Mark this day, July 26th, 2005, on your calendar. A New York Times published editorial comment reverses over a decade of lock-step doom and gloom eco-alarm. No, they haven't given up on their push for global warming inspired economic slow growth, but they have finally admitted that there is no science that proves mankind is causing gentle climate warming.
For me it's heartwarming to read this reversal from those who have trumpeted that all the planet's scientists agree we are killing Mother Earth. I've said that we don't know one way or the other. In fact, they say that: It may not be possible to say that this heat wave or the drought that is afflicting Europe has been caused by global warming, especially when some of the records that fell recently were set many years ago. But it is also impossible to say that these temperature extremes are not part of the cumulative human impact on the climate.
This admission isn't much when past abuses of pseudo-science and of political science are compared and contrasted. Yet the Times' editorial board does for once accept the fact that real scientists don't have a clue what human "green house" emissions do to our atmosphere, if anything. Now isn't that a breath of fresh air?
.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Let's See the Science!
After almost 15 years of unchallenged ranting, global warming's most celebrated gurus are now asked to present the scientific evidence. And they are screaming like stuck swine. How can Representative Joe Barton, (R) of Texas, be so disrespectful and insulting by questioning these "Popes" of the secular socialist religious revolution? They feel that Barton is obviously driven by oil interests by demanding to see how your and my tax dollars are spent by these heralded forward knowers.
I thought it is the province of science to doubt and to question and to re-re-re-research anew. For global warming, it's faith that is the coin of the realm. If we don't believe, it's off to the gullag of eco-Fascism. So who are these guys?
Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches in the Department of Meteorology and is Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). He's known for selective interpretations of data by weighting and adjusting it to fit his preselected conclusions.
Michael Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences. His interests are in climate variability and why climate changes, over a wide range of timescales. He did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. He also studies long past climates to predict today's climate by using computer models.
Malcolm Hughes, is a tree ring counter at the University of Arizona. He quickly answered Rep. Barton's letter requesting certain background data and certain qualifications for his participation in global warming conclusions. His letter reads almost like "I wasn't there" and "I was asleep" and "aliens made me do it." It appears that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes put their names on lots of "science" while they don't want to be held accountable for their conclusions.
.
I thought it is the province of science to doubt and to question and to re-re-re-research anew. For global warming, it's faith that is the coin of the realm. If we don't believe, it's off to the gullag of eco-Fascism. So who are these guys?
Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches in the Department of Meteorology and is Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). He's known for selective interpretations of data by weighting and adjusting it to fit his preselected conclusions.
Michael Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences. His interests are in climate variability and why climate changes, over a wide range of timescales. He did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. He also studies long past climates to predict today's climate by using computer models.
Malcolm Hughes, is a tree ring counter at the University of Arizona. He quickly answered Rep. Barton's letter requesting certain background data and certain qualifications for his participation in global warming conclusions. His letter reads almost like "I wasn't there" and "I was asleep" and "aliens made me do it." It appears that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes put their names on lots of "science" while they don't want to be held accountable for their conclusions.
.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
G-8 Global Warming Politics
President Bush arrives at the G-8 meetings in Scotland standing alone among the world's leaders by not joining hands with them on global warming politics. The NY Times, the rag of record for global warming zealots today says that: "Mr. Bush's approach to the environment is one of several topics on which he is at odds with other governments as well as public opinion in much of the world." Of course public opinion is the critical element in that sentence because public opinion is shaped by government propaganda.
It's often breathtaking to follow global warming mission creep from a few isolated facts that are matched with personal feelings and then multiplied by enviro-zealots and political extremists to equate that mankind is just plain bad. That assertion may just be true, but how does that equate to global destruction? It doesn't!
Real scientists still feel that a mini if not maxi ice age is fast developing on the next century's horizon. So higher Co2 in the atmosphere may just allow the oceans to keep it's food chain healthy during the cooling period. That food chain translates into a healthy planet of plants and animals even during centuries of much colder weather.
.
It's often breathtaking to follow global warming mission creep from a few isolated facts that are matched with personal feelings and then multiplied by enviro-zealots and political extremists to equate that mankind is just plain bad. That assertion may just be true, but how does that equate to global destruction? It doesn't!
Real scientists still feel that a mini if not maxi ice age is fast developing on the next century's horizon. So higher Co2 in the atmosphere may just allow the oceans to keep it's food chain healthy during the cooling period. That food chain translates into a healthy planet of plants and animals even during centuries of much colder weather.
.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Energy is Everywhere!
What is it about energy that enviro-politicals find so disgusting? Our healthy planet uses and converts energy everywhere. And mankind functions on the same principles. We create many of our consumer products and our housing and clothing out of organic energy. We eat energy in the form of proteins that animals and plants provide for us. This all seems reasonable and natural.
But then why don't we manage our energy so that it provides the greatest possible productivity for our social fabric? Some say it's because the enviro-political climate is really global warming. There is evidence that the past regulatory and taxing environment is so toxic that it kills much of the possible productivity of natural resources.
One excellent example is "solid waste management," sometimes called urban gold. Few processes are as taxed and regulated as solid waste collection and disposal. There is a major governmental bureaucratic industry built on solid waste activity. We control and tax its collection, its movement, its short-term storage, its recycling, its long-distance transport and its landfilling. I've read that more bureaucrats regulate and tax solid waste than private sector workers collect, transport, and dispose of it. While curb cost can be $500 per ton, actual transport and disposal might only be $100 of it, or often less than 20%.
Government often takes where it can, so this example wouldn't really be important if it didn't disrupt the use and conversion of billions of tons of often pure energy. The United States is THE consumer society. We consume to create by-far the world's highest living standard for even our poor. In fact, consumption by all lowers the costs for big screen TVs and for stereos, and for very low cost cars with 100,000 mile warranties, and for medical procedures, and for almost anything and everything. We consume over 75% of the world's disposable income providing the underpinnings for the world's economy. It won't be long before we create one half of the world's economic activity. Consumption also provides huge opportunities for changing or converting organics back into energy to power our consumption and to power our travel and to light our lights.
Today we in the United States dump and waste trillions of possible kilowatts or hundreds of billions gallons of bio-fuels or alcohols. This takes place because enviro-extremists control the solid waste management processes. As they controlled federal energy policy before the G W Bush administration. Their mantra was conservation rather than more productive use of energy. That is why we have almost $3 per gallon gasoline and up to and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. The regulations and taxes for solid waste management are driven by groups that hate human kind's footprint on earth. They also demand their form of recycling. Which they feel is pure by requiring that wood is used for wood and plastic is kept as plastic and paper must remain paper. No matter how unproductive and often corrupt that strategy.
