No, not the speech, although I will get to it later, perhaps.
The state of our country is not good. We are mired in a deep recession with high and growing unemployent, and only the huge institutions that were bailed out by the government are showing profits. Main Street still suffers.
We are in a situation caused by a huge expansion of credit wherein large financial institutions, both private and semi-public engaged in wild speculation, creating a bubble in real estate, and then the bubble popped.
This had the effect of destroying much of the capital of the financial institutions, but also the capital of the general public.
With the bubble gone, the US Government under George W. Bush stepped in to socialize the huge losses of the financial institutions, but not, of course, the huge losses that had been imposed upon the general public. (I call this the Golden Rule) In fact, the general public will end up paying for the financial institutions' losses as well as their own.
Hope and Change gets elected and promptly nationalizes General Motors and to some extent, Chrysler.
Relief for the general public? Hardly.
Next is a huge "stimulous" bill that goes primarily to large Democratic political constituencies, adds nearly a trillion to the deficit, and accomplishes nothing but add further burdens on the general public.
We then get a Cap and Trade Bill that is rushed through the House without being read. This bill would add hundreds of billions to the costs of energy....to be ultimately paid by whom? You got it. The general public.
With the first of these matters a movement began to form: The Tea Parties. The public was awakening. But the politicians ignored them or put them down as extremists. Who were the partiers? The general public.
After Cap and Trade passed the House, the Pelosi crowd began to attempt to socialize our country's medical care. Behind closed doors.
It was if the Iron Curtain was rebuilt right there in Washington, D.C. Everything was done behind closed doors. In secrecy. Few know what kind of deals were made to buy "support" for the bill, but what is known is that it was terribly unfair to.........the general public.
A similar bill is now pending in the Senate, where the majority party is still trying to push it through, in spite of the opposition of....the general public.
So here we are after one year of Hope and Change. We have no hope, and only a change for the worse.
Elections in Virginia and Massachusetts have given the general public a chance to be heard, but from the State of the Union speech last night, it is clear that the lessons have been lost by the politicians in our government.
Maybe they should all watch and listen to the ad that newly elected Senator Scott Brown ran during the campaign in Massachusetts. It is one of the very best I have heard in my over fifty years in politics.
You can find it here. If you do nothing else, go to this ad.
The public will get little, if any, relief from the policies spoken of by the President last night.
But we can get relief in November when we have the opportunity to throw all the rascals out. There is Hope, after all.
Who will lead the revolution?
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thoughts on a return to blogging
It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Bored?
Last night's press conference shows that Americans are becoming bored with Obama. It was the lowest rated yet in terms of viewers.
It was also the lowest rated in terms of substance.
Called to help bolster the sagging health care agenda, the presser demonstrated that Obama does not have a clue about the subject matter.
Even with the adoring White House press corps asking softer than goose down questions, Obama couldn't get into the swing of things. From the first question until the last, he gave circuitous, meaningless answers to the easy questions.
The last, of course, was the doozy about racial profiling, where he took a stand before he even had heard the evidence.
If everyone keeps the heat on their Congressmen and Senators, ObamaCare should be defeated.
Hopefully the same for the cap and tax, er, trade, bill.
Meantime, at the stock markets, Obama's lackluster performance gave it a boost above $9,000 on the Dow Jones Average today.
So perhaps he did accomplish something.
It was also the lowest rated in terms of substance.
Called to help bolster the sagging health care agenda, the presser demonstrated that Obama does not have a clue about the subject matter.
Even with the adoring White House press corps asking softer than goose down questions, Obama couldn't get into the swing of things. From the first question until the last, he gave circuitous, meaningless answers to the easy questions.
The last, of course, was the doozy about racial profiling, where he took a stand before he even had heard the evidence.
If everyone keeps the heat on their Congressmen and Senators, ObamaCare should be defeated.
Hopefully the same for the cap and tax, er, trade, bill.
Meantime, at the stock markets, Obama's lackluster performance gave it a boost above $9,000 on the Dow Jones Average today.
So perhaps he did accomplish something.
Friday, July 17, 2009
What is the real agenda?
Why all of the rush, all of a sudden? Ever since the Democrats came into full power in January, they have been in full hurry-up mode.
I remember the so-called stimulus bill was rushed through before anybody could read it or understand it. Turns out it didn't stimulate much but it did feather a bunch of Democratic nests.
A bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas for good old Harry Reid, for instance.
It is easy to recognize that some action was called for at the time. A day or two or even a month would not have made any difference. So why the rush?
The energy bill, aka the cap and trade bill, was similarly rushed through the House, with no time to read it, and no amendments permitted ( Ms. Pelosi makes Tom DeLay look like a warm fuzzy kitten).
And now the President is pushing it through the Senate, trying to pass it by August.
This so-called problem ended in 1998 when the globe started cooling again. Why not take a few months and have a good debate on it? Why the big rush?
And now we have the big push to pass socialized health care (disguised as "reform") by August as well. The health care business has been around for a long time, and Medicare and Medicaid have needed reform since they were initiated.
So why are we rushing into all of this? These are major bills that will have lasting, perhaps permanent, effects on our lives and our economy.
And we must pass them without even having a debate or being able to read and understand them before they become law?
Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Is this the kind of "hope and change" we want? Does this constitute the transparency Obama promised? Or the bi-partisanship?
