backed common sense here it was hard to decide when to stop excerpting. You’ll definitely want to read it all…and maybe even bookmark it for future reference, too.

The Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam was never really about Saving Gaia!!!™ from human depredation. In fact, it was never even about the climate, really. It was about the same old things that underlie every Leftist plaint: power, control, and expanding government’s reach. No more, no less.


Wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever

Funny how no matter what the climate may be doing at any given time, the same old Doomsday clowns keep making the same old predictions and offering the same old solutions.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

Follows, a list of 13 of the most amusing shrieking freakouts, my favorite of which are these two anguished cris de coeur from eternal buffoon Paul Ehrlich:

  • “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  • “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

Ehrlich is not only a loser and an idiot, of course. He’s also a complete asshole, too. Bottom line:

Paul Ehrlich’s entire career stands as a monument to the ideological imperatives of the world’s elites and the extent to which they exist not just independent from, but in actual opposition to, both science, evidence, reason, and good faith.

The very fact of Paul Ehrlich is an indictment of the bien pensant progressive order. 

He’s the pluperfect example of the pluperfect liberal: doubling down on stupid each and every chance they get…always with other peoples’ money, natch.

(Via Ed)

Update! Via WRSA, Watts Up has these plus a few more, all for your Earth Day enjoyment.


More inconvenient truths

The sky, it turns out, is NOT falling.

For environment ideologues, The Donald has ensured destruction of the world by removing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate accord. The key for global warming proponents is the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) content in air from 200 parts per million during the ice age to 400 parts per million in 2013. CO2 is a clear harmless odorless tasteless gas expelled by every human and also a product of burning fossil fuels.

In spite of a growing U.S. population, President Barack Obama pledged a reduction in CO2 production of 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which would have a minuscule effect on global CO2; require draconian enforcement measures; damage the U.S. economic structure; and accelerate the rise of China, the world’s most prolific producer of CO2. China only pledged to peak CO2 production by 2030 with no targeted reductions. It is China’s strategy to overtake the U.S. economically, militarily and politically.

From 1996 through 2015 global temperatures remained essentially flat, despite predictions of a rise by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Forecasts of rising sea levels have also failed to match reality. Melting Arctic sea ice does not increase liquid volume. Melting ice from land masses does increase global sea levels. About 90 percent of the world’s glacial ice is on Antarctica which shows no net decrease in ice cover. In a Kafkaesque setting, the entire world’s economy and standard of living is being threatened by a technically challenged political elite in a global hustle using IPCC models, which are grossly flawed.

The IPCC refutes any scientific findings that suggest that global warming is not exclusively due to increased CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuels. In reality, 99.98 percent of the total energy contribution to the earth’s climate originates from the sun.

Aw, nooooo: more of that logic, rationality, and obvious fucking truth that so unhinges the libtards whenever and wherever they encounter it, poor things. Read on for more; it’s as concise a takedown of the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam as any I’ve seen.


Trump looses blood-dimmed tide!

Alternate headline: “Trump murders world!” Or howzabout, most accurately: “Trump refuses to do further damage to American economy by keeping US committed to silly-assed, non-binding wealth-redistribution scheme that won’t do one damned thing about Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”), which we don’t have the ability to much affect anyway.”

Either way, the center cannot hold. Surely some revelation is at hand. The worst are damned sure full of passionate intensity, no denying that. Among other things.

The Paris climate accord is a largely symbolic gesture that even supporters acknowledge lacks enforcement mechanisms and, even if successful, will have a statistically insignificant impact on the climate.

Reuters reports that U.S. carbon emissions will fall over the next decade — regardless of whether America remains in COP21 treaty.

Nevertheless, the news that Trump is officially withdrawing America from the accord has brought on a level of hyperbole that is almost … anti-science in its sheer disproportionality.

Here are the 14 most unhinged reactions to Trump’s decision thus far. 

They’re all absolute classics of unhinged libtard hysteria, but this one might be my favorite:

10. Al Gore released a statement that included the bold claim that “Trump’s decision is profoundly in conflict with what the majority of Americans want from our president”—this despite the fact that as a candidate Trump repeatedly promised to do exactly this and won soundly in November.

Ahh, good old Albert “Arnold The Pig” Algore, otherwise known as “Frosty” Gore, the guy who could make it snow in the Sahara simply by showing up there.

Update! Schlichter, still on a roll:

It was an undeniably awesome week when measured by the only metric that truly matters, the amount of pain inflicted upon liberals. Now, we are not sadists; we don’t delight in watching liberals suffer because their suffering itself makes us happy (Okay, it makes us a little happy). Rather, liberals’ misery is an important teaching aid that might succeed in instructing them in the folly of their poisonous, ridiculous ideology, since reason doesn’t work. And they had better learn and change their dangerous course before we all end up here.

Also, some sanctimonious jerks who pretend to be conservative humiliated themselves again, and that’s always fun.

The big event was when President Trump did something that has caused the liberal elite and the conservative Wormtongue contingent to wet their collective Underoos. He chose democracy, science, and normal Americans over the elitist twits of the pagan climate cult.

Horrors! An American president choosing Pittsburgh over Paris – Oh, well, I never!

I’d be happy to just cut and paste the whole thing, but…well, just go read it. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did. It isn’t entirely about the Paris horseshit, but it’s close enough to be included as an update to this post, I think.

There are several columnists out there who, after their initial early NeverTrump resistance, have come around to see the writing on the wall at last. Hell, even Andrew Klavan finally has, or so it would seem:

But the problem is, a few dopey intellectuals and their absurd little notions can have outsized power: the power of the echo chamber, the power of fashionable acceptance, the power of creating the atmosphere within the Beltway Bubble. And while Republicans frequently strut and fret about their opposition to leftist malarkey, they just as frequently acquiesce to it in the event. Witness their inability to stem the disaster of Obamacare now that they finally have the chance.