.
But then why don't we manage our energy so that it provides the greatest possible productivity for our social fabric? Some say it's because the enviro-political climate is really global warming. There is evidence that the past regulatory and taxing environment is so toxic that it kills much of the possible productivity of natural resources.
One excellent example is "solid waste management," sometimes called urban gold. Few processes are as taxed and regulated as solid waste collection and disposal. There is a major governmental bureaucratic industry built on solid waste activity. We control and tax its collection, its movement, its short-term storage, its recycling, its long-distance transport and its landfilling. I've read that more bureaucrats regulate and tax solid waste than private sector workers collect, transport, and dispose of it. While curb cost can be $500 per ton, actual transport and disposal might only be $100 of it, or often less than 20%.
Government often takes where it can, so this example wouldn't really be important if it didn't disrupt the use and conversion of billions of tons of often pure energy. The United States is THE consumer society. We consume to create by-far the world's highest living standard for even our poor. In fact, consumption by all lowers the costs for big screen TVs and for stereos, and for very low cost cars with 100,000 mile warranties, and for medical procedures, and for almost anything and everything. We consume over 75% of the world's disposable income providing the underpinnings for the world's economy. It won't be long before we create one half of the world's economic activity. Consumption also provides huge opportunities for changing or converting organics back into energy to power our consumption and to power our travel and to light our lights.
Today we in the United States dump and waste trillions of possible kilowatts or hundreds of billions gallons of bio-fuels or alcohols. This takes place because enviro-extremists control the solid waste management processes. As they controlled federal energy policy before the G W Bush administration. Their mantra was conservation rather than more productive use of energy. That is why we have almost $3 per gallon gasoline and up to and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. The regulations and taxes for solid waste management are driven by groups that hate human kind's footprint on earth. They also demand their form of recycling. Which they feel is pure by requiring that wood is used for wood and plastic is kept as plastic and paper must remain paper. No matter how unproductive and often corrupt that strategy.
If we could only free solid waste from bureaucratic enslavement and abusive taxing and corrupt contracting with select solid waste processors and haulers. That seems almost impossible today. However, another decade of conservative government will allow honest and productive processes to trickle down to all energy conversion opportunities. Bio-fuels can create ten times the electricity today generated by wind and the sun combined. Free our solid waste so it can free range to a cycle of energy efficiency.
.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Democratic Energy Bill Advances
After decades of a one way anti-energy commitment, the House and Senate will soon reconcile an energy policy that looks forward to new and clean energy, while it recognizes the need to dramatically expand fossil fuel exploration, production, and refining within our borders. It's breathtaking what can be achieved when all the people's voices are heard.
America's energy policy has been pointing in the wrong direction for over three decades. Why? Because extremist enviros have been shaping and designing laws and regulations. This misguided and abusive activity has brought us $3 per gallon gasoline and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. Today, for the first time in decades, a democratic process that includes all the "stakeholders" has developed a balanced and reasonable bi-partisan legislative product.
The lesson here is that when the elected and bureaucrats become disconnected from the people, mischief results. This is also easy to see in education; medical care; roads and transportation; manufacturing; and other industries and institutions. Institutional and regulatory failures reflect the disconnect from the will of the people. Democracy, with a small d, works better than any elitist inspired arrogance driven process. Why won't some ever understand that?
America's energy policy has been pointing in the wrong direction for over three decades. Why? Because extremist enviros have been shaping and designing laws and regulations. This misguided and abusive activity has brought us $3 per gallon gasoline and over 50 cent per kilowatt electricity. Today, for the first time in decades, a democratic process that includes all the "stakeholders" has developed a balanced and reasonable bi-partisan legislative product.
The lesson here is that when the elected and bureaucrats become disconnected from the people, mischief results. This is also easy to see in education; medical care; roads and transportation; manufacturing; and other industries and institutions. Institutional and regulatory failures reflect the disconnect from the will of the people. Democracy, with a small d, works better than any elitist inspired arrogance driven process. Why won't some ever understand that?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Sea Levels are Rising?
I just listened to a recent NPR report on the melting of glaciers, especially those in Greenland. The program's science expert was Ira Flatow, who hosts Science Friday on NPR. Mr. Flatow talked at length about the fact that Greenland's glaciers are melting at breathtaking speeds. And he says that: "the world's sea-levels will increase by 20 feet when the ice has melted. He further claimed that other UN based climate predictions assure us that the sea level will increase by 20 feet or more.
Even the US EPA states that sea-levels have increased by as much as 12 inches in the past century. And predicts further increases of as much as 2 feet in this century. The basis for all this speculation is that enviros believe that Arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice are the world's "air conditioners." So as the ice melts, the speed of global warming will inevitably increase dramatically. Gee, this sounds suspiciously like the not-to-popular film: 'Day after Tomorrow."
Yet, as with all global warming and climate change predictions, the actual measurable activities do not support the hot air. In fact, the British Antarctic Survey, one of the most credible Antarctic Stations, estimates otherwise. Their 2004 statement on ice change activities for the Antarctic seems much less sure of its results. Here's the direct quote:
"Ironically there is an opposing effect (to rising sea levels) that scientists are more confident in predicting. If the southern hemisphere climate warms, warmer air will transport more moisture to Antarctica. This will give more precipitation, and the ice sheet will respond by becoming thicker (which it is today). So over the next century changes in Antarctica may actually oppose sea level rise, although it is not known if they (thickening ice changes) will be sufficient to completely counteract the thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers outside the Antarctic region."
NPR's Flatow says: "20 feet or more" and the EPA says: "two feet or more" in sea level rise. Yet more respected and real scientific researchers say otherwise. The facts are that the sea level has rising globally by about 1mm or a little more over the past century. Some say the cause was natural thermal expansion, not an increase of water volume. So how on earth can the EPA say that US coastal sea-levels have risen by more than a foot? Because they measure erosion, not the water level. Erosion is the result of storms and man-made coastal development changes, like sea walls and other flow disrupters. But politically, 1mm sea-level rise will not support the enviro-extremist's need to paint a planet plunging into environmental hell.
Even the US EPA states that sea-levels have increased by as much as 12 inches in the past century. And predicts further increases of as much as 2 feet in this century. The basis for all this speculation is that enviros believe that Arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice are the world's "air conditioners." So as the ice melts, the speed of global warming will inevitably increase dramatically. Gee, this sounds suspiciously like the not-to-popular film: 'Day after Tomorrow."
