Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Paul Driessen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Global Warming "Bait-and-Switch"
by Paul Driessen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Fred Schwindel’s TV City ad promises 40” flat screen televisions for $200. You rush to his store, to learn he’s “fresh out” – but has some 42” models for $1000.

That’s “bait-and-switch,” and Fred could be prosecuted for consumer fraud.

In the political arena, however, bait-and-switch is often rewarded, not punished – especially in the case of global warming alarmism. Instead of fines or jail time, politicos get committee chairs, presidencies, speaking fees and Nobel Prizes. Scientists and bureaucrats receive paychecks, research grants and travel stipends for Bali. Activists get secretive government payments for “public education” campaigns. Companies get government contracts, subsidies and seats at the bargaining table. And all are lionized or canonized for supporting Climageddon theories and policies.

Global warming bait-and-switch starts with simple statements that few would contest – then shifts seamlessly to claims that are hotly disputed and supported by little or no evidence.

The bait: Global warming is real. The switch: Global warming is intensifying and threatens agriculture, human civilization and the fabric of life everywhere on earth.

Bait: 99% of scientists agree on the presence of human-caused global warming. Switch: The debate is over. Humans are the primary cause of temperature increases.

Bait: Atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing. Switch: CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas and is reaching unprecedented and dangerous levels.

Bait: Earth warmed during the twentieth century, as CO2 levels increased. Switch: Runaway warming is increasing hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and causing species extinction.

Bait: Even little things like reducing personal energy consumption help the environment. Switch: We can stop climate change by switching to wind and solar energy.

The perpetrators of these B/S schemes may never be chastened or prosecuted. However, as in the case of consumer fraud, an informed public is less likely to get fleeced.

President Obama and congressional Democrats support a $650 billion carbon cap-and-trade tax on every household, business and factory in America. If they introduce legislation amid this recession, voters, energy consumers and more responsible legislators should keep important facts in mind.

Global warming (aka climate change) has been “real” since time began. Witness the Ice Ages, interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period (950-1350), Little Ice Age (1400-1850), Anesazi drought, Dust Bowl, and conversion of verdant river valleys into the Sahara Desert some 4,000 years ago.

No one yet knows what solar energy fluctuations, planetary orbit shifts, recurrent oscillations in ocean currents, cloud cover variation and other natural forces combined to cause these potent climatic changes. But there is no evidence that they have suddenly been displaced by human CO2 emissions.

Growing numbers of scientists say the climate change debate is far from over, and global warming was never a crisis. Over 650 certified meteorologists and climate scientists are on a US Senate compilation of climate cataclysm skeptics – and 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they dispute claims that humans are causing climate change, and the changes will be disastrous.

Many of them are meeting in New York March 8-10, at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. They may not drive the final nails into the coffin of climate hysteria, but their findings and analyses underscore the lack of evidence for scary “forecasts” that are routinely generated by woefully inadequate computer models and self-interested researchers, activists and politicians. They will point out that planetary temperatures are no longer rising, hurricanes are not increasing in number or intensity, ice caps are not disappearing, and moderate temperature and CO2 increases benefit plant growth.

The UN’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change claims to be the world’s “most authoritative body” on the subject. However, only “something on the order of 20%” of the panel’s scientists “have some dealing with climate,” admits a senior member. Even the IPCC chairman is an economist, not a scientist.

Worse, says atmospheric scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, the IPCC insists that human carbon dioxide emissions drive global warming. It has “never seriously investigated” the possibility that climate change might be natural. The IPCC sees only what it is looking for; it sees nothing it is not looking for.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may have “soared” from 280 ppm to 385 ppm over the last century. But this represents an almost trivial rise from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% – the equivalent of an increase from 3 cents to 4 out of $100, or from 1.08 inches to 1.44 inches on a football field. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which nature controls via evaporation and precipitation.

Planetary temperatures may have increased during the last century, as CO2 levels increased. But not in a straight line. They rose 1900-1940 (1934 was the century’s warmest year), fell 1940-1975, rose again 1975-1998, then stabilized and even declined slightly from 1998 to 2008.

New York, Holland and Bangladesh might be inundated by a 49-foot rise in sea level, if the entire West Antarctic ice sheet melted. But that would require a global temperature spike far greater than even Al Gore has prophesied. The average temperature for the peninsula’s two-month summer is barely 36 F; in the winter, temperatures are below minus 50.

Unplugging unused appliances and switching to CFL bulbs may help jet-setting Hollywood celebrities feel better. But they will not stabilize Earth’s climate. Even grounding Al Gore and John Travolta’s private jets, scrapping every US automobile, mothballing America’s coal-fired power plants, and slashing US CO2 emissions by 80% (back to 1905 levels), as President Obama wants to do, will have little effect.

Even the IPCC recognizes that perfect compliance with the Kyoto Protocol by every country would reduce global temperature increases by only 0.2 degrees by 2050 (assuming CO2 does drive global warming). But Europe has put its greenhouse gas reduction programs on hold. Australia is poised to reject cap-and-trade plans. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants every week.

Nearly 85% of US energy is hydrocarbon based, whereas wind turbines currently provide 0.5% and generate electricity only 25% of the time. Even absent the deepening recession, taxing and penalizing hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions will drive up energy costs and extinguish far more jobs than can possibly be created via government-subsidized renewable energy and green-collar job initiatives. The impacts on poor families, economic civil rights, living standards and civil liberties would be severe.

Not surprisingly, the more people understand these facts, the worse the hysteria gets. Al Gore: Soaring global temperatures will “bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” Energy Secretary Stephen Chu: “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” NOAA scientist Susan Solomon: “In ten years the oceans will be toxic, and all life in them will die.” NASA astronomer James Hansen: “Death trains” are carrying poisonous fuel to “coal-fired factories of death.”

Hollywood horror movie writers couldn’t possibly top this stuff.

So when Congress and the President call for more economic pain through energy restrictions and cap-and-trade bills, demand solid evidence for catastrophic warming and human causation. Don’t accept worthless computer models and worst-case scenarios. And don’t be conned by bait-and-switch tactics.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Be the first to read Paul Driessen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

BS
Bait: global warming, an unproven and perhaps unprovable hypothesis mired in politics, emotion, and pseudoscience.

Switch: climate change, a meaningless blanket term that covers global warming; global cooling; the slowing, cessation, or reversal of either trend; and anything else unexpected, unexplainable, or objectionable.