Maybe its just Rahm Emmanuel not wanting to lose the benefit of a good crisis to ram things through.
Could there be another agenda at work here? Not just health care reform, or solving global warming? Is this an attempt to transform the United States into a socialist state, where everyone has equal results in the pursuit of happiness?
Consider the energy proposals. This would levy high direct and indirect taxes on everyone who uses energy.
Companies that manufacture or produce things would be the heaviest hit. It would make those industries even more uncompetitive than the labor unions have managed to do. That would produce a huge drag on employment. This has very deleterious effects on the entire economy, because we have to produce things to create wealth.
Of course, we would all be hit, depending upon the energy we use. Walk to work and do away with all of your modern appliances, including lights, and you might avoid most of the tax.
The health care industry is also a large part of our economy, and employs a very large number of people. The proposals before the Congress would create a number of taxes on various aspects, and particularly employers within and without the industry. Uninsured individuals who don't want insurance ( about 40% of the total according to a study for the CBO) will be taxed, forcing them to buy or pay the tax. (Free country, right!).
Both of those bills will contribute to severely crippling our economy right in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And anyone with any degree of intelligence should know it.
Now I know that Obama and his team are intelligent and should know this is true ( that does not apply to Lenin's "useful idiots" in the Congress).
So is it their real agenda to bring the US to its knees? Where are they heading us?
They have already nationalized the biggest automaker. Who will be next?
I remember the so-called stimulus bill was rushed through before anybody could read it or understand it. Turns out it didn't stimulate much but it did feather a bunch of Democratic nests.
A bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas for good old Harry Reid, for instance.
It is easy to recognize that some action was called for at the time. A day or two or even a month would not have made any difference. So why the rush?
The energy bill, aka the cap and trade bill, was similarly rushed through the House, with no time to read it, and no amendments permitted ( Ms. Pelosi makes Tom DeLay look like a warm fuzzy kitten).
And now the President is pushing it through the Senate, trying to pass it by August.
This so-called problem ended in 1998 when the globe started cooling again. Why not take a few months and have a good debate on it? Why the big rush?
And now we have the big push to pass socialized health care (disguised as "reform") by August as well. The health care business has been around for a long time, and Medicare and Medicaid have needed reform since they were initiated.
So why are we rushing into all of this? These are major bills that will have lasting, perhaps permanent, effects on our lives and our economy.
And we must pass them without even having a debate or being able to read and understand them before they become law?
Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Is this the kind of "hope and change" we want? Does this constitute the transparency Obama promised? Or the bi-partisanship?
Maybe its just Rahm Emmanuel not wanting to lose the benefit of a good crisis to ram things through.
Could there be another agenda at work here? Not just health care reform, or solving global warming? Is this an attempt to transform the United States into a socialist state, where everyone has equal results in the pursuit of happiness?
Consider the energy proposals. This would levy high direct and indirect taxes on everyone who uses energy.
Companies that manufacture or produce things would be the heaviest hit. It would make those industries even more uncompetitive than the labor unions have managed to do. That would produce a huge drag on employment. This has very deleterious effects on the entire economy, because we have to produce things to create wealth.
Of course, we would all be hit, depending upon the energy we use. Walk to work and do away with all of your modern appliances, including lights, and you might avoid most of the tax.
The health care industry is also a large part of our economy, and employs a very large number of people. The proposals before the Congress would create a number of taxes on various aspects, and particularly employers within and without the industry. Uninsured individuals who don't want insurance ( about 40% of the total according to a study for the CBO) will be taxed, forcing them to buy or pay the tax. (Free country, right!).
Both of those bills will contribute to severely crippling our economy right in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And anyone with any degree of intelligence should know it.
Now I know that Obama and his team are intelligent and should know this is true ( that does not apply to Lenin's "useful idiots" in the Congress).
So is it their real agenda to bring the US to its knees? Where are they heading us?
They have already nationalized the biggest automaker. Who will be next?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Cramming
After kicking around yellow dogs yesterday, today has been slow.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Whither climate change? What is the real agenda?
It is noted that the new term adopted by the environmental "sky is falling" group is "climate change" to replace the old term "global warming."
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Climate bill delayed
Looks like the Senate may have gotten an ear full while back home for the Fourth of July. Now the Washington Post reports that hearings on the "cap and trade" bill have been put off until September.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
Avoiding a lot of CO2 without ruining the country
Next Big Future says improving and adding to existing nukes can save a lot of CO2 emissions. They say that the US currently avoids 700 million tons of CO2 emissions from existing nukes.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
Wondering if.....
Starting the blogging day wondering if the clowns in our Congress ever intend to start actually reading and understanding the important legislation they hurriedly pass.
The stimulus bill and now the disastrous "cap and trade" bill were rushed through the House before anyone had even a chance to read them. Is somebody trying to sneak something through?
Hope and change at work.
We need to throw them all out.
The stimulus bill and now the disastrous "cap and trade" bill were rushed through the House before anyone had even a chance to read them. Is somebody trying to sneak something through?
Hope and change at work.
We need to throw them all out.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Climate change deal fails
The Times (London) is reporting that the major developing countries (China, India) are refusing to set a target for reducing their emissions targets unless the developed countries reduce their targets substantially by 2020.
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)