Yet, as with all global warming and climate change predictions, the actual measurable activities do not support the hot air. In fact, the British Antarctic Survey, one of the most credible Antarctic Stations, estimates otherwise. Their 2004 statement on ice change activities for the Antarctic seems much less sure of its results. Here's the direct quote:
"Ironically there is an opposing effect (to rising sea levels) that scientists are more confident in predicting. If the southern hemisphere climate warms, warmer air will transport more moisture to Antarctica. This will give more precipitation, and the ice sheet will respond by becoming thicker (which it is today). So over the next century changes in Antarctica may actually oppose sea level rise, although it is not known if they (thickening ice changes) will be sufficient to completely counteract the thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers outside the Antarctic region."
NPR's Flatow says: "20 feet or more" and the EPA says: "two feet or more" in sea level rise. Yet more respected and real scientific researchers say otherwise. The facts are that the sea level has rising globally by about 1mm or a little more over the past century. Some say the cause was natural thermal expansion, not an increase of water volume. So how on earth can the EPA say that US coastal sea-levels have risen by more than a foot? Because they measure erosion, not the water level. Erosion is the result of storms and man-made coastal development changes, like sea walls and other flow disrupters. But politically, 1mm sea-level rise will not support the enviro-extremist's need to paint a planet plunging into environmental hell.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Global Warming from Political Hot Air
Business Week's June 27th issue has a commentary by John Carey headlined: Global Warming: Suddenly the Climate in Washington is Changing. A follow up headline says that "Bush (is) increasingly isolated." It's true that the Senate has come a long way or has drifted far out to see since the 1997 95-0 condemnation of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases.
Global Warming is not science, it's a political movement. Therefore new scientific research has no affect on the religious left's conclusions. Recently 35 mayors of the nation's largest cities unanimously petitioned the Whitehouse for so-called greenhouse gas emission controls. Then Democrats announced in the Senate that they seek a climate change amendment to be attached to the energy bill. On June 14th, the Administration "fired a shot across the senate's bow, warning to veto any climate change amendments.
So what has changed in the political landscape inside the Beltway? As all religious movements, this one's adherents are out recruiting daily. The fervor and intensity is breathtaking. And for some, whether there is global warming or not is irrelevant. They believe that slower economic growth and less energy use is just plain good sense.
.
Global Warming is not science, it's a political movement. Therefore new scientific research has no affect on the religious left's conclusions. Recently 35 mayors of the nation's largest cities unanimously petitioned the Whitehouse for so-called greenhouse gas emission controls. Then Democrats announced in the Senate that they seek a climate change amendment to be attached to the energy bill. On June 14th, the Administration "fired a shot across the senate's bow, warning to veto any climate change amendments.
So what has changed in the political landscape inside the Beltway? As all religious movements, this one's adherents are out recruiting daily. The fervor and intensity is breathtaking. And for some, whether there is global warming or not is irrelevant. They believe that slower economic growth and less energy use is just plain good sense.
.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Energy Policy influenced by Energy Experts
I've got to say that I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that energy experts are involved in shaping the Bush administration's energy policy. Why change something that has worked so well for the past three decades? In that time, enviro-extremists stopped all nuclear power plant construction; stopped all refinery development activity; stopped all upgrades and improvements to dozens of coal fueled power plants; and stopped power plant development in most parts of the country.
So Democrats and elite organizations demand to know why the Bush administration is being so arrogant by changing what has worked so well for a few at the cost of almost 300 million American residents?
Energy is everything! Economic output is either increased or decreased by the availability of cheap energy, in whatever form. That is why it's is critical for the United States to have a clearly articulated energy policy. That's not what has driven energy activities for the past three decades. Policy was handled, shaped, and regulations were written by elite and extreme left of center enviro advocates. Their handy work is today expressed in high cost electricity, almost $3 per gallon gasoline and diesel, and slow growth in energy efficiency improvements.
Seldom have so few made life so difficult for so many in the United States. It's now easy to see how far we were taken down this path of destruction. Anyone who votes for Democrats must understand that returning them to power will surely bring back extreme energy policies.
So Democrats and elite organizations demand to know why the Bush administration is being so arrogant by changing what has worked so well for a few at the cost of almost 300 million American residents?
Energy is everything! Economic output is either increased or decreased by the availability of cheap energy, in whatever form. That is why it's is critical for the United States to have a clearly articulated energy policy. That's not what has driven energy activities for the past three decades. Policy was handled, shaped, and regulations were written by elite and extreme left of center enviro advocates. Their handy work is today expressed in high cost electricity, almost $3 per gallon gasoline and diesel, and slow growth in energy efficiency improvements.
Seldom have so few made life so difficult for so many in the United States. It's now easy to see how far we were taken down this path of destruction. Anyone who votes for Democrats must understand that returning them to power will surely bring back extreme energy policies.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Republicans Stand Up to Global Warming
Opposing any environmental legislation, or educational funding, or New Deal program funding no matter how misguided or corrupt brings savage attacks from the extreme left. So many of the left's programs are often given wide political leeway due to the intensity of the resulting demonizations. But some Republicans are finding a new spine about "Global Warming."
Senator Imhof took the senate floor to give this speech. It marked what is now a momentum builder for others to express their doubt of the "science" used to prove that the global warming theory is fact. The senator called the "threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." So he wonders why left of center enviro-extremists and their elitist organizations are pursuing this coarse.
First is that "environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in tens of millions of dollars, even using Federal taxpayer's dollars to finance the campaigns." Second he says: "Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of RELIGIOUS FAITH (emphasis added) to the radical far left alarmists. Therefore, contending that its central tenets are flawed to them is heresy and of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenet are attacked, sometimes personally for blindly ignoring the so-called scientific consensus." Third he points out that: "skeptical scientific views are contemptuous, out of the mainstream. This seems highly ironic. Aren't scientists to be nonconforming and (to) question the consensus? ...'Skeptic' and 'out of the mainstream' are their thinly veiled code phrases (for scientific skeptics) meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is in short a quack."
Another tremendous quote comes from the Russian delegation to a Kyoto meeting in Milan, Italy, in 2004, that talked about Russia signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. They were straight forward saying" No, there is no science to it, but we stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars if we sign on to this thing." That's because Kyoto is a secular socialist program of redistribution of wealth managed and controlled by the UN and the WTO. My guess is that an international tax on environment will begin to independently fund the UN so that its bureaucrats can rule the world. Wells was a few decades off when he penned 1984.