Poker player's analysis
of global warming. The climate is either on a long term warming cycle that is dangerous, or it is not. Short term data is contradictory and history shows many short term warming and cooling trends longer and sharper than the data being used by GW enthusiasts to support their case. Chances of high impact GW can't be any better than 50/50.

If GW is occuring to such extent as to impact the earth seriously over the next 100 years is indeed occuring, it is either caused by human action or it is not. Many massive phenomena are proven to have effect and are incontestable. These include the precession of earth's axis, perturbation of our orbit around the sun, caused by the influence of other planet gravity, shifts in tectonic plates which alter the heat transfer of ocean currents. Many other phenomona have impact less understood and measurable. These include sunspots and many less measurable or understood, includingthe greenhouse effect. Human activity has no impact on any of these except greenhouse effect. The chance that greenhouse is the major contributing factor is quite small, say 25%.

Climate Change
Why would I want to listen to "scientists" who thirty years ago were claiming another ice age was here and the final proof was before us all.
At least two of these same boobs have now changed their minds. The tuth is they don't know and haven't got a clue. But hysteria comes first, it sells more books doesn't it?

Liberal Barbarians
There is no proof that humans are causing Global Warming and such proof is probably unobtainable. Computer models produce exactly what you put into them--GIGO.

The objective of the Climate Change partisans is control over peoples' lives and that hasn't changed from the beginning of civilization.

Hansen should be put into an asylum for the criminally insane along with the CO2 Godfather, Al Gore. Incidentally, why didn't we elect him president? If we had, we would not have to deal with this nonsense.

Modern day liberalism equals an early death because its proponents support abortion and starvation for the millions in undeveloped countries that need access to cheap energy, which is arbitrarily denied them because of insane, Utopian theories that man can control the weather.

When you meet a do-gooder who wants to make your life better run like h*ll away from him or her. They are in control in D.C. now and wrecking the very foundations of our republic.

Analysis, cont
Given a US contribution of 15%, Driessen says that the most the proposed changes can do is lower our impact by 20%.

Now lets look at just what impact wasting billions to further skrew up our economy would have on the climate. 1/2 of 1/4 of 1/5 of 3/20 of 1/5 is 3/4000. Our contribution would have less than a thousand to one chance of doing any good. I've called some big bluffs with worse odds than that on my side.

Enviromental 'Solutions'
When you dig down deep into an environmentalist's psyche you find most of them think there are too many people on earth and that's why they support abortion and the limitation of cheap energy for underdeveloped countries, which will result in millions of people dying.

All their soaring rhetoric about "saving the planet" covers their real goal: to limit population growth.

Of course, the logical end point for this morbid, anti-life philosophy is for them, altruistically and gracefully, to jump off the nearest cliff.

Pistol
Good morning.

I like your analysis, though I'm not sure where the second 1/5 came from. Consequently, I get 3/800 instead of 3/4000. But I freely admit that I'm not fully conscious yet. Anyway, the point remains that wrecking the economy isn't very likely to yield much of a return.

"Many other phenomona have impact less understood and measurable. These include sunspots and many less measurable or understood, including the greenhouse effect."

Indeed. Add to your already impressive list the effect of the still-rising Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau on the Jet Stream, the effects of chemical weathering on mid-oceanic micronutrient levels (and therefore phytoplankton populations), the effect on albedo of more (or less) snow cover. . .it can go on for yards.


BillK9
"Why would I want to listen to 'scientists' who thirty years ago were claiming another ice age was here and the final proof was before us all."

Because they're simply better than we are, even when they're wrong.

"But hysteria comes first, it sells more books doesn't it?"

Yepper, and it attracts more grant money.

Just one flaw
in your article.

You suggested that CO2 levels increase temperature. That is another Al Gore fallacy.

In every study, EVERY study, CO2 levels have always FOLLOWED warming trends, not preceded them. In short, warming produces greater CO2 levels, not higher CO2 levels produce warmer temperatures.

This is another Al Gore myth that even scientific climate change proponents agree on.

Another myth bites the dust!

Old saying:
If you don't like the weather,
wait 15 minutes - it will change.

JerseyVet
You cut right to the chase, don't you?

"All their soaring rhetoric about 'saving the planet' covers their real goal: to limit population growth."

Right, specifically other people's population growth. Liberals love humanity in the abstract, but not people. Environmentalists love life in the abstract, but not humanity.

"Of course, the logical end point for this morbid, anti-life philosophy is for them, altruistically and gracefully, to jump off the nearest cliff."

Truly. Every time I hear some blowhard opine that the human race is a disease or a pollutant or some such, I can't resist the temptation to ask, "Then why are you still here?"

global change

All of Congress, the obama, screwball al gore, the un-united nations, and a slew of TV climate readers should be jailed. These people are cheating and stealing from the American people and doing it the name of false, unproven, lying ideas created to meet preconceived end results which are 1. make America equal to all the other countries of the world 2.create a body of pimps to control this country (those mentioned above) 3. Eliminate the Constitution of this country and rule by fiat.

a good debate on global warming.
The ONLY evidence for global warming are the computer models that predict it. To see a test of those models to about 5:40 in this debate. The rest of the debate is good too, if you can spare the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACo2OCSJnBI

The Real Question
The real question is, when this cap & trade stuff comes up for a vote in Congress, will Republicans stand up to this nonsense, or cave in? Where do Collins, Snowe & Spector stand on this? Also, I'm a little concerned about Georgia's RINO senator, Isakson.

algore and the . . .
environMENTALists should be sued under the RICO statutes for perpetuating a hoax. he is one of the "elites" who would benefit under the proposed "cap and trade" system while the rest of us would be saddled with the expenses. environMENTALists (along with algore) are emotionally unstable "nancyboys" who cry about supposed "problems" but offer no "solutions". All they have to say is "we can do this" without knowing HOW. Look at the wholesale slaughter of humans in Africa due to their misplaced ban of DDT. Worrying about (supposed) thinning of bird egg shells at the expense of HUMANS is insane.
I doubt if there is an engineer in the bunch. Most of them would be swayed by the "perpetual motion machines" that crop up from time to time. It seems that most of the environMENTALists are social science types who have no grounding in basic physics.
When the revolution comes (and it will) they will be some of the recipients of retributive justice.