Which is why this au revoir to Paris is so encouraging. By withdrawing from the accord, Trump proves he is not susceptible to the influence of the usual knuckleheads. He seems deaf to the echo chamber, indifferent to media acceptance, immune to the atmosphere. In fact, some of the very things that make Trump unappealing to gentle folk like me — his belligerence, his recklessness, his bullish and even bullying insistence on his own vision — are also what sometimes lift him above the Leftist Crazy that so addles the intelligentsia.

How important is that? Very.

Of course it is—in fact, it’s EVERYTHING—and I’m happy to commend Klavan’s long-overdue acknowledgment of it. But of all of the effete, over-serious NeverTrump panty-soakers, Schlichter was one of the very first to get it, and has gotten the most joy out of the New Reality. I’m glad for that. Not that Kurt was ever what I’d call a panty-soaker, mind; he always was a no-nonsense hardass, fully recognized the Leftist enemy and pulled no punches describing them as such, and has resumed vigorously applying both the flail and the rapier where they will do the most good. Which was why his early NeverTrump stance was so puzzling, and so annoying, at least to me.

Welcome back to the Dark Side, Kurt. And do stick around, Andrew; we’re gonna win this thing with or without ya, but I for one would be glad to have you with us again at last.


The illusion of debate

Adams makes the case that the climate change debate is way off track:

Rex is talking about climate models that predict the future. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. Those two things are not the same topic. Scientists would not claim that their models are “science.” They are simply tools that scientists built. Rex is talking about tools. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. You can’t reach agreement if you aren’t even on the same topic.
Chelsea’s tweet exchange is representative of the debate illusion around the country. It goes like this:

Believer: Climate scientists are correct because the scientific method is reliable over time, thanks to peer review. The experts are overwhelmingly on the same side.

Skeptic: The prediction models are not credible because prediction models with that much complexity are rarely correct.

Believer: You troglodyte! You know nothing of science! The scientific method is credible!

See what happened? The believer was discussing science and the skeptic was NOT discussing science. These are different conversations. The prediction models are designed by scientists, but they are not “science” per se, any more than a microscope is “science.” Both are just tools that scientists use.

If you are a climate skeptic, and you want to make your case in the strongest possible way, start by agreeing with all of the “science” of climate science. Make sure you specify that your skepticism is outside the scientific realm, and limited to the prediction models that are not science.

That will explode some heads. (I’ve tested this.)

I should pause here to tell any new readers of this blog that I don’t know the truth about climate science, and I don’t have any way of knowing whether the models are accurate or not. My interest in this debate is to get both sides out of their illusions. The science is not the models, and the models are not science. You can trust the science and still question the prediction models without being a troglodyte.

For the sake of completeness, some skeptics also point to alternative hypotheses for warming, including orbital variations and solar flares. That is a genuine case of science versus science. And at the moment, the scientific community has a strong preference for the Co2 explanation.

Now that I’ve outlined the illusion, watch how often you see it play out. It’s the sort of thing you don’t notice until you are first alerted to it. Now you’ll start to notice how often the Chelseas of the world conflate the science of climate change with the prediction models as if they have similar credibility.

The models are bunk; they’re based on necessarily incomplete knowledge about an ecosphere which we only have the merest rudiments of grasping, the entirety of which is currently far beyond our reach. We don’t have anything like complete knowledge of how it functions, how each part influences the whole, and we maybe never will; ergo, the models will always leave data out that will turn out to have impact in ways we simply cannot understand.

Worse, the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) community of “scientists” has betrayed the principles of true science in two ways, both important but one of which fundamentally undermines their credibility almost completely. For one, they’re heavily politicized, and dependent on government funding for their research and salaries. Since the evident aims of the Global Warmening crowd are at base political—their solution to both global warming AND global cooling has always been the exact same thing: more redistribution of wealth and government control of the economy—rather than simply establishing observable and verifiable facts about the level of human influence, if any, on our planetary ecology…well, I shouldn’t have to draw anybody a picture of the reliability of their conclusions and the “research” supporting it.

The description of them as “watermelons” (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) remains as apt as ever.

Worse, though, is the fact that skepticism and open debate is the very foundation of the scientific method; when anybody tells you “the science is settled”—a means not of furthering debate, but of suppressing it—you can be sure right away that they’re not talking about or even interested in science at all. True science is hardly ever entirely settled; skepticism before all the facts are in is not only healthy, it’s vital. Plenty of “settled” science has been tossed out by further experimentation encompassing more recent and complete knowledge, previously nonexistent methods and equipment, and such-like.

It amuses the hell out of me when these people sniffily talk about our sure knowledge that the earth is not in fact flat as some sort of support for their argument; back when that debate was being conducted, they would have been firmly on the side of those who claimed it was flat. The science to that point was indeed “settled”; those who argued against it were derided as crackpots and lunatics. It was only after direct observation and confirmation by experimentation that our knowledge about the nature of the globe was confirmed. Unexpectedly, for most people, including the overwhelming majority of that era’s scientific community—not that THAT has an at-all-familiar ring to it.

And we have no such confirmation of man-made global warming, cooling, what the hell ever, now. All we really have are computer simulations that are based on incomplete data; a hatful of past predictions about future weather patterns that have turned out to be wrong every single time; and current predictions that are conveniently centuries—even millennia—off, and therefore by nature nothing more than wild-ass speculation, at best only half-educated guesses presenting no real risk of humiliating debunking to those making them, since they’ll all have long since become worm food.

In the shoolkid legend of Christopher Columbus (which isn’t exactly accurate, by the way; Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, and the longstanding use of celestial navigation all argue against it), he risked not just his belief in a spherical planet and the possible loss of prestige and position should he be wrong; he put his very life on the line proving it. That would make him not just a far more honorable man than our present-day Flat Earthers; it makes him way more of a scientist than they’ll ever be, too.


Making science great again!

Actually, making science science again would have been enough.

All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website at Noon Today

‘At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.’

Okay, I think I just came in my pants a little.

Mo’ bettah update! Vox has the text of President Trump’s great inaugural speech here. So full of wonderful stuff there’s no point in excerpting. Just read all of it.

(Via Ed)


Rope: broke

Never once been right. Never will be wrong.