Senator Imhof took the senate floor to give this speech. It marked what is now a momentum builder for others to express their doubt of the "science" used to prove that the global warming theory is fact. The senator called the "threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." So he wonders why left of center enviro-extremists and their elitist organizations are pursuing this coarse.
First is that "environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in tens of millions of dollars, even using Federal taxpayer's dollars to finance the campaigns." Second he says: "Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of RELIGIOUS FAITH (emphasis added) to the radical far left alarmists. Therefore, contending that its central tenets are flawed to them is heresy and of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenet are attacked, sometimes personally for blindly ignoring the so-called scientific consensus." Third he points out that: "skeptical scientific views are contemptuous, out of the mainstream. This seems highly ironic. Aren't scientists to be nonconforming and (to) question the consensus? ...'Skeptic' and 'out of the mainstream' are their thinly veiled code phrases (for scientific skeptics) meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is in short a quack."
Another tremendous quote comes from the Russian delegation to a Kyoto meeting in Milan, Italy, in 2004, that talked about Russia signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. They were straight forward saying" No, there is no science to it, but we stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars if we sign on to this thing." That's because Kyoto is a secular socialist program of redistribution of wealth managed and controlled by the UN and the WTO. My guess is that an international tax on environment will begin to independently fund the UN so that its bureaucrats can rule the world. Wells was a few decades off when he penned 1984.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Senator Domenici Draws a Line in the Sand
Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Republican chairman of the Senate Energy Committee today ditched all aspects of Democrat's push for Global Warming legislation. The senator cited the need for a public hearing process in which real science can be vetted to identify if, why, and possibly how carbon emissions are to be controlled. The enviro-extreme position is that carbon dioxide is a poison. Yet most experts in carbon disagree.
We do know that carbon dioxide is increasing to about 370 parts per million in our atmosphere in a few locations. While we know that it is reducing in other locations. Yet real affect of that carbon dioxide is yet to be observed and measured. The "feeling" among atmospheric scientists is that carbon dioxide will trap solar heat creating "global warming." These same scientists were quoted in 1975, that's just 30 years ago, telling all of us to prepare for "carbon winters" due to very slow carbon dioxide increases. It was their belief, which they expressed as absolute fact, that carbon dioxide would repel solar heat cooling our earth.
When climate model after climate model failed miserably to predict actual changes, another movement sprang up in 1989. That's the "global warming" crowd. They too "know" that carbon dioxide will end the earth as we know it. It is these guys who came up with the concept expressed in a poorly attended film called: "The Day after Tomorrow" in which the northern hemispheres freezes solid in 72 hours, presumably caused by global warming.
It's time that real science be used to allow us to understand our climate.
We do know that carbon dioxide is increasing to about 370 parts per million in our atmosphere in a few locations. While we know that it is reducing in other locations. Yet real affect of that carbon dioxide is yet to be observed and measured. The "feeling" among atmospheric scientists is that carbon dioxide will trap solar heat creating "global warming." These same scientists were quoted in 1975, that's just 30 years ago, telling all of us to prepare for "carbon winters" due to very slow carbon dioxide increases. It was their belief, which they expressed as absolute fact, that carbon dioxide would repel solar heat cooling our earth.
When climate model after climate model failed miserably to predict actual changes, another movement sprang up in 1989. That's the "global warming" crowd. They too "know" that carbon dioxide will end the earth as we know it. It is these guys who came up with the concept expressed in a poorly attended film called: "The Day after Tomorrow" in which the northern hemispheres freezes solid in 72 hours, presumably caused by global warming.
It's time that real science be used to allow us to understand our climate.
Friday, June 17, 2005
G-8
Today's Washington Post headlines that: "US Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan." It would seem that the Bush administration is watering real science down for their own "greedy" benefit. But what is actually being negotiated here? It's the interpretation of climate facts that are often unrelated. A spike in temperature here or there! A melting glacier here or there. Yet other spots are colder today than in recorded history and glaciers, especially in the Antarctic are growing thicker and broader than ever before observed.
It is appropriate for our elected leaders to ask: "Where's the beef?" Not the political science beef and not the world view of egalitarianism and redistribution of wealth view. There is no dispute that the earth is moving away from it's last major ice age. That means the planet is warming. Yet, the one area climate scientists agreed would warm fast, the outer atmosphere, is cooling. Say what? Cooling!
There are many productive ideas emerging from these often extreme positions taken by one political world thinking groups. Carbon basins are a healthy concept that guarantees to inject more oxygen into the atmosphere. Fewer particulates in the atmosphere will reduce asthmatic issues for some. And overall sustainable management of forests will strengthen our biosphere's overall health.
One gargantuan problem with climate change politics is that extremist groups take no prisoners. They want it their way or the highway. Take the World Wildlife Fund's Hans Verolme. He says that "they would rather not have a deal (at the G-8) that lets George Bush off the hook." What hook is that? The get on board with his group's extreme views hook.
It is appropriate for our elected leaders to ask: "Where's the beef?" Not the political science beef and not the world view of egalitarianism and redistribution of wealth view. There is no dispute that the earth is moving away from it's last major ice age. That means the planet is warming. Yet, the one area climate scientists agreed would warm fast, the outer atmosphere, is cooling. Say what? Cooling!
There are many productive ideas emerging from these often extreme positions taken by one political world thinking groups. Carbon basins are a healthy concept that guarantees to inject more oxygen into the atmosphere. Fewer particulates in the atmosphere will reduce asthmatic issues for some. And overall sustainable management of forests will strengthen our biosphere's overall health.
One gargantuan problem with climate change politics is that extremist groups take no prisoners. They want it their way or the highway. Take the World Wildlife Fund's Hans Verolme. He says that "they would rather not have a deal (at the G-8) that lets George Bush off the hook." What hook is that? The get on board with his group's extreme views hook.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Carbon Dioxide isn't here yet!
Atmospheric trace elements are often given more credit for climate change than they seem to deserve. Take the late 1960s and early 1970s when climatologists feared that a perceived increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) would thicken the earth's cloud layers, reflect warming sun light, and eventually cool the planet back into a major ice age. We affectionately called it the "carbon winter syndrome." Lots of clouds and little if any sunlight.
Today CO2 is said to be reaching 377 ppm when as recently as a hundred years ago it was down near 320 ppm. What does this mean? I asked the Scripps folks who are said to be the strongest in atmospheric research. At what point is CO2 too much? When does an increase in CO2 begin to benefit plant life and the food chain and agriculture worldwide? No-one knows, they say. No-one has extensively researched these questions.