I do not
believe that climate change is caused by humans, but I think it's only prudent to methodically and cost-effectively work towards reducing our dependence on energy sources that are controlled by people who hate us. How can any rational person argue with that?

Mark_0454
Thanks for the link.

It's always useful to maintain healthy skepticism about mathematical models. Not all people who build such models are malicious, biased, or uninformed. They are all fallible, however. And as the development of chaos theory suggests, real-world phenomena are so sensitive to initial conditions that even the best model must eventually fail.

Further, policy makers, demagogues, and axe-grinders tend to ignore or belittle results that don't fit their agendas. For example, a lot of climate models reach a "snowball earth" equilibrium. Only questionable tweaking can keep them from it. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the earth has endured several ice ages, including one or more during the Paleozoic so severe that all the oceans may have frozen over. You won't hear Al Gore talk about any of this.

Let me guess
The cure for the rise in global temperatures is WORLD-WIDE-SOCIALISM. It seems to be the answer to all of our problems.

AMAZING!!!!!!

We need global waming, not Gorebull war
The reason that so much of this planet has had drought for so many centuries is that we’ve been in an ice age, and the water needed for normal condensation has been frozen into glaciers. Glaciers are frozen water needed as condensation for barren and frozen lands of this planet, causing drought and flooding. When glaciers melt, some water runs into the oceans. Some water thaws the ground below where the glacier was, and soaks into the ground. Some water evaporates into the upper atmosphere where it becomes normal rainfall for the whole world.

The heat of the sun, clean air, and the absence of cold from glaciers and sea ice would cause more water to be evaporated from the oceans, lakes, and rivers into the upper atmosphere than there presently is; and the winds would blow it evenly around the world, providing normal rainfall world-wide, even where there presently is drought, and barren and frozen land, preventing flooding.

The worldwide rainfall would cause long-dormant seeds in barren lands to sprout and grow into new plants: The best way to go green. The new plants would inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which we breathe. There would be so many new plants, that we might have to increase the amount of carbon dioxide we generate, to provide enough for all of them

If the glacier in Greenland would melt, the codfish would return, and the land could be farmed, as it was when originally colonized by Vikings, millennia ago.

Many parts of the world have record amounts of snow and ice. Arctic ice is as thick as it was in the 1970’s when an ice age was predicted. Polar bears, which had thrived during the previous decade, are heading south to escape the severe cold. We’re entering another ice age in 2014. We must drill and pump all our own oil, shale oil, natural gas, and mine our coal as soon as possible to have them available for use.


Michigander
I think you will find that many of the people who are skeptical of global warming are all in favor of cleaning up the environment or reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But they do not believe the earth will become uninhabitable if we do not do what Al Gore says. Clean environment and reducing dependence on foreign oil are worthwhile goals, but let's have an honest debate.

Global warming is being presented as impending doom by those who have other agendas. Those agendas may be perfectly good in and of themselves, but we shouldn't base policy on a misconception of global warming, or without looking at the risks involved

On canonization
--
Writes Mr. Driessen:

"And all are lionized or canonized for supporting Climageddon theories and policies."



In order to be "canonized," one has to be dead.

I wouldn't mind if all these "Climageddon" bastiches were dead.

Would you?






=====
"Sea levels have been rising steadily since the peak of the last Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. The total rise since then has been four hundred feet...For the last 5,000 years or so, the rate of rise has been about seven inches per century.

"The Medieval and Roman warmings, with their intervening cold periods, present a huge problem for the advocates of man-made global warming. If the Medieval and Roman occurred warmer than today - without greenhouse gases, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm as well?

"The temperatures at the North and South Poles are lower now than they were in 1930. The Antarctic Peninsula, the finger of land pointing north towards Argentina (and the equator) has been getting warmer...The other 97 percent of Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960s."


-- S. Fred Singer (Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University)

-- Dennis Avery (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute)

*Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years*

It's the Socialist Conspiracy, Stupid!!
As Krauthammer pointed out so artfully yesterday, there is abundant evidence that BHO is seeking to create fear and panic in America that will allow him to seize greater control over the economy and rebuild it in his socialist/commmunist image. This is a blitzkrieg from a master of politics, the likes of which the world has not seen since Adolph Hitler. Many of us warned that this was the grand plan of BHO and the Dems, but a lot of mush-brained Republicans masquerading as conservatives--Chris Buckley, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Kathleeen Parker, et al--insisted BHO was actually a conservative-centrist and helped deliver a BHO victory. Even George Will was duped and now is back pedaling furiously.

If you're not working actively to fight back, you're part of the problem.

WAKE UP, AMERICA, OR DIE IN YOUR SLEEP!!!

Climate Change Reality Check
The recent increase in global average temperature began in ~1650, at the trough of the "Little Ice Age". The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration began in ~1750 (NOTE: 100 years after the temperature began to increase.)

Global annual CO2 emissions in 1750 are estimated to have been 1/2000th of the current global annual emissions levels. Logically, merely halting the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels would require a reduction in global annual emissions levels to or below the global annual emissions levels at which the atmospheric concentration began to increase. That would require a reduction of ~99.95% from current global annual CO2 emissions levels.

It is also important to note that global human population has increased from less than 800 million in 1750 to more than 6.7 billion in 2008; and, that all of those ~5.9 billion additional humans are CO2 emitters. So, by the way, are the cattle, sheep, hogs, chickens, etc. which feed them.

Therefore, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would require: complete elimination of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, either by permanent sequestration or total cessation of use; adoption of a vegan diet globally, following the elimination of all meat animal husbandry; and, global population controls.

You have very likely not read anything like the above in the public press. The AGW religionists realize that they would immediately make themselves laughingstocks by allowing widespread publication. I suspect the AGW religionists also believe that they can achieve their political aims with far less draconian emissions reductions, after which the realization that "Gore lied, people died" would be meaningless.

Wake up, sheeple!

''Believe'' is bullsh!t
--
In science, one observes facts - objective reality which anyone else can confirm or refute through recapitulation of the methods you use to make those observations - and draws lucidly argued conjecture as to why these facts exist.

There is nothing of "believe" about it.

You don't "believe" in Planck's Constant, or in Starling's law of the heart, or in Avogadro's number.

If the concept doesn't co-incide robustly with observed fact, it's not a valid concept under those circumstances where co-incision doesn't happen.

Scientific method.

The hole in the great "global warming" hysterical sh!tstorm is in the advocates' methodological dumphuckery, which is cataclysmically huge.