The broader environmental movement has had its share of similar problems, as the usual neo-Malthusians make the usual neo-Malthusian predictions — the most famous of which was the Simon-Ehrlich wager, in which environmentalist and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich made a fool of himself by making dire predictions about the scarcity of basic commodities over the decade leading up to 1990. (He also said that he’d be unsurprised if the United Kingdom had ceased to exist by 2000. It’s still there.) Our first secretary of energy, James Schlesinger, predicted in the 1970s that we were on the verge of running out of oil and gas, with only a few decades’ worth remaining. He was wrong. In 2004, purported energy expert Paul Roberts wrote “Say Bye-Bye to Cheap Oil” in the Los Angeles Times, in which he stated as though it were uncontested fact that “the world’s surplus capacity is disappearing.” Oil prices currently are tanking. Newt Gingrich was mocked in 2012 for arguing that, with the right energy policies, gasoline prices might be driven down to $2.50. “Never gonna happen,” all the smart people said. Gas is currently under $2 in many places. The “peak oil” cultists have been predicting that demand for fossil fuels is about to exceed (or already has exceeded) production capacity for decades now. Ask the people sweating about prices of light sweet crude in Houston right now if that’s the case.

If you press the more sophisticated climate alarmists, they’ll generally stay away from even decade-or-two predictions. They have been burned before — those of us who grew up in the 1970s remember the panic about the “new ice age,” and the daft, lunatic plans for covering the Earth’s polar areas in coal soot in order to bring global temperatures up.

The Church of the Climate Apocalypse has therefore wisely decided to forgo its earlier habit of imitating UFO cults and moved up the ladder of respectability a step or two toward naïve biblical literalism, the Baptist youth-camp version of theology. You know what I’m talking about: If you point out to one of these DIY Bible scholars that, e.g., there are two different Gospel accounts of the death of Judas — one reporting that he hanged himself, the other reporting that he basically exploded like Mr. Creosote in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life — the answer you will get is: “The rope broke.”

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”): is there anything it can’t do?

Never mind; don’t answer that.


Big Honest Al, professional rasslin’ ref?

Part three of Mead’s perspicacious dissection of one of the most useless blobs of protoplasm our failed political system has ever produced contains an intriguing metaphor, although pro rasslin’ refs everywhere are probably owed an apology for being associated with the bum; Mead seems willing to grant Gore way more credit for good intentions than I ever would:

The trouble and even the tragedy of Al Gore is that he comes at the tail end of this tradition; he is a living example of what you get when a worldview outlives its time.  He presses the old buttons and turns the old cranks, but the machine isn’t running any more.  The priests dance around the altar, the priestess chews the sacred herbs, but the god no longer speaks. Like President Obama watching a universal healthcare program that he thought would secure his place in history turn into an electoral albatross and a policy meltdown, Al Gore thought that in the climate issue he had picked a winning horse. Judging from his Rolling Stone essay he has no idea why the climate movement failed, and no clue at all about how he could re-think the issue.

But if “Climate of Denial” doesn’t teach us how environmentalists can have more success, it does help us understand what’s wrong with Mr. Gore. The essay begins with one of his earliest childhood memories when young Master Gore (as southern boys from the better white families were then still addressed) was taken to a professional wrestling match at the Fork River Elementary School gym in Elmswood, Tennessee.

The boy was perplexed: the wrestlers seemed to be really fighting, but the whole thing somehow seemed scripted. Worse, the referees weren’t doing their jobs. When the bad guys hit the good guys with a metal chair, the referees were somehow not paying attention, but when, as Gore puts it, “the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him.”

For Gore, this is an eerily accurate representation of the current state of the climate debate and indeed of our society as a whole: the bad guys (Big Oil, coal companies, Republicans) commit all kinds of lies and infractions, and the crooked referee as played by the press only has eyes for the rare and venial slips of the good guys — the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri and of course the former vice president.

It is likely that Mr. Gore has no idea just how much this passage reveals about the limits of his social vision and political understanding. For one thing, then and now Gore misses the point of professional wrestling as popular entertainment. Among other things, professional wrestling works as a kind of folk satire — and well meaning progressives and professionals like Mr. Gore are among its targets. The clownish referee represents exactly the well intentioned bumblers who seek to arbitrate and rationalize the endless competition between the good and the bad guys. It is the way much of the working class looks at ivory tower intellectuals, nanny state do-gooders and what in Mark Twain’s day people could still call “the old women of both sexes” who fussed self-importantly around like New York Times editorial writers, levying moral judgments and thinking they were accomplishing something.

In other words, the referee in a professional wrestling match strikes a chord in popular culture in part because he is a representation of the class which sets itself up in our society as the arbiter and judge: the professional elite, the expert and the chattering classes. The referee at a wrestling match is a populist portrait of the FCC, the NLRB, NPR, the New York Times editorial board and everyone else who does exactly what Al Gore would like to spend his whole life doing: judging mankind impartially and ruling them well. The referee is part of the entertainment who is funny in part because he thinks he is above the fray.

Al Gore thinks of himself as a friend of the common man and a tribune of the people against the selfish and wicked elites (the bad wrestlers hitting the poor good guys with those horrid metal chairs); he wants to be an honest and competent referee in the wrestling match, bringing decorum and order and fairness to an anarchic sport.

I doubt very much that’s what Al Gore really wants; the contrast between his actions and lifestyle and his lofty, sanctimonious pronouncements on the dire fate awaiting us all if we don’t do as he says (but not as he does) present a pretty strong argument against the proposition. But this bit is as concise a summary of the evil at the heart of Progressivism as you’re gonna find anywhere:

Woodrow Wilson, the Virginia-born Princeton professor who ended up in the White House proposing global peace agreements as unrealistic as Gore’s climate treaty is the archetypal example of the blend of Southern and Northern elite WASP culture and politics. Wilson believed in democracy but not in the people; well educated, well intentioned and well behaved moral leaders needed to guide the masses lest in their ignorance and weakness they fall under the sway of unscrupulous demagogues. North and South the progressives believe that the masses need to be governed: they will drink too much without Prohibition, they will drive too much unless gasoline is heavily taxed, they will eat the wrong things, the poor weaklings, if we allow fried food in the school cafeteria.