We do know from our pot growing friends and from greenhouse agriculture, that high concentrations of CO2 spur growth in plants. CO2 is after all, plant food. Plants require lots of fertilizer and high amounts of hydration to grow fast and strong. So low levels of CO2 create a thirst by plants for fertilizer and water. Conversely, high CO2 levels reduce the plant's need for fertilizer, water, and insecticides and anti-fungal chemicals because plants grow stronger and more resistant to insects and fungi.
It gets better. Explosive plant growth strengthens the food chain. Plankton in the oceans grows faster to feed shrimp and other small fish who feed salmon who feed mammals such as whales and fish such as sharks. CO2 also strengthens fisheries to the point where the world would be awash with fresh and health omega 3 oil fish.
The Canadian version of the Environmental Protection Administration states on their website that if global worming takes, "Canada's agriculture will be a net winner" from higher CO2 concentrations. Plants grow faster, use less hydration, strengthen, and produce much more per acre. Trees benefit from as much as twice their normal yearly growth.
And Mother Earth? All this CO2 conversion creates more oxygen which provides for relief for asthma victims and probably increases sports records everywhere. Now who says that CO2 is a pollutant? Only those who will benefit from slower economic growth and from more enviro-extortions.
Today CO2 is said to be reaching 377 ppm when as recently as a hundred years ago it was down near 320 ppm. What does this mean? I asked the Scripps folks who are said to be the strongest in atmospheric research. At what point is CO2 too much? When does an increase in CO2 begin to benefit plant life and the food chain and agriculture worldwide? No-one knows, they say. No-one has extensively researched these questions.
We do know from our pot growing friends and from greenhouse agriculture, that high concentrations of CO2 spur growth in plants. CO2 is after all, plant food. Plants require lots of fertilizer and high amounts of hydration to grow fast and strong. So low levels of CO2 create a thirst by plants for fertilizer and water. Conversely, high CO2 levels reduce the plant's need for fertilizer, water, and insecticides and anti-fungal chemicals because plants grow stronger and more resistant to insects and fungi.
It gets better. Explosive plant growth strengthens the food chain. Plankton in the oceans grows faster to feed shrimp and other small fish who feed salmon who feed mammals such as whales and fish such as sharks. CO2 also strengthens fisheries to the point where the world would be awash with fresh and health omega 3 oil fish.
The Canadian version of the Environmental Protection Administration states on their website that if global worming takes, "Canada's agriculture will be a net winner" from higher CO2 concentrations. Plants grow faster, use less hydration, strengthen, and produce much more per acre. Trees benefit from as much as twice their normal yearly growth.
And Mother Earth? All this CO2 conversion creates more oxygen which provides for relief for asthma victims and probably increases sports records everywhere. Now who says that CO2 is a pollutant? Only those who will benefit from slower economic growth and from more enviro-extortions.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
No Pain, No Gain
Enviro-warriors are making some headway after what might otherwise be called a slow start. The Kyoto Protocol is now the global economic constitution. It reached it's threshold of 141 nations when the Russians signed on. These nations embrace a virtual freeze on economic development, ending their population's hope for economic justice. It's projected that world GDP will exceed $60 trillion by 2030. The laws of physics tell us that low cost energy consumption will be the measure of a nation's ability to grow it's industries and services. So how can Kyoto do anything other than sentence the poor of the world to a life of poverty and daily struggle?
There was a time when it was expected that Japan would grow with the United States in job creation and economic production. But then enviro-extremists slowed energy use in the name of environmental protections. Today Japan's economy is lower than it was in 1990. That's 15 years of stagnation while energy consumption has been reduced. In fact, as many as 100 million Japanese unplug every appliance after they use it so that it doesn't absorb residue electricity. That's hundreds of billions of plug ins and outs to save energy equal to a 200 megawatt powerplant annually. The fact that it saves less than a fraction of 1% of power consumption seems to escape the enviro-culture.
The US economy produced a little more than Japan in 1990. Today we produce 3 times more, near $12 trillion in GDP. In fact, by 2030, the US is expected to produce over $40 trillion in economic activity out of about $60 trillion. That's more than 2/3 of the worlds products and services. Further we will be responsible for another 5% or more of other nation's production through our investments. Better yet, almost all of the world's savings will be invested here because the money gets a good return, or profit. How can France's or Germany's economy pay investors when they are slipping backwards?
Why will the US economy keep growing while other nations will stagnate or reduce in size? It's because they have signed onto Kyoto and the US has not. China and India are signatories, but are exempt. So they will generate most of the non-US economic growth over the next quarter century. And by then, that's 2030, the US will have developed energy efficiencies that will allow China and India to continue robust growth even if they toe the Kyoto global enviro-constitution line.
There was a time when it was expected that Japan would grow with the United States in job creation and economic production. But then enviro-extremists slowed energy use in the name of environmental protections. Today Japan's economy is lower than it was in 1990. That's 15 years of stagnation while energy consumption has been reduced. In fact, as many as 100 million Japanese unplug every appliance after they use it so that it doesn't absorb residue electricity. That's hundreds of billions of plug ins and outs to save energy equal to a 200 megawatt powerplant annually. The fact that it saves less than a fraction of 1% of power consumption seems to escape the enviro-culture.
The US economy produced a little more than Japan in 1990. Today we produce 3 times more, near $12 trillion in GDP. In fact, by 2030, the US is expected to produce over $40 trillion in economic activity out of about $60 trillion. That's more than 2/3 of the worlds products and services. Further we will be responsible for another 5% or more of other nation's production through our investments. Better yet, almost all of the world's savings will be invested here because the money gets a good return, or profit. How can France's or Germany's economy pay investors when they are slipping backwards?
Why will the US economy keep growing while other nations will stagnate or reduce in size? It's because they have signed onto Kyoto and the US has not. China and India are signatories, but are exempt. So they will generate most of the non-US economic growth over the next quarter century. And by then, that's 2030, the US will have developed energy efficiencies that will allow China and India to continue robust growth even if they toe the Kyoto global enviro-constitution line.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
The Religious Left Steps Up
The world's enviro-coalition has been joined by what might be the last left of center special interest group, the religious left. These are the churches and individuals who design and create their form of worship. They reach deep into the progressive situational ethics and relative morality concepts to justify their beliefs and sometimes even their convictions. As a group they are as morally and ethically challenged as they might be united by a single thread of creating a world to their liking.