That's enough to do 'em in on an intellectual basis.

For the rest, I suggest shooting to death by musketry.





=====
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

-- Michael Crichton
( http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalw arming.html )

PaleoCon/Mark
As was said earlier in the thread, GIGO. I work daily with geologic mathematical models and we're constantly refining the model when new information comes in. If the model always gives the same trend regardless of new information (even with information that is contrary to the "expected" results) and shows a trend that diverges from observed and tested reality, the model is discarded as flawed.

A minimum level of proof that the model is valid should be required before anyone takes them seriously.

firetoice
An appropriate screen name for this discussion.

You're right about the wrenching changes that would be needed to roll back the the Industrial Revolution -- if it had any real effect on climate. Two additional points:

1. If we can change global climate, countless variables are ours to choose. What's so great about the 1650 benchmark? Why not aim for 1750, 1850, or 1950? The standard of living for many on earth is higher than it was for royalty in 950. What's wrong with that? Wherever we set the thermostat, some species or ecosystem will be stressed. Wherever we put sea level, suffering and dislocation will result from flooding some places or exposing others. Why change anything?

2. Technologies fail when there aren't enough people to sustain them. (Note how some small, isolated groups, such as Fuegians, Tasmanians, and Andamanese fell behind their stone-age ancestors.)

If this country forces a Colonial standard of living on its masses, its elites will not long enjoy Blackberries, private jets, inexpensive food or healthcare, wind farms, or solar panels. The greatest hotbed of invention and innovation in history will lose its ability to help maintain a livable world. The backwater that was the United States will have no sway over industrial countries like China, Russia, and India. It may eventually _become_ a colony run by foreigners who care nothing about conservation.

If environmental Puritans somehow return the world to 1650 all at once, we shall have to deal with halved lifespans, chronic disease and starvation, deforestation, renewed exploitation of people and animals. . . Does anyone except a few idiots find this scenario appealing?

3. Conditions in the Little Ice Age led inexorably to the overseas expansion of Western Europe, the Industrial Revolution, and the other evils routinely denounced by the green fringe. What's the point of returning to those conditions and reliving the last half-millennium?

Well, shucks
Sorry about the typos. And obviously there were three points after the colon, not two.

Probable Global Warming Scam
Again, follow the money, eventually your money in this stinking morass of half-truths and outright lies.

What's really unethical here and a major conflict of interest is that Gore, Pelosi, and many other politicos are investing in green technologies on the ground floor while at the same time they promote them (with scare tactics and otherwise) they craft legislation (or otherwise influence legislation) to mandate green technologies in order to boost their investments. Many of these technologies, like ethanol production from corn (VERY inefficient), have been shown to be NOT in the best interest of the majority of the American people or the planet, either now or even the future. Global warming as Gore is pushing is far, far from a sure thing. So this is, again, a pack of lies or orchestrated deceit in order to capitalize on investments they’ve made and other nefarious reasons. How low is that?!? I’m not against “going green” and don’t discount global warming completely but since these proposed remedies have such an impact on the economy and people’s lives any measure taken has to be on very firm ground and with a maximum return on investments…not just monetarily but also quality of life for ALL. The solutions must be analyzed from a complete lifecycle perspective to ensure that the downside is absolutely minimized while the upside is maximized, again, not just monetarily but also quality of life for ALL.

I try to panic, but can't
I got a chuckle out of "the coming Ice Age" - even when it was reported it could happen in as little as 150 years. Considering the lumbering growth and movement of glaciers - I figure there's time to get out of the way.
Then come "Global Warming" and I was almost nearly as concerned - somewhere around not-at-all - and figured that if I don't have a glacier to dodge, adapting would be easier.
But when Al Gore said civilization would come to a screeching halt - that was it.

We'll be laughing too hard to move - it would be harder to dodge the glacier.

C_Miner
If you have not seen climateaudit.org by Steve McIntyre it is worth a look. On the favorite posts there is one titled, "What the hockey-stick debate is all about." I don't work with computer models, but what struck me is the contention that if noise is put into the Mann algorithm (that generated the original hockey stick) you get out a hockey stick. The algorithm is predisposed to deliver a hockey-stick no matter what data is entered. What really struck me about this is that this would be such an easy experiment to refute. If I was Mann, I would run noise and get noise out. Publish the noise and the result and you are done -- easily refuted. Maybe they have done this experiment and if anyone knows of this I would be grateful for a reference. But for now it appears to me the hockey stick is a very flawed computer model.

At wattsupwiththat Anthony Mann is demonstrating that many of the data stations used in collecting data for surface temperatures are flawed (sitting in or near parking lots, sitting outside air conditioning units).

Liberal goals
Really they have ONE goal. Turn back the Industrial Revolution (but keep the goodies for themselves a la the Leninists) and make serfs of everyone ELSE.

THEY are the "enlightened" don't you know? THEY will have private jets, SUVs, my Aston (if it hasn't been BBQ'd by then), expansive retreats in the mountains (while WE live in Soviet-style condos with no AC and BAD plumbing).

Sound a lot like the Inner Party of 1984? Get used to it. Nazi Psychosi can't WAIT for it to happen.

If the REALLY want to take control of overpopulation why not get real with the Third World? The BEST thing that could happen to the planet is for all the subsistence level oxygen thieves in South America, Asia, Africa, most of the old USSR and a few other places like Meheeeco to have their birth rate knocked down to about 0.3% of what it now is for about 60 years.

A lot fewer unproductive hungry and demanding mouths. THEN they their populace is at a managable level (say 20% of what it is now) they learn not to breed like vermin again and they can enjoy their OWN natural resources and build THEIR OWN ECONOMY instead of trying to hijack ours!!!



-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Weather or not Channel
I remember when Heidi Cullen of the Weather or Not Channel made her pronouncement: meterologists who don't subscribe to Global Warming theories should lose their AMS memberships and certification. Cullen is allegdly a Climatologist, but with the hysteria, it's clear that she's a Climaxologist.

Such people would have been against the Big Band, if they were there to opine against it. Of course, I don't buy the theory either: in the hands of modern scientists, it looks more like the Big Bung.

I remember
In grade school, they told us that dinosaurs died off "over millions of years." And that there were always split-continents. They laughed at the Biblical flood.

Now they say dinosaurs died off suddenly. They still laugh at the Biblical flood.