Lots of good stuff here; read it all, natch.

Update! inadvertently left a paragraph out of the first excerpt, which made it all kinda confusing; fixed it.


Do as they say

Not as they do.

Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve.  The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.

What this tells the skeptics is that Vice President Gore doesn’t really believe the gospel he proclaims. That profits from his environmental advocacy enable his affluent lifestyle only deepens their skepticism of the messenger and therefore of the message. And when they see that the rest of the environmental movement accepts this flagrant contradiction, they conclude, naturally enough, that the other green leaders aren’t as worried as they claim to be. Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.

The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs.  If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus. If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush. Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.

There are gospels that can be preached by the comfortable and the well fed. But radical environmentalism is not one of them.

That’s because they’re charlatans, their religion is a sham, and its catechism a swindle.


Do as I say, not as etc

You should all have fewer kids, says the man with four of them. Kind of like the man in the multi-million-dollar mansion telling you you should live a simpler, less extravagant life — which, actually, applies to this same bloated douchebag as well.

Update! I’ve just been informed that Michael Moore says you’re all too fat, and should be eating less.

Updated update! Hot off the wires: the Islamic Leadership Council, the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR have issued a joint statement criticizing Christianity for its support of violence and international terrorism.


“Science” strikes again


Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued — or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

Three guesses.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

“There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,” he said.

And there really is no reason to believe a single word out of these lying charlatans’ mouths. They’re frauds, plain and simple, twisting science beyond recognition to further the socialist agenda — which is why megolamoniacal despots like our Pretend President worry the AGW bone like a rabid bulldog, refusing to let go of this most useful implement in the tyrant’s toolbox no matter how much evidence of chicanery and malfeasance comes to light. As Jazz Shaw says, the closing quote is both telling and priceless:

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

“When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California.”

Actions do speak louder than words, don’t they?


Sky King George III: “No Transportation Without Taxation!”

“Hardly a day passes where I don’t walk out on the (House) floor that someone asks me, ‘When are we going to re-regulate the airlines?'”–Rep. James Oberstar, (D.-PermaBureaucracy)

Travel Blog:

“Fees are a business decision best made by each airline,” Ridley said, adding that the federal government should make sure all fees are disclosed to consumers. Robert Rivkin, the Department of Transportation’s general counsel, said government officials are looking at ways to tighten regulations on how airlines inform consumers of such fees. “We believe that the proliferation of these fees and the manner in which they are presented to the traveling public can be confusing and in some cases misleading,” Rivkin said. Published fares used by consumers to choose flights don’t “clearly represent the cost of travel when these services are added.”

Umm, excuse me, but…have you seen the Tax Code lately?

“Confusing and misleading the public” about the cost of government seems like Job #1 around Washington, DC–starting with the ridiculous, laughable, cynically dishonest fantasy budget projections used in the HealthControl debacle. Congress won’t even adopt a budget this year, in hopes of keeping the public fooled.

In a warning to the industry, panel members asked about the possibility of extending the airline excise tax of 7.5 percent charged on airline tickets to the unbundled fees, which currently escape the tax. The tax revenue funds the Federal Aviation Administration.

Ah–it’s about their baggage problem, not yours.

Speaking of shining a light, the Foundry:

In spite of supporting regulations that will force all Americans to switch out old light bulbs for more expensive new ones (the good old incandescent bulb will be illegal in 2012), it seems that the DOE itself finds that it’s too much trouble and too expensive to adopt the latest energy-saving technologies.

An audit of 96 buildings by the department’s inspector general reveals, “For the most part, sites either did not use, or made limited use of, innovative lighting technologies developed in the Department’s research laboratories.” The DOE is not even availing itself of the technologies that, as part of its mission, it helped create. The primary impediment cited was a “lack of resources.” In other words, the energy savings were too expensive.

The DOE is cheerleader for parsimony in energy consumption for everybody else. Yet it still hasn’t outfitted a majority of its own buildings with occupancy sensors and the latest lighting technology. Maybe American households should also be allowed to choose which “money-saving” technologies they want to adopt and when they want to adopt them.

Republicans should run on this in the fall, even though Bush signed this stupid law:

A government that doesn’t trust you with light bulbs or ticket prices, yet hides all its own costs in the dark.


Our Jones Act Jones


Mike Rosen:

It’s silly to talk about our “addiction” to oil. We’re no more addicted to it than we are to food or water. It’s a commodity. We use it as an energy source and petrochemical raw material because it’s abundant and a better value than other alternatives.

Robert Bryce:

By using the word “addiction” Obama implies that our consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas is somehow dirty, that we lack self-control, self-respect, or that we are somehow diseased. And of course, just as the recovering addict becomes a new man/woman, the America that frees itself from the evils of hydrocarbons will be made stronger and more employable. …

Obama’s speech reveals a president who is under intense political pressure to do something, anything, so that he can appear to be in control of a blowout that the government is incapable of stopping on its own. Rather than admit that the government must rely on BP to stop the blowout, rather than acknowledge the irreplaceable role that hydrocarbons play in the global energy economy, he fell back onto the hackneyed claim about “addiction.” Here’s the reality: we are not addicted to oil. Nor are we addicted to fossil fuels. We are addicted to prosperity.

And also to yachting, night baseball and golfing with Joe Biden. Don’t ask me why.


Manage the Wind: Donkey Ho-Tay, Tilting Windmills and Pinball Machines Instead of Plugging the Hole

“[H]e was spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence.”

…”What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.

“Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”

“Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.”—-Cervantes, Part 1, Chapter VIII. Of the Valourous Don Quixote’s Success in the Dreadful and Never Before Imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with Other Events Worthy of Happy Record.

Obaba hired Elizabeth Birnbaum to clean up the Sex-for-Oil mess at Minerals Management Service.

But when she got there, she was instead assigned to clean up the Cape Wind Project and to manage renewables, not minerals.