Joining the enviro-warriors seems a no-brainer. Here a new coalition of now discredited special interest groups, despots, and abusive governing concept adherents that are able to exert world pressure on the United States in the name of the: ENVIRONMENT! No guns, no nukes, at least not yet. But a backdoor way to control the masses and those evil entrepreneurs and risk takers. They think hourly that almost 90% of the world's corporate profits are generated by America's corporations. Now isn't that a disgusting thought? Or is it?
The religious left supports atheist concepts of expunging religion and competition and profit from the public square. They are yesterday's Marxist and passe-communists and even secular socialists who still feel they need to believe in a "force." They also support now-discredited concepts of redistribution of assets and affirmative action biases and bigotries. I wonder if they celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall or morn its loss?
Most importantly the religious left sells out the poor who suffer under struggling economies. It is they who loose their jobs because their work is often classified as discretionary because they are poorly educated and trained. It is the poor and the lower middle class that shoulder the left's fight against the successful. The poor are the "collateral damage" from progressives carpet bombing business and corporations with taxes and regulations to punish their political enemies. That cost results in lower wages and job dislocations.
That's why the religious left is a fit for the enviro-abusers. They collectively have no moral or ethical compass to allow them to understand the damage they do the most helpless. But when they fight the rich, all holds are allowed, no matter whom it hurts.
Joining the enviro-warriors seems a no-brainer. Here a new coalition of now discredited special interest groups, despots, and abusive governing concept adherents that are able to exert world pressure on the United States in the name of the: ENVIRONMENT! No guns, no nukes, at least not yet. But a backdoor way to control the masses and those evil entrepreneurs and risk takers. They think hourly that almost 90% of the world's corporate profits are generated by America's corporations. Now isn't that a disgusting thought? Or is it?
The religious left supports atheist concepts of expunging religion and competition and profit from the public square. They are yesterday's Marxist and passe-communists and even secular socialists who still feel they need to believe in a "force." They also support now-discredited concepts of redistribution of assets and affirmative action biases and bigotries. I wonder if they celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall or morn its loss?
Most importantly the religious left sells out the poor who suffer under struggling economies. It is they who loose their jobs because their work is often classified as discretionary because they are poorly educated and trained. It is the poor and the lower middle class that shoulder the left's fight against the successful. The poor are the "collateral damage" from progressives carpet bombing business and corporations with taxes and regulations to punish their political enemies. That cost results in lower wages and job dislocations.
That's why the religious left is a fit for the enviro-abusers. They collectively have no moral or ethical compass to allow them to understand the damage they do the most helpless. But when they fight the rich, all holds are allowed, no matter whom it hurts.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Economic Destruction
America is entering the process phase of either distancing itself from socialist and communist principles or embracing them. Our poor and working poor are the recipients of this struggle. They have few opportunities to move up and their children are "jailed" in failing schools that assure their dependency on big government for hand-outs.
This is happening because the left thinking elite believe that all the people need them to manage their lives and their environment. The elites say that only they can understand the complexities of government, finance, and enviro-management. They say that conservatives are ignorant of the need to control the masses and to manage their addictive consumption. This is interesting.
We can review what the technocrats and bureaucrats did in the now imploded Soviet Union. You may not know, but they had some of the world's most intelligent scientists. Even today, they have millions of over-educated who can't find a job that allows them to employ their knowledge. But the political elites overpowered logical and political thinkers. That led to the demise of the Soviet Union.
Today we have similar elites in the left wing movement who say that they are smarter and know better than the stupid Soviets. Whom are they kidding? These guys can't balance their own check books much less manage my life and yours. And they say they have no moral or ethical grounding. They just make laws and enforce them without emotion or commitment. Say What?
So where are we heading in this economically and socially volatile environment? America is the leader of all of the rest of the world. Get used to it. We generate more than a third of the world's GDP and consume about 40% of the world's products with 5% of the population. So What? We pay for it. And we use less than a quarter of the world's energy to fuel our economy.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
It's the Economy, Stupid!
It goes without saying anything that the Bush administration's resistance to listing carbon dioxide as pollution is viewed by some as criminal and others as an opportunity. Juliet Eilperin, a Washington Post environmental reporter, today supports both assertions.
Scientists, in this case at Arizona State University, are working on concepts and strategies that absorb carbon dioxide created by fossil fuel power plants before it's released into the atmosphere. A number of strategies are showing promise. So what does the enviro-crowd say? Howard J. Herzog of MIT says that carbon sequestration methods "are not an answer to the problem." He further elaborates: "This is not we're going to be able to have our cake and eat it, too."
A reasonable person might ask why Herzog and many other enviro-activists care little about carbon management? Carbon can be managed by growth of plants wordwide and by recent strategies to convert carbon to non-gaseous form at the site where it's created. Both concepts can work side by side to manage carbon dioxide. This seems reasonable because after decades of study, scientists don't know what level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is optimum. Some believe that there is a fine line between too much which might warm the earth and too little which will stunt plant growth.
One fact we know is that as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plant life flourishes which provides the food for animal life to explode in variety and in numbers. The health of our oceans depends on plankton. As plankton increases in numbers, the food chain that leads to fish and mammals is enriched. And so it goes for agriculture worldwide. More carbon equals better and healthier and stronger crops.
Scientists, in this case at Arizona State University, are working on concepts and strategies that absorb carbon dioxide created by fossil fuel power plants before it's released into the atmosphere. A number of strategies are showing promise. So what does the enviro-crowd say? Howard J. Herzog of MIT says that carbon sequestration methods "are not an answer to the problem." He further elaborates: "This is not we're going to be able to have our cake and eat it, too."
A reasonable person might ask why Herzog and many other enviro-activists care little about carbon management? Carbon can be managed by growth of plants wordwide and by recent strategies to convert carbon to non-gaseous form at the site where it's created. Both concepts can work side by side to manage carbon dioxide. This seems reasonable because after decades of study, scientists don't know what level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is optimum. Some believe that there is a fine line between too much which might warm the earth and too little which will stunt plant growth.
One fact we know is that as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plant life flourishes which provides the food for animal life to explode in variety and in numbers. The health of our oceans depends on plankton. As plankton increases in numbers, the food chain that leads to fish and mammals is enriched. And so it goes for agriculture worldwide. More carbon equals better and healthier and stronger crops.
But more carbon dioxide also means more economic activity. That means more income and more consumption and continued world leadership for the United States. And that translates into more freedoms and religious choice and hope and opportunity for all the world's peoples. Now that's truly scary for the big government types.
Friday, February 18, 2005
The Earth is Dead Man Walking!
Cox News Service reports that: "Scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said yesterday that they have discovered the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say leaves little doubt that man-made "greenhouse gases" are the main cause of global climate change."