They said we came from diverse groups of ancestors, millions of years ago, not Hoah and his children. Now, some geneticists tell us that all but about 12 families (or individuals) survived a catastrophy (but they insist it must have been a supervolcano, or the ice-age) some 10,000 years ago.

When scientists announce something with certainty, you can be certain that's not the end of the story.

If you want a modern myth that took 100 years to die, look no further than the lactic acid-causes-muscle-pain-and-fatigue B.S.

Mark_0454
All I'm saying is that irrespective of what the Goreophile alarmists claim, why not err on the side of caution... and slowly but steadily wean ourselves from the offshore fossil fuel addiction. If done properly, I would think a 2% reduction per year in imported oil would be relatively painless. It would take us from 70% to 30% by 2030.

TTAPS
Look it up.

Driessen's Own Bait and Switch
Driessen says, “Over 650 certified meteorologists and climate scientists are on a US Senate compilation of climate cataclysm skeptics.” Um, no. First of all, it’s not a “Senate compilation.” It’s from a Senate MINORITY report, put together by well-known climate-change denier Marc Morano on behalf of his boss, the well-known climate idiot, Senator James Inhofe. And the list has been thoroughly debunked—see:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-morano-recycle s-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-foo led-again/

Driessen further refers to the “32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition....” As Driessen would learn if he looked at the Oregon Petition’s own Internet compilation, two-thirds of those “scientist” signers have only a bachelor’s or a master’s degree, and only a small percentage of the signers overall are in fields related to climate science. Does Driessen suggest that the opinions of veterinarians or astronomers carry much weight on this issue?

Here’s a little reminder from Dr. John P. Holdren, former head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and soon to be the President's science advisor: “The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action. This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.”

So which is more likely to be trustworthy: The overwhelming weight of scientific expertise represented by these bodies, or people like Driessen who are so desperate to prop up a failed ideology that they’ll look almost anywhere else to explain away what is inconvenient to their case?

Michigander
No argument from me about getting off foreign oil. 2% a year sounds like a reasonable target. How do you do it? If the goal is only to get off foreign oil, it seems reasonable to tap into our own supplies of domestic oil, natural gas, shale, and coal. If your goal is to reduce C02, that is more difficult. But why reduce C02? If global warming is real, there is a reason. If it is not, could the money spent reducing global warming be better spent elsewhere (or even not spent at all)?

JohninOregon
If global warming requires early action, look up the TTAPS study; the solution is there.

All A Scam
Here is a simple question. Let us for the sake of discussion say the theory is right. In order to prevent the event from happening, you need to reduce the amount of manmade greenhouse gases. How much of a reduction and how fast you have to reduce manmade greenhouse gases, as far as I know is an unknown. So, to begin with, you are trying to prevent an event from happening without a clear quantitative goal of what needs to be done. Second, can you prevent the event from happening if countries like China and India are adding to the problem, not reducing their contribution to greenhouse gases? If you were a leader of one of these countries where your people are just struggling to make a better life for themselves, would you support policies that would make their life just a little bit more difficult, or much more difficult? Can the leaders of these countries have their cake and eat it at the same time, i.e. reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases, to the level that would prevent the event from happening, while at the same time, without asking their people to make sacrifices?

Global Warming
"Global Warming" is little more than computer simulations prognosticating decades or a century into the future by keyboards typed by liberals. These future guesses have been hijacked by the anti-capitalists to crush this country's free-enterprise. Democrats are using their new-found power to coerce some weak company leaders into agreeing and other greedy business people hungering for the spoils of central planning. Of course the Democrats' power comes from the backs of those who have sweated for success.

periodictablet.com

michigander
The only way to get a 2% reduction would be to drill for our own oil. I read in IEEE Spectrum this past month that the electric car is not the panacia that everyone thinks it is. First, the pollution reduction may not be realized based upon how the car is recharged. If the car is plugged into a outlet that is from an electrical plant that is not "green" the pollution is just transferred from one location to another. Another point in the article that by 2030 only 1/3 of the cars sold in the U.S. will be either hybrid or plugin hybrid.

On another note I saw ABC news promoting the Telsa. However, at $100,000 per car how many poor and middle class families can afford such a car? Then they said that in a couple of years they would have a model at at only 1/2 the cost. How many poor and middle class families can afford a $50,000 car? I know I can't.

Background on Dr. Holdren
For those interested some background on Pres. Obama's science advisor.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/flawed-scien ce-advice-for-obama/?apage=8

JohninOregon
"Driessen suggest that the opinions of veterinarians or astronomers carry much weight on this issue?"

Yes, more than a windbag politician and Hollywood actors.

The facts remain that the rest of the developing world are not going to go for this. The US alone can't make much of a difference (especially when those who preach to us about this are unwilling to lead by example). Cap and Trade is nothing but a back door, extremely regressive tax on the poor and middle class. Most telling is that the followers of these panic mongers have had to change the name of the 'crisis' to climate change, probably because they were tired of having global warming conferences in blizzards!

Global gold mine
Global warming is a liberal fabrication raised to con people into a crisis so they can make a lot of money from the morons who believe it. I have just survived the longest coldest winter anybody in my state of Michigan can remember, and the next person who says the words, Global warming, to me is going to get kicked in the crotch. All anybody with any common sense has to do is look around if was as Al Gore or Obama says it is the oceans would have covered Florida, has it, no of course liberals dont have common sense, if they did they would be conservatives.

JohninOregon
The experts routinely publish peer reviewed scientific papers that are full of errors, ommissions, and outright falsification. Dr Michael Mann (Penn St) MBH9X (Hockey Stick) paleo-climate study had errors in the PC1, R2 statistic, and use of the Bristle Cone proxy. These errors were so enormous that the NAS reversed its concurrence, and no one outside of the fringe Left uses the Hockey Stick. The experts were caught with thier pants down as it was "ametuers" who discovered the errors. One ametuer (McKyntyre) uncovered a huge error in NASAs temperature trend. Dr Hansen of NASA had to correct his temp graph, which indicated that the 1930s were by far the warmest decade in the US for the 20th Century. Still another ametuer, Anthony Watts, found that over 50% of NOAAs weather stations didn't even come close to meeting minimum guidlines, and that the reporting errors (warm side errors) were so large that they rendered NOAAs weather data useless. Watts recently found that the few Siberian weather stations still operating have a huge warm bias (due mainly to thier use of outdoor steam heating). The experts were again caught with thier pants down, as they were unaware of this bias. Finally, Steigs, and Mann's recent Antartic temp reconstruction has been uncovered to be a statistical fraud. Stations were misplotted, temperatures were discovered to be truncated and adjusted even before they were submitted to thier computational algoritim, and Steig of course refuses to divulge all of his data. Again, the experts were not aware of this.