Now that Plan A has flopped miserably, Obama has decided the problem is…a lack of federal windmills!

Hot Air:

Kerry backpedaled:

I asked Senator Kerry about Spain’s own failed experience in the area of subsidizing alternative energy, and the Massachusetts Senator’s response sounded similar to someone saying Marxism or Stalinism never succeeded, because it was never implemented correctly.

“If you look at other European countries, it depends entirely on exactly how committed they were and how far they were willing to go in terms of the breadth of the program,” he said.

“You have some anomalies in some countries where they began slowly. They didn’t have the right incentives, they over-subsidized a couple of different things– we’ve learned something from some of those mistakes, but I’m confident that the way we’re approaching this is really private sector determined. That’s the key here.”

The Spaniards might be surprised to hear that they “began slowly.” Their top-heavy approach put them deeper in debt, and now they face junk-bond status from credit analysts concerned over their soaring government spending. They are widely believed to be next in line to Greece for a collapse.

But Spain isn’t the only country with a study showing the futility of spendy green-jobs programs. Kerry Picket also reports in the same article that Germany’s own flirtation with government green-jobs subsidies resulted in lost purchasing power for consumers, job losses in other industries, and other economy-killing effects in their own study. …

The basic fact in Spain is also a basic fact in the US: we don’t have the money for it anyway. Proposing $20 billion in subsidies for poorly-defined “green jobs” is the same in real terms as proposing $20 zillion for the same project. The money doesn’t exist in our Treasury. We would have to borrow it, which will extend the national debt, and the program will create inflation in energy and transportation costs, which will erode buying power while hiking prices in real terms. That is one of the big reasons that countries who attempt to force top-down solutions end up going the way of Greece — or Spain, in this case.

P.J. O’Rourke:

“It was Marxism nonetheless because the wildest hippie and the sternest member of the Politburo shared the same daydream, the daydream that underlies all Marxism: That a thing might somehow be worth other than what people will give for it.”

That’s true of energy, too.

Veronique de Rugy:

“Why would we keep using these Eolienne [windmills] when they cost a fortune and are not profitable and can’t produce much energy?”

That’s when everyone turned to the economist. His response was so French that I thought it was worth sharing it with you:

“First, I would like to dispute the idea that Eolienne windmills aren’t profitable. Once one adds all the subsidies and financial support the industry receives from the French government and the European Community, it is losing very little money.”

In other words, “Even with massive subsidies and financial support from both the French government and the European Community, we still can’t make this turkey pay for itself, let alone turn a profit!”

Yet that is Obama’s plan for Green Prosperity: “Sure, we lose money on every kilowatt…but we’ll make it up in volume!”

I, for one, am willing to try one bit of European Green Technology, though:

Dutch oil skimmers.

I’m willing–but this administration isn’t. They’re all wind. Again.


Obama Attacks Florida: Impeach the Beach! (Updated)


…so now it’s time to attack Florida because he didn’t do his job.

Aside from taking vacations, playing golf and attending rock concerts, the president wants you to know that the Gulf Oil Spill is Priority Number One!

Instead of Paul McCartney, though, the White House Should have invited Earth, Wind and Fire. They famously did a cover of McCartney’s “Got To Get You Into My Life”, and the president has been singing “Got To Get the Feds Into Your Life” for more than a year, confiscating massive new swaths of American life as Property of the State.

Yet the State clearly cannot handle–or even afford–the responsibilities it already has.

All the Social Security money has been spent, and then some. We pay more debt service on our National Credit Card than most countries are even worth, yet the government Won’t Leave Home Without It! I hear public service announcements from the Park Service begging for funding. Leaving aside the propaganda aspects of a federal agency telling the public what they need to fund, why are we taking on a $50 million park in the Virgin Islands if we have “an estimated $9 billion in backlog maintenance on existing parks“? I got to get you into my life that badly?

But considering that Obama’s Socialized Energy policy is turning Florida’s white sand beaches black with Government Sludge, maybe we do need to buy our beaches elsewhere.

Permanent Candidate Obama has taken to campaigning against his own administration:

“There is a culture of corruption and cronyism at my agencies, and if I’m elected, I promise to get to the bottom of me!”

He desperately wants to make it Bush’s Fault, or even Calvin Coolidge’s–never did like that Coolidge fellow anyway. But he’s stuck with his own recent off-shore drilling proposal, which is ironic, since it wasn’t a serious drilling proposal in the first place. It was more like a ban disguised as a proposal, designed mostly for petty political purposes–but he can’t say that. But there are lots of things that he can’t say.

For example, Minerals Management Agency Director Elizabeth Birnbaum “resigned” recently. In reality, she was forced out by her boss Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as his designated fall guy. At his yearly press conference, Obama couldn’t say if she had been fired or resigned, despite being “focused like a laser beam” on the problem “since Day One”. I guess no one told Teleprompter.

But she was only doing the job she was assigned. You see, Salazar had tasked her with the Cape Wind Project.

Um…excuse me, but, you know, wind power is a nice little diversion and all, but…IS WIND REALLY A “MINERAL”? As in “MINERALS MANAGEMENT”?

Environment & Energy:

Birnbaum acquaintances, angered by the sudden ouster, said she had not been ordered to clean house at the scandal-stained agency, but to promote renewable energy. In particular, she was tasked with handling the politically charged issue of siting the 25-mile “Cape Wind” wind farm off Cape Cod, the MMS issue where Salazar was most active before the spill. In April, Salazar ended nearly a decade of regulatory battles by green-lighting the project.

Now with Obama’s Interior team taking heat for not cleaning house at an agency notorious for its cozy ties with industry, they say she took the fall.

“She’s being made a scapegoat,” said one acquaintance.

Her focus on the Cape Wind project is supported by the fact that it was the first thing Salazar mentioned about Birnbaum as he praised her service to the committee.

“She helped us on issues of offshore wind in the Atlantic,” Salazar said. “All I can really tell the committee is she is a good public servant.”

