 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
June 09, 2008 Congress Fiddled With Warming While Earth CooledBy Marc SheppardAsking Americans to pony up even more at the pump with already record gasoline prices creeping higher almost daily seems offensive enough. But compelling such burden under the guise of moral imperative to curb global warming at a time when the planet is actually cooling rings downright obscene. And that’s why last week’s cavalcade of Senators opposing the Act -- which would have directed the EPA to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases -- entirely on economic grounds was so confounding. Don't get me wrong -- the fiscal arguments against the bill's draconian business regulations were inexorable -- its massive consequent spike in energy costs would be nothing short of ruinous to the nation. An April EPA analysis of the bill estimated a 53 cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline and a 44% jump in electricity costs by 2030 should it become law. Even those figures precariously assumed a 150% increase in nuclear and "significant use of biomass" for electricity generation; otherwise costs will be "significantly higher." Add a projected net loss of almost a trillion dollars in GDP by that very same year and this blatantly socialistic power-grab attempt deserved the pauper's funeral it received on financial grounds alone. That's without even considering that there's no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction. With Americans struggling to keep food on the table in lighted rooms of solvent homes as soaring energy costs drive prices painfully northward across the board, a bill that would hemorrhage thousands of additional dollars from each family's survival-chest annually would seem inopportune at best. Indeed, this public display of politicians debating climate science in terms of macroeconomics, while betraying a comprehension of neither by a disturbing majority within their ranks, was a wonder to behold in these truly trying times. Green dreams were peddled. Imagine the insolence of countering the economic-suicide predicted from arbitrary and inherently unmonitorable CO2 limits with unfounded promises of some imaginary "green job" boom. Or basing short-term impact projections on the advent of renewable energy "technological advances," naively citing alternately the Apollo Mission and Manhattan Project as prognosticators of success's inevitability. And amid all these fantasies, legislating likewise non-existent Carbon capture and sequestration technology shackles upon the only energy source realistically capable of providing the nation's electricity for decades to come: Coal. Particularly given no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction. It's