Another thing
Fat Albert Gore doesn't show with his graphs of temperature and CO2 concentration, that is, that CO2 concentration lags temperature. World temperature rises, then CO2 concentration rises several hundred years later. Why? Because the oceans are a huge reservoir of CO2 (and other gasses). It takes several hundred years for the oceans to warm up. When they do, the CO2 comes out of solution. Kind of like a glass of cold water on a warm window sill.

BS
Bait: Temperatures fluctuate
Switch: We've got to achieve global socialism/fascism.

What Global Warming?
Doesn't anyone pay attention to the news? It just snowed in Alabama in March. Al Gore deserves another prize because he fought and defeated glo-bull warming.

In fact, he somehow even reversed a warming trend on Mars. Now, the evil rich will no longer be required to pay their fair share (99%) of the huge costs for our wonderful government to remove all the SUVs from that planet.

Global Warming...
Are we to believe B/S or BS? I think I'll take BS.

Global Warming...
Are we to believe B/S or BS? I think I'll take BS.

Global Warming...
Are we to believe B/S or BS? I think I'll take BS.

Wrong! Johninoregon
You use the classic liberal tactic to defend that which cannot be defended. You must smear the messengers! You offer no proof of AGW hypothesis, you smear the Senate minority report without refuting it, and you sneer at scientists and engineers with only a BS or masters degree.
The AGW crowd can present no proof of their hypothesis. Consenus doen't cut it in science or engineering. And to top it off, the hubris and arrogance of this collection of the AGW humans who BELIEVE they can control the forces of nature are insulting to any rational person.
To define the behavior of a system ( climate, for instance) one must be able to completely describe it in terms of a mass and energy balance. This means that you have to have done multiple measurements over periods of time and the measuring devices have not changed, are accurate, and the results are repeatable. None of this has been done in substantiation of the AGW hoax.

johninoregon
Here you go. Two articles that talk about debunking global warming:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html

You can also see Bob Carter's talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Plus, what effect do you think Obama's Cap and Trade will have in today's recession/depression. If his proposal passes I can assure you that the economy will tank even further. It will make the great depression seem like a mild recession.


wrat wrangler
Your post "liberal goals" is right on the money, couldn't have said it better myself!!

Time to go nuclear
The success of the French development of nuclear power should persuade many Americans that a nation-wide network of nuclear power reactors can deliver electricity effectively and safely. France is able to sell electric power back to the EU grid. The US is far behind France in this area. One would think that conservatives would be willing to throw their political weight behind nuclear power, but precious little has come from them. Nuclear power is certainly a way to reduce pollution from burning coal and oil for electricity.

Unfortunately, my fellow liberals have terrified the American population, making them perhaps permanently opposed even to consider nuclear energy. Of course, the French nuclear power strategy was possible only because the decision to go nuclear, made in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, could be made at the top. The public didn't have to be persuaded, and had little or no input.

However, I will note that most political parties, including both the Left and the Right, backed nuclear power. We're not going to have anything like that here.

Naturally Occurring Gas Needed for Life
I fully believe that even if the big-gov elite and leaders of the radical Left KNEW as a fact that the Anthrogenic CO2 Induced Climate Change hypothesis were false, they'd still push it as dogma, for one simple reason.

Once accepted as dogma and a rationale for policy, it implies the need for totalitarian control over virtually every aspect of our lives. There's almost no big-gov &/or leftist agenda that couldn't be served by the ACO2ICC dogma, with the possible exception of anti-nuclear. But you can thank Jimmuh & a braindead 1970 movie we have barely any nuclear electricity today, & Barry can be expected to subtly block building more nukes.

Did anyone suspect, when the Endangered Species Act was passed, what a landgrabbing monster it would become? Did anyone suspect that a hypothetical unproven hazard to a robustly prosperous species would be used as leverage to implement the ACO2ICC dogma itself?

Did anyone suspect that the Clean Air Act would be used to declare a naturally occurring trace gas that is necessary for life a "pollutant," based on an unproven hypothesis?

Notice how blithely they dismiss the indisputable fact that China & India will continue to burn ever more coal, which would totally defeat the ostensible purpose. This was the inconsistency that blew the lid off the Kyoto Treaty scam. For some reason, Chinese carbon dioxide isn't as bad as American CO2.

The logic of ACO2ICC also leads readily to scrapping American sovereignty into a one-world government, which the United Nations aspires to be. What organization has been invested as the sole authority on climate change. The IPCC! Whose agency is the IPCC? The UN's! the IPCC says whatever the UN wants it to say, & the interests of the UN as well as other international elitists, are to have ACO2ICC made dogma, as a rationalization for totalitarianism.

Great Opportunity
"Times of Crisis can be great opportunities".

This can be understood in different ways. If it is to mean that U.S. citizens are given freedom and resources (i.e. tax reductions) to recover from the corruption and irresponsibility of some of us then there is reason for hope.

If it means that the liberal socialists will take the opportunity to remake the U.S. into a facist, control freak dream come true then too bad for the average citizen. You won't know how good you had it until it is gone. Kinda like yer 401K.

My question is: Will the oppressed ever realize what happened to them and if they do, will they ever get angry enough to do something about it? Pray.

Some Leftist Causes ACO2ICC Helps
Hi taxes & other transfers of wealth to government on 'greenhouse gasses' pretexts.
Carphobia.
Suburban "sprawl"/shoehorning people back into cities.
Government school monopolism (running private schools & taking kids there or to schools other than the officially assigned one is an inefficient use of energy, so do away with it).
Mass transit pork & unionized MT operations & construction jobs.
Rewarding friends & punishing others thru selective use of arbitrary privileges & penalties.
Antipathy toward heavy industry and energy utilities generally.
Deciding what activities & lines of business are worthy uses of our limited carbon budget, which will be skewed toward what the Left wants.
Peoples' freedom to buy & use energy without saying mother-may-I to government.
Militant vegetarianism.
Freedom of churches to adhere to & preach their doctrine. Just watch: to get an adequate energy ration, churches could be subjected to a test of the political correctness of their teachings!
Same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage? Sure. A couple of years back, one of these "studies" found that married couples had a smaller "carbon footprint" than a like number of singles. What do you think the Left would do with that? Why not?