That may be, but she was also an environmentalist. And this administration is so fixated on renewable energy that it forced the director of the non-renewable minerals agency to focus mostly on renewable wind power.

“Earth, Wind…and Fired!”

The results are now washing up on Pensacola.

Florida’s magnificent pristine beaches have survived so much over the centuries–yet they may not survive a year-and-a-half of juvenile socialism and Lord-of-the-Flies leadership. Chief BP Jerk Tony Hayward may “like his life back,” but a lot of good Floridians, Arizonans, Louisianans, Mississippians, Alabamians and other Americans would like their votes back, too.

Does this mean BP won’t get its Pollution Prevention Award from Interior?

It is Socialized Energy that pushed oil companies offshore and into mile-deep water to begin with.
Socialized Energy focused our resources on toys like wind power rather than the real job at hand.
Socialized Energy prevented an effective response once it broke–we can’t burn it, we can’t siphon it, we can’t disperse it, we can’t build berms…but that Paul McCartney rocks, dude!

And it is Socialized, well, Everything that has taken all of Obama’s and Washington’s time and effort in the last year.

Wouldn’t the last year-and-a-half have been much better spent trying to get a grip on the already-massive government we already have, rather than trying to quadruple the size and scope of The Fedzilla That Is Eating Florida’s Beaches?

UPDATE: Obama has shut down 33 drilling platforms to protect himself wildlife even though there are no problems with them. Evidently the Gulf Coast is doing just great and doesn’t need all those extra high-paying jobs anyway. Mostly Cajun:

4000 direct jobs. Indirect? Hard to say. Nothing offshore happens without a huge “tail” of support infrastructure. Helicopters weave back and forth from the shore bases to the platforms hauling personnel and critical equipment. Service boats cleave the waters hauling equipment, men and supplies. Teams of contractors show up to handle everything from painting and cooking to incredibly critical and esoteric tasks like logging (“My pipe is a thousand feet through the water and 16,000 feet into the rock. What’s down there?”) and mudding and cementing.

A lot of those companies are dependent on those thirty-three platforms to keep crews busy. We’re not talking about burger-flippers, either, for the most part. Folks all over the South have known for decades that good livings were to be made in “the oilpatch” and offshore doing jobs where sharp minds and merit carried more weight than Ivy League diplomas, places where hard physical labor in demanding surroundings resulted in good homes and money to send kids to college. Sure, it’s a tough life, but many a family clawed its way to a good living on the money paid to work out there.

In return, America got the oil it needed, and we became a great country.

More from the Oil & Gas Assoc.:

Each drilling platform averages 90 to 140 employees at any one time (2 shifts per day), and 180 to 280 for 2 2-week shifts
Each E&P (Exploration & Production) job supports 4 other positions
Therefore, 800 to 1400 jobs per idle rig platform are at risk
Wages for those jobs average $1,804/weekly; potential for lost wages is huge, over $5 to $10 million for 1 month – per platform.
Wages lost could be over $165 to $330 million/month for all 33 platforms

It’s not an official ObamaCrisis(tm) until he’s figured out a way to cost Americans their jobs, too.


Burning Money: Does it Cause or Cure Global Warming?


Tim Blair at the Daily Telegraph:

“Taxpayers will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department – despite most now having nothing to do until 2013.

Despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision on Tuesday to suspend the failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2013, the department has ruled out plans to cut back staff …

According to official figures, the number of top-paid bureaucrats being paid up to $298,000 a year has almost doubled since January this year from 39 to 61. That was to gear up for establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, which will also now have no function.”

Rudd has created a Department of Magnificent Uselessness in response to a crisis that never existed and against which he will take no action. This is absolutely beautiful.

And from The Other “Why Can’t We Build the Danged Fence?” McCain:

“To be shovel-ready is much more complicated now than it was in 1933,” says Laura Chick, the former Los Angeles city controller (and a liberal Democrat) whom Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed as the state’s inspector general of stimulus spending.

“Environmental-impact reviews, historic-preservation safeguards, unionization of government workers — these are good things, but they’ve changed the way government can operate. You can’t just build a new bridge. You’ve got to do environmental-impact reports, you have to open up the decision to community input, you face potential lawsuits. I’m not saying concern for environmental impacts should go away, but it makes it harder to deal with an economic crisis.”

Of course, Newt Gingrich was saying this 15 years ago, and as a result liberals denounced him as a stooge for Corporate America who wanted to rape the planet.


Carbon Footprints in the Sand: Private Beach–Keep Off!


“…[G]overnment is most easily manipulated by people who have money and power already. This is why government benefits usually go to people who don’t need benefits from government. Government may make some environmental improvements, but these will be improvements for rich bird-watchers. And no one in government will remember that when poor people go bird-watching, they do it at Kentucky Fried Chicken.”–P.J. O’Rourke

Doug Ross takes us on a guided tour of the Prince of Footprints’ new ocean-view Crackerbox Palace, his fourth mansion. I guess he hasn’t “made enough money” yet.

Prof. Hanson provides the color commentary:

I think sometime this year elite radical environmentalism died. … No, what ended the gospel of Gorism was Al Gore himself.

In this context, the recently purchased Gore second mansion at Montecito, in Oprah country, is of some national interest. Why would Gore purchase a second energy-guzzling estate, replete with several fireplaces, fountains and bathrooms, when he was stung so badly about his hypocritically profligate energy use in his Tennessee compound, his houseboat, and his private-jet junketeering? Does he understand that his newest mansion is a sort of volcanic ash-cloud that has now overwhelmed Earth in the Balance, Inc?…

Nothing on the national scene has proven more ironic than to see a thin liberal veneer masking traditional self-interest. Crusty conservatives of the more honest sort justified their own riches by the old, much caricatured notion that their hard work and brains trickled wealth down to us poorer that otherwise we would not have; or that they fight in a free arena and anyone brave enough to go out there and battle the lions is likewise free to enjoy their sort of rewards; or that life is inherently tragic and unfair — some succeed and others fail — and to ensure an quality of result usually entails a despotic enforcer and a growing pile of corpses.