If this is true, we should all be heading for the exits. Virgin Atlantic Airline is offering the first space travel reservations and I'm getting me one. If this planet is heading for the ash heap, then I want a nice beachside place on the Moon or Mars. Venus appears, from my memory, to have today the climate these guys are predicting for us in 20 years. Hot and humid with lots of gases and limited visibility. I suppose that cave BBQs might be the hobby du jour in our future. There might even be investment opportunities for deep underground city construction. Why not?
Well, reading further into the above quoted article reminds us that the devil is in the details. It reads: "The new study used computer models and field tests to show that heat and energy levels as deep as nearly a half-mile in some oceans have risen dramatically in the past 40 years, in direct conjunction with rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Computer Models? I sometimes get SPAM to view computer models and some of them are not very scientific. In fact, computer models are like opinion polls. You write them to support your personal and professional opinions.
So let me get this straight. Carbon Dioxide is slowly increasing in the atmosphere. Most support that fact. So the "scientific" connection between ANY and ALL atmospheric and climate activity during a miniscule increase of carbon dioxide is therefore caused by the increase of carbon dioxide.
It rains! Guess what caused it? It snows? Same! It's warm? Same! It's cold? Same! This intellectually challenged "science" reminds me of the coffee scare when it was "scientifically" proven that drinking more than two cups of coffee a day caused heart attacks. Of course we now know that most of the more than two cup drinkers were generally stressed at work and home and even without coffee died at the same rate.
The United States invests nearly a trillion dollars annually in research and this is the best we can get? The vast majority, over 90%, of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica. And why don't we hear about it? Because it is increasing in depth! For every melting glacier in the northern hemisphere, there are ten increasing in size in the south. Why is this not included in the computer models? Because it doesn't fit! What about temperature? The upper atmosphere and thousands of earth stations report level or decreased temperature. Why is this not included in the computer models? It doesn't fit!
So what about Global Warming? Hire a NYPD detective and in a week of looking for Global Warming he will tell you it doesn't exist. End of story.
If this is true, we should all be heading for the exits. Virgin Atlantic Airline is offering the first space travel reservations and I'm getting me one. If this planet is heading for the ash heap, then I want a nice beachside place on the Moon or Mars. Venus appears, from my memory, to have today the climate these guys are predicting for us in 20 years. Hot and humid with lots of gases and limited visibility. I suppose that cave BBQs might be the hobby du jour in our future. There might even be investment opportunities for deep underground city construction. Why not?
Well, reading further into the above quoted article reminds us that the devil is in the details. It reads: "The new study used computer models and field tests to show that heat and energy levels as deep as nearly a half-mile in some oceans have risen dramatically in the past 40 years, in direct conjunction with rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Computer Models? I sometimes get SPAM to view computer models and some of them are not very scientific. In fact, computer models are like opinion polls. You write them to support your personal and professional opinions.
So let me get this straight. Carbon Dioxide is slowly increasing in the atmosphere. Most support that fact. So the "scientific" connection between ANY and ALL atmospheric and climate activity during a miniscule increase of carbon dioxide is therefore caused by the increase of carbon dioxide.
It rains! Guess what caused it? It snows? Same! It's warm? Same! It's cold? Same! This intellectually challenged "science" reminds me of the coffee scare when it was "scientifically" proven that drinking more than two cups of coffee a day caused heart attacks. Of course we now know that most of the more than two cup drinkers were generally stressed at work and home and even without coffee died at the same rate.
The United States invests nearly a trillion dollars annually in research and this is the best we can get? The vast majority, over 90%, of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica. And why don't we hear about it? Because it is increasing in depth! For every melting glacier in the northern hemisphere, there are ten increasing in size in the south. Why is this not included in the computer models? Because it doesn't fit! What about temperature? The upper atmosphere and thousands of earth stations report level or decreased temperature. Why is this not included in the computer models? It doesn't fit!
So what about Global Warming? Hire a NYPD detective and in a week of looking for Global Warming he will tell you it doesn't exist. End of story.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Kyoto is here!
And now it begins. It wasn't a coincidence that global warming was rolled out in 1989, the same year that the Soviet Union imploded and world socialism suffered its single greatest set back. Further evidence of a world-wide conspiracy is that the global warming coalition is heavily weighted with politically far left organizations and governments that seek use global warming to redistribute income and to slow our economic growth.
Kyoto labels carbon dioxide the primary "green house" gas. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to convert carbon dioxide to the world's first internationally recognized, traded, and taxed currency. Even here Congress continues debating the administration's energy bill well into its third year. A major hurdle to passage is whether to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant. Democrats call carbon dioxide pollution and Republicans say that's an energy deal breaker. It appears that the Dems are trying to backdoor the United States into Kyoto, sort of, by insisting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
And that is where we come back to the envirowars. World egalitarians attempting to fund the United Nations through taxation of carbon dioxide. One additional benefit from this strategy is to redistribute America's wealth to dysfunctional socialist nations and to despots. Another is that limiting carbon dioxide emission slows our economy so that it weakens our GDP growth and subsequently diminishes our military power.
The envirowars shed bright light on where our two major political movements stand on America and the world. One movement views America in the eyes of foreign social liberals. They see a very imperfect and internationally hated America. It is left thinker's mission to be embraced and accepted by secular socialists who are the primary cause of their nation's decay. Secular socialists reached their height of world influence in the 20th century. We can measure the affect of Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini. And the world influence of Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. Secular socialists have proven to be disruptive for the world's population.
The other movement views America as "a shining city on the hill." Ronald Reagan introduced that America to the world in the 1980s. His policies brought tectonic changes to a world of high taxation and despot hugging. He said that it was the individual who must keep the result of their labors and be given the freedom to spend it. But most of all, he demanded that democratic nations stop embracing despots and enslavers. I remember when he called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire." It was Kennedy who said that America would "pay any price in the pursuit of freedom." It was Reagan who actually stopped containing the Soviets by defeating them.
Reagan lived the American dream. He supported the New Deal and served as a union leader. But somewhere along the way he began to believe his eyes and ears more than he followed his peer group's words. And ultimately that is what separates the two major movements in the United States. One says do as I say, not as I do. While another says do as you please with your own. But should others in foreign lands tell us how we should do with our own? Not likely. And that might be the political end to those who seek that kind of "global test."