The sky's the limit for the ways they could find to control our lives thru energy restrictions having little or no reference to controlling "climate change".

Remember the classic paranoid theory that thec government controls the weather? The ironic truth is that the government seeks to control us by claiming the weather is out of control!

The greatest disaster that could befall them would be for fusion to become workable, or solar satellites, providing unlimited safe energy.

Energy tax
Two questions to ask your representatives and senators:

1) Who in society is hurt worst by an energy tax?

2) What will an American energy tax do the cost of energy for our world competitors?

Okay, three questions: Who is the sociopath that dreamed up the idea of launching an energy tax as we're sliding into a depression?

Gestell - If you can pull it off...
--
...go to it.

Observes Gestell:

"Unfortunately, my fellow liberals have terrified the American population, making them perhaps permanently opposed even to consider nuclear energy."


Over the decades, I've become firmly convinced that "Liberals" (use the word in quotation marks, please; when you socialists are through hiding behind it, us "classic" liberals want it back) embrace a large percentage of this nation's screaming technophobes.

Oh, they can *use* high-tech gadgets. They text and Twitter and twitch all over the friggin' place, but wouldn't know scientific method if it took physical form, r'ared up on its hindquarters, and bit the average "Liberal" square on both nipples.

I used to correspond with the late Dr. Petr Beckmann, founder of the old *Access to Energy* newsletter and author of *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear* (1976), and nothing he'd written then fails today except that his monetary calculations have to be re-set to allow for thiry years of Federal Reserve counterfeiting debauching the U.S. dollar.

At http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/PDF_Presentations/SHAW_Pres entation_02-07-05.pdf you can find something updating to 2005 on the subject (ignore the goofus picture on slide 4, for ghod's sake).

If you can find a "Liberal" whose head isn't completely made of rock - fat chance! - this and similar material can help. Use Dr. Beckmann's name as a search term, and you'll find more.

Good luck.

--

Repeal NEPA
No not north east PA. The National Environmental Policy Act. The biggest boon on infrastructure construction. And the cause for higher costs for construction and energy. We all know it is just a political tool to rally the liberal sheep. Just as the Global Warming myth is. It should be repealed or at least restricted to advisory at best with no impact studies or assessments. It should be privately funded as well by Democrat activists too.

global warming
Do I believe in global warming, yes it ended the ice age. do I believe in man made global warming NO. and I don't need a scientist, it snowed more in March in NC this year and IT HAS BEEN REALLY COLD SINCE EARLY NOV.
After watching a global warming protest in DC the first of March during a snowstorm, says only one thing,not even seein is beliving any more. The EPA ended public comment in Jan on the proposed cattle emmision gas tax, the world is truly insane, besides I haven't been able to afford steak in years. But the hormone for milk cows has me really upset. the plan in case you missed it is this ==treat the cows and they produce 3 times as much milk so you can reduce herd size by 3 times, I can't even drink bovine enriched milk because I am allergic to penicillin, and I break out in hives, I don't even want to think about the effect of lactate stimulating hormones. And why is the FDA supporting cloned beef in the food supply, do these mutants eat less and produce less gas.
how do we stop this madness.

Don't forget the most important part...
...of any good bait and switch: Act now!

Not bad Driessen
But wordy. I covered all your points in my post Poker Players Analysis (of GW) a couple days ago. The odds came out 1000 to 1 against the chance that Dumbo's draconian govt spending programs would have any effect on climate. And naturally, my calculations were on the conservative side :-D

Paleocon, SJdoc of 7th 10:40
Paleocon
thank you for your support, and the usual extension and expansions you add on.

SJDoc
Your post on the definition of science is a real winner. Crichton offers the best comments i've read on science in general since reading Ardrey's books, African Genesis, Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract.

Fair Compare vs Con Compare
It is hilarious to see Cons use Fox News as a source for a scientific discussion. Fox makes it sound as though there is still a lively debate among real scientists. There is not.

If you were to get all reputable scientists who are qualified in this topic into a stadium to discuss GW for 24 hours, there would certainly be a few who disagree with the 99% who agree that GW is happening and man is part of the problem.

You would literally get your "15 minutes of fame" in that entire 24 hour period (slightly more than 14 minutes based on giving all scientists equal time to speak. Don't go to the restroom or you will miss the few who could possibly back you up.

Al Gore
What would Al Gore be doing, if he were not championing and profiting from the Global Warming scam? He is not trained to do anything. The good people of Tennessee would not elect him to any office.

Consensus
There's a story that when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity the physicists of the day were skeptical. They wrote a letter to him with their objections and affixed 100 signatures.

A newspaper asked Einstein what he thought of the letter and the 100 signatures. "If the are right, one would be enough."

reply to SJDoc #9
Thanks...I guess. I had actually heard of Petr Beckmann, first through a National Review story on his death back in 1993. Thanks for the link to the pdf. Many liberals I know just absolutely refuse to listen to any argument in favor of nuclear energy.

Funny thing: I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were more likely to be technophobes. People like Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver were appalled by and opposed to most scientific/technological developments. I know where to find this kind of conservative--you'll find them writing for "Modern Age," which most of today's historically challenged conservatives have never heard of.

As an old liberal, I still think in terms of science and technology as increasing our knowledge of the real world and (often) providing ways of dealing with problems that human beings have had for millenia. He**, I'm even a space exploration enthusiast. And very few of today's liberals are intersted in that!

Gestell - On characterizing conservatism
--
Writes Gestell:

"I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were more likely to be technophobes."


Me, too. As is the case with "Liberals," there's been definitional slippage in common use. See Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative" {1960) for one of the key comments on this subject.

Think of it this way.

I consider myself an American conservative - a libertarian - BECAUSE I'm disposed and trained to "think in terms of science and technology as increasing our knowledge of the real world."

This is one of the reasons why I cannot embrace the political philosophies subsumed under modern "Liberalism." They're not only methodologically unsound in their derivation, but utterly unconnected with reality in predication.

Even were that not enough to put them right up there with phlogiston chemistry and the concept of "aether," all that we see of "Liberalism" in today's America has been tried in some way in the past - here or elsewhere in the Western world - and has failed catastrophically.