I think I prefer an up-front profiteer to Al Gore’s sermons from Montecito.

As another multi-millionaire often says, “let me be clear”; I’m glad when rich people have honest money to spend. They spread more wealth naturally than a socialist like Leader Zero ever dreamed of.

But Gore was a dishonest politician and now he’s a dishonest businessman. He uses government to force taxpayers into buying his products. If, by “products”, we mean “magic unicorn farts and wishful thinking”.

Doc Zero:

The lowest income brackets will be hit the hardest by rising fuel prices. The production and distribution of all goods consumes energy. Food is particularly dependent on low shipping costs for large volumes of freight. Adding ten or twenty percent to the cost of food would be devastating to the poor… as would reducing their already dismal employment prospects, by pricing transportation out of reach. …

Maybe it’s too risky for oil companies to drink each others’ milkshakes with 5000-foot straws… but where else are they supposed to go? Reasonable sources of energy that could be exploited safely and with minimal environmental impact, such as ANWR, have been swept off the table by fanatics.

When Gorism triumphs, say, in shutting off irrigation to save the ditch carp, Gore leaves poverty in his considerable wake:

This was made painfully obvious in a news photo datelined Mendota, Calif., and showing farm workers standing in food lines. The laborers who once picked vegetables in California’s world-renowned “salad bowl” were taking handouts not of California carrots, but of baby carrots grown in China.

If you squint, you can see China from Al Gore’s bank account.


Spain: The Land of the Midnight Solar Power


but that’s not important now.

Chris Horner:

“Think about what’s happening in countries like Spain.” It seems so long ago that Barack Obama thus instructed us — eight times — to ponder his model for a “green jobs” economy. …

Expansión’s front page screams: “the cost of renewables skyrockets to 6.2 billion euros” [almost $10 billion-ed.] — though that number refers only to the feed-in tariffs of last year alone. (Hey . . . skyrocketing. No wonder Obama cast his longing gaze Spain’s way!)

The title of one article inside is “To subsidize the renewables costs $335 every year in electricity to each consumer.” …

“Gas Natural criticizes the government for investing in renewables that we do not need.” He is quoted as asking, “Are we so rich as to invest in something that we do not need? Do we have so much extra money?”

Calzada informs me that the precipitating event for this outburst of honesty was that, in recent weeks, the government has recognized that electricity costs went up 23 percent last year due to subsidies for solar power.

Also helpful was a solar scandal that Calzada described to me a couple of months back but that could not be established as fact at that time: Owners of solar fields had placed oil generators next to their solar fields to simulate more electricity production from the solar panels, for which they were reimbursed at the highly subsidized solar rate.

The scandal was finally uncovered because, after years of conducting this fraud without inspections, the greedy rascals were doing it even at night.

Finally: Big Government Turns Night Into Day!

Is there anything it can’t do?


Earth Day, 1783: Guillotines for Gaia!



Forty years after the first Earth Day, the world is in greater peril than ever.

Then maybe we should stop celebrating Earth Day.

And only forty years? Really?

Just over 200 years ago an Icelandic volcano erupted with catastrophic consequences for weather, agriculture and transport across the northern hemisphere – and helped trigger the French revolution.

The Laki volcanic fissure in southern Iceland erupted over an eight-month period from 8 June 1783 to February 1784, spewing lava and poisonous gases that devastated the island’s agriculture, killing much of the livestock. It is estimated that perhapsa quarter of Iceland’s population died through the ensuing famine. …

Across the Atlantic, Benjamin Franklin wrote of “a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America”. The disruption to weather patterns meant the ensuing winter was unusually harsh, with consequent spring flooding claiming more lives. In America the Mississippi reportedly froze at New Orleans.

The eruption is now thought to have disrupted the Asian monsoon cycle, prompting famine in Egypt. Environmental historians have also pointed to the disruption caused to the economies of northern Europe, where food poverty was a major factor in the build-up to the French Revolution of 1789.

If only Ben Franklin had driven a solar-powered car and Deepak Chopra’s great-great-grandparents hadn’t meditated on Shiva…oh, wait–I’m getting my myths mixed up. And my mix mythed-up. But I’m not alone, and that’s what’s important.

Treacher comforts:

Nancy Pelosi has started a program called Green the Capitol. It’s been every bit as successful as all her other efforts. Instead of Congressmen just throwing away their trash like normal people:

Four types of trash cans facilitate sorting of paper, plastics and compostable items that deteriorate over six months into top soil.

For those who grumble about the change, as well as those who vigorously monitor their waste streams, it’s a bit shocking when janitors come in at the end of the day and dump all four bins into a single jumble of waste.

But who cares? The whole point is that Nancy feels better.

And so do I. Happy Earth Day, everybody!

UPDATE: Carbon Offset Offsets–“Until Every Planet Gets Their Own Special Day!”


BreathCrime: Justice Stevens and the Case of the Hamiltonian Halitosis


“…[T]he court is, in many ways, a legislature of nine.”–William Yeomans, Ted Kennedy’s former chief counsel

“Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”…”Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93% of the oxides of nitrogen.” –Ronald Reagan

While we’re listing some of Justice Stevens’ Greatest Hit Jobs on the Constitution, let’s not forget the latest and greatest: Massachusetts v. EPA.

Stevens ruled that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, they wanted to regulate the very air Stevens exhales. If Congress was worried about your breath, your Honor, they would have called it “the Listerine Law”. Trust me.

Stevens based his ruling on years of legal and scientific research. Or an episode of Capt. Planet he once watched with his grandkids. Speaking of planets, shouldn’t a “Global” case be called “The Entire Earth” v. EPA”?

Massachusetts sued the EPA because it was afraid Global Warming would cause the seas to rise. Stevens ruled that there was “risk of catastrophic harm” by causing Kennedys to become trapped underwater without ever leaving their driveways.

The EPA had to pretend it didn’t want this vast new power in order to preserve the separation of powers. “Oh, please Br’er Justice; don’t throw us in that regulatory Briar Patch!”