Kyoto labels carbon dioxide the primary "green house" gas. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to convert carbon dioxide to the world's first internationally recognized, traded, and taxed currency. Even here Congress continues debating the administration's energy bill well into its third year. A major hurdle to passage is whether to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant. Democrats call carbon dioxide pollution and Republicans say that's an energy deal breaker. It appears that the Dems are trying to backdoor the United States into Kyoto, sort of, by insisting that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
And that is where we come back to the envirowars. World egalitarians attempting to fund the United Nations through taxation of carbon dioxide. One additional benefit from this strategy is to redistribute America's wealth to dysfunctional socialist nations and to despots. Another is that limiting carbon dioxide emission slows our economy so that it weakens our GDP growth and subsequently diminishes our military power.
The envirowars shed bright light on where our two major political movements stand on America and the world. One movement views America in the eyes of foreign social liberals. They see a very imperfect and internationally hated America. It is left thinker's mission to be embraced and accepted by secular socialists who are the primary cause of their nation's decay. Secular socialists reached their height of world influence in the 20th century. We can measure the affect of Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini. And the world influence of Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. Secular socialists have proven to be disruptive for the world's population.
The other movement views America as "a shining city on the hill." Ronald Reagan introduced that America to the world in the 1980s. His policies brought tectonic changes to a world of high taxation and despot hugging. He said that it was the individual who must keep the result of their labors and be given the freedom to spend it. But most of all, he demanded that democratic nations stop embracing despots and enslavers. I remember when he called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire." It was Kennedy who said that America would "pay any price in the pursuit of freedom." It was Reagan who actually stopped containing the Soviets by defeating them.
Reagan lived the American dream. He supported the New Deal and served as a union leader. But somewhere along the way he began to believe his eyes and ears more than he followed his peer group's words. And ultimately that is what separates the two major movements in the United States. One says do as I say, not as I do. While another says do as you please with your own. But should others in foreign lands tell us how we should do with our own? Not likely. And that might be the political end to those who seek that kind of "global test."
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Kyoto is leaving the station.
The world is launching its best effort at slowing the American and possibly China's and India's economies. Next week the Kyoto Protocol will become international law for those who participate by signing on to it. The United States stands alone in opposing this backdoor effort to slow its economy. China and India care little because for now they are exempt from job killing economic activity restrictions.
The world's growing economies are generally expanding because they export more than they import. And it is the American market place that is the growth engine for the world's workers. If we slow down, Third World countries crash back into poverty. In fact the UN supports the notion that economic globalization has lifted more of the worlds poor above poverty than all government programs for all of history combined.
Our consumption is considered obscene by European elites who feel that only they can be allowed to ride in limos and fly in private jets. Mercedes Benz in Germany restricts sales of their largest models to "select" business and government types. France has always practiced a double standard for the elites as opposed to their rabble. New money, earned by innovative business activities is taxed at levels often over 80% while old money is worshiped as a right and legacy.
So this is the landscape for Kyoto. Tax carbon dioxide. Why? Because economic activity releases carbon into the atmosphere. So America can be hit for hundreds of billions annually for redistribution to socialist and despot governments that long ago lost their way for their citizens. But what is the proof that higher carbon dioxide levels will negatively change our planet's climate? There is none. Zero, zilch, nil. There isn't any consensus on whether more carbon dioxide will even affect our climate.
So the 100 plus dwarfs happily march off to slay the carbon dragon using pea shooters and eloquent words. There is no doubt that they stand for a better planet and support what they truly believe is a policy that all can embrace. But in reality, this pig is so ugly that there isn't enough lip stick or make up to cover all the warts and pimples.
The world's growing economies are generally expanding because they export more than they import. And it is the American market place that is the growth engine for the world's workers. If we slow down, Third World countries crash back into poverty. In fact the UN supports the notion that economic globalization has lifted more of the worlds poor above poverty than all government programs for all of history combined.
Our consumption is considered obscene by European elites who feel that only they can be allowed to ride in limos and fly in private jets. Mercedes Benz in Germany restricts sales of their largest models to "select" business and government types. France has always practiced a double standard for the elites as opposed to their rabble. New money, earned by innovative business activities is taxed at levels often over 80% while old money is worshiped as a right and legacy.
So this is the landscape for Kyoto. Tax carbon dioxide. Why? Because economic activity releases carbon into the atmosphere. So America can be hit for hundreds of billions annually for redistribution to socialist and despot governments that long ago lost their way for their citizens. But what is the proof that higher carbon dioxide levels will negatively change our planet's climate? There is none. Zero, zilch, nil. There isn't any consensus on whether more carbon dioxide will even affect our climate.
So the 100 plus dwarfs happily march off to slay the carbon dragon using pea shooters and eloquent words. There is no doubt that they stand for a better planet and support what they truly believe is a policy that all can embrace. But in reality, this pig is so ugly that there isn't enough lip stick or make up to cover all the warts and pimples.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
What Geo-Green Alternative?
Thomas Friedman's column in today's NY Times talks about the Geo-Green Alternative to mainstream economic activity. Mr. Friedman tells us that he is a Geo-Green which means that he favors reducing our dependence on fossil fuels which will return power and control over the world to the United States.
Friedman tells us that lower costs for oil will stop nuclear development by Iran, Iraq, and other like aspirants. That's because they will have fewer dollars to pay for mischief. Then he says that America can support the old Europe by supporting their carrot diplomacy while we push our stick diplomacy. Sounds reasonable.
However the truth lies somewhere in between. Wouldn't it be a revelation for America to support a single line of diplomacy? One that punishes those governments that abuse their citizens and their corporations? Is it not more reasonable and doesn't it support our values to stop supporting despots like Fidel Castro or Aristede of Haiti? Why do left thinkers embrace the worlds most desperate secular murderers? Because social policies and programs are miserable failures.
So the left must either reform these discredited programs and their philosophy, or they must defend them to the political death. Political death appears to be the more comfortable road for progressives.
Friedman tells us that lower costs for oil will stop nuclear development by Iran, Iraq, and other like aspirants. That's because they will have fewer dollars to pay for mischief. Then he says that America can support the old Europe by supporting their carrot diplomacy while we push our stick diplomacy. Sounds reasonable.
However the truth lies somewhere in between. Wouldn't it be a revelation for America to support a single line of diplomacy? One that punishes those governments that abuse their citizens and their corporations? Is it not more reasonable and doesn't it support our values to stop supporting despots like Fidel Castro or Aristede of Haiti? Why do left thinkers embrace the worlds most desperate secular murderers? Because social policies and programs are miserable failures.
So the left must either reform these discredited programs and their philosophy, or they must defend them to the political death. Political death appears to be the more comfortable road for progressives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)