I cannot in all honesty see anyone who might "think in terms of science and technology as increasing our knowledge of the real world" embracing "Liberalism."

I'm a libertarian NOT because I love freedom. Emotion of that nature doesn't enter into this, any more than personal affection enters into the doctor/patient relationship when in the middle of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation "code."

I'm a libertarian because reliance on civil government - Mencken's "Malevolen Jobholder" - for beneficial effects either socially, economically, or technologically is a disastrous course of action, and cannot be supported.

I would encourage you to pursue the same conclusion.

--

I pity Mexifornia!!!
First you have the Unwashed Invasion abetted by the lazy greedy planters and then you get the Jerkinator foisted on you in the belief that he'd be better than Gray Doofus. Did YOU ever get screwed!!!!


-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

GREENER THAN GORE
I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My husband and I live in a three bedroom, two bath house, own two gas efficient automobiles, no jet. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, and if you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.



do we get a refund?
Does this mean my former fence sitting senator will have to return is nobel prize money? How then will he afford jet fuel?

Your Baits are smelling.
I can't agree with many of your baits being true. You would have trouble finding a majority of scientists, especially scientists and engineers with expertise that applies to the greenhouse theory, who think it is definitely getting warmer. In the recent past, maybe, but that was when we were coming out of the last ice age and we had not had ten years of no warming, maybe even with cooling. This year, though reported by frauds as warm, is shaping up as cold. By this year, I mean last year. This year is starting out colder than average by far. Twenty thousand of us signed our names to a petition that says 'no'.

Arctic drives the weather
You can visit the website below that explains the cold winter we are experiences. The air mass above the Arctic split and one half dropped over canada the other over Europe. The air mass was spit by warmer air in the Arctic. Now does does that sound a bit weird. Climate change is being felt most drastically in the Arctic.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972

Keep plugging, Ken!!
Ultimately it's worth it even if the libtards seem to multiply like lice. I can't even get any of them to READ about the Maunder Minimum, Medieval Warming or the Little Ice Age. They don't want to read ANYTHING that contradicts their carefully crafted hallucination.

They NEED to FEEL important. They have to have DEMONS to fight. THEY are the future or so their professors have told them ceaselessly.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

HEADLINES IN THE YEAR 2029
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California .

Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.

Push 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for your preferred language.

Abortion clinics now available in every
High School in United States .

Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR even though gas is selling for 4532 Pesos per liter and gas stations are only open on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.

IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Florda voters still having trouble with voting machines.


WHAT A FUTURE WE'LL HAVE - DON'T YOU JUST LOVE THIS COUNTRY! IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT I'M AFRAID OF.




Bait-and-switch
Standard selling-approach of Dhimmicruds and groats!

Gestell
It is refreshing to see that someone of your ilk is truly "progressive". Far too many "liberals" are hung up on the relatively inefficient energy sources of wind and solar, and refuse to consider others even as a temporary measure.

I have always considered hydroelectric power to be very attractive as an energy source, but it seems that efforts to move in that direction will never make it past the armies of militant environmentalists. Even the wind and solar projects have been bogged down by objections from environmentalists for ridiculously frivolous reasons.

It is stupidly ironic that it's environmentalism that is impeding progress on the environment.

Hollywood
Hollywood couldn't come up with that sort of stuff? Two words for you: Soylent Green. Enjoy. lol

For David @ 15:32
Actually Hollyweird didn't INVENT bait-and-switch, though they have no compunctions about USING it, as in the example ("Soylent Green") that you mentioned.

(of course, that example among the trash produced by Hollyweird is like one drop in Lake Baykal).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch
President Obama seems to have followed through with another one of his campaign promises. While throwing unprecedented billions at progressive social programs, he wants to slash the budgets of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the national nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain Nevada. These cuts will impair the maintenance and expansion of clean, safe, reliable, carbon-neutral electric power from our 104 nuclear power plants. These nuclear plants now supply 20% of our power; and therefore have mitigated the release of 8.7 trillion tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that would have been emitted from conventional coal-fired power over the last 15 years. As many as 30 to 50 new nuclear plants will be needed this century to accommodate future demands. (Paul Taylor, LA Ecopolitics Examiner)

Nuclear sunrise - STOCKHOLM

Global Warming
With all the unsubstantiated proof of global warming, we have to ask, "Why are they doing this?" Not only for the reasons that you listed but, as this effort attacks freedom and capitalism, it will create more and more people who will become dependent upon the government. One, for their gov't sponsored "green jobs" (which do not contribute to society, but suck off of it, i.e. the taxpayer) and those who just do not have a job; thereby, creating a dependant class who for survival will have to vote to keep their dependence upon government going. This creates more dependeance and the spiral downward continues. Environmentalism is the new face of communnism. We should be good stewards of the earth, but we should not become communist and we can be good stewards without the government. As new technology becomes available, the market place will sell it to the consumer (capitalism).

It's not about what's best for the country, its about getting and keeping their power & money by creating a dependent class. Then who is left? The Ruling Class. Communism.








All too true Tom!
It IS all about reversing most of the Industrial Revolution, DESTROYING capitalism as a means of reaching prosperity, and in fact destroying ANY private source of prosperity.

Remember in "1984" when Winston Smith is allowed into the presence of an Inner Party member? For the first time since childhood he tastes CHOCOLATE and for the FIRST time in his life he tastes wine.

The San Fran elites, typified by Nazi Psychosi, see THEMSELVES as the elite Inner Party members. In reality once their usefulness is gone so are THEY! In every Marxist revolt from 1917 forward the FIRST to go are the PINKS because they put the Marxists in place and can remove them once their insidious nature is revealed.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

CO2 rise = global temperature rise?
The entire premise of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere result in rising temperatures when it has been scientifically demonstrated that the exact opposite is true.

It is increasingly obvious that there are powerful global forces at work that have a vested interest in continuing to vigorously promote what has become a massive propaganda campaign to demonize the use of fossil fuels and any efforts directed at locating and exploiting any proven domestic resources.

Political, personal and scientific reputations are at stake. Huge capital investments by governments and industries in anticipation of substantial future returns depend on maintaining the momentum created by what are increasingly being exposed as faulty theory at best, outright deceit at worst. Fill in your own blanks.

The pendulum is swinging slowly the other way. Only time will tell if a bogus climate disaster will result in a very real economic one and possibly the end of America as we know it.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.