Justice Roberts:

Global warming may be a “crisis,” even “the most pressing environmental problem of our time.” Indeed, it may ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be that governments have done too little to address it. It is not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches of our Government, who continue to consider regulatory, legislative, and treaty-based means of addressing global climate change.

Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the Government’s alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable.

Justice Scalia:

The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

air (âr) n.: A colorless, odorless, tasteless, Gergen-esque gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen and oxygen with lesser amounts carbon dioxide and other gases.

To liberals, the Court may be “a legislature”, but CO2 isn’t air pollution–it’s air! ObamaCare will tax us for breathing in, and Stevens’ AirCare will tax us for breathing out. Coming and going.

Like pure helium, the only thing lighter than air is Justice Steven’s grasp of the Constitution. For somebody who claims its a “living, breathing document”, he sure has spent his career trying to choke the life out of it. And it isn’t even his. It is ours.



Big Corn Flexes Its Golden Niblets, Impresses Big Tree-Hug: Why the “War on Cars” is a “War on Drivers”

“When Congress creates a miracle for one American, it creates a non-miracle for another. After that, Congress has to create a compensatory miracle.”–Dr. Walter E. Williams

Henry Payne:

On April 1, the Obama administration’s EPA issued final rules forcing automakers to increase their vehicles’ fuel economy by 40 percent in five years. The next day, the very same EPA favorably reviewed an ethanol fuel mandate that would force autos to get up to 5 percent worse fuel economy.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Follow us here. By the same date — 2015 — that the new 35.5 mpg EPA mandate is due to go into effect, oil companies are also mandated by Congress to double the amount of corn ethanol use (from 2007 levels) to 15 billion gallons. The current mandate of a 10 percent ethanol mix in fuel won’t get us there, so the powerful corn lobby is demanding EPA increase the mandate to a 15 percent ethanol mix.

Trouble is, a gallon of ethanol is 30 percent less efficient than a gallon of gas meaning that the more ethanol you mix in, the worse your gas mileage.

On top of the new CO2 regs that will add a $1,000 to the price of a car, motorists will be forced to buy watered-down gas, which is a back-door gasoline tax. Car-makers will struggle just to build engines and drive-trains to recapture the power they already have, not to mention the additional new requirements. And the first thing to go will be the heavier structural components which provide safety. Like the man said, “When Congress creates a miracle for one American, it creates a non-miracle for another.”

Which gets us right back to Glenn Reynold’s article on Centrally-Planned Mandatory Incompetence and to Doc Zero’s warning about what happens when the government referees decide they want to be players.

Not only do the refs become players, they eventually become the team owners, the coaches, the agents, the fans, the stadium-builders, the sports-writers and the jock-strap manufacturers, until one day, they finally become OJ Simpson, rifling through your hotel room looking for your sports memorabilia and the real killer.

(And congrats to Doc for getting this read aloud on Rush Limbaugh!)

Stop the Brutal War on Cars–and their Drivers!


Drilling For Votes: O, Say Can You CO2?

“Now we know why Obama declared war on America. He wanted its oil!”–

heh. If only.

It’s not about trying to build an American Gazprom.
It’s not about massive new oil revenues for the Welfare State.
It’s not about tens of thousands of high-paying union jobs in the energy sector. If Democrats wanted that, they would have done it long ago. (I mean real energy, not the phony Green Energy that can only be propped up through massive new government spending.) No, Obama is a true believer when it comes to Energy Rationing.

This is about providing the figgiest of fig leafs to get Cap and Tax passed.

It promises to begin thinking about the prospects of one day considering to contemplate the possibility of humoring the hypothetical concept of examining the option to study the feasibility of the ramifications of delving into the theoretical realm of critically scrutinizing the plausibility and probabilities of inspecting the capabilities and potentiality of the practicability of allowing an oil company to one day apply for a lease.

But we musn’t rush it.

And that’s just to ask for the application.

Here’s Obama trashing his own current proposal less than two years ago. One of their favorite points is how drilling wouldn’t provide any relief for several years–a claim they’ve made yearly since 1971!

American Solutions:

Finally, the Dept. of Interior delivered some indirect confirmation in its response to our FOIA request that pro-drilling comments surpassed anti-drilling comments by a 2-1 margin.

[I]t’s now over four months after the close of the comment period (in which 530,000 comments were received) and still no official public announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar about the final results, who had said in April 2009 that President Obama directed him in respect of the comment period to “to make sure that we have an open and transparent government”…one internal email they did provide confirms indirectly the overwhelming support for offshore drilling recorded during the comment period.

Salazar’s staff told him the results verbally so he could “honestly say” he hasn’t “seen” the report yet.

So this gang knows drilling is wildly popular, and they desperately need “popular” after the Tooth FairyCare fight.

But mostly, they really need to get this Phony Drilling Prop out in front of the unpopular Brand New EPA “Exhaling is now a Crime” CO2 regulations:

Final rules to be signed Thursday by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency … The rules require 2016 model year vehicles to meet fuel efficiency targets of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The EPA, issuing the first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, will set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile…

John Boehner:

“At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don’t want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities.”

Phony Drilling is about salvaging two giant new energy taxes: Cap and Trade through the front door and CO2 Regulation through the back door.

This administration is ripping up coal permits in West Virgina, blocking natural gas in Wyoming, stopping shale oil in Colorado, grabbing lands in Utah, banning nuclear power in Nevada, obstructing drilling in California, halting exploration in Alaska, slow-walking permits in Virginia, doing everything humanly possible to drive us back into caves.

Then the Boy Wonder will tell us the bats were there first.

Don’t believe a word of it.

UPDATE: Dave in Texas asks

Why Pretend to Open Up Domestic Oil Exploration?

To find someone else to blame (hint: ChevronTexaco, for the increase in gasoline prices while the crushing economy and job market hammers Americans.

That goes beyond the normal supply & demand summer price spike. It’s the cumulative effect of the War on Energy and particularly the costly new CO2 reg$.

In Driscoll’s brilliant phrase, Obama is planning our Rendezvous With Scarcity, and for once, he doesn’t want the credit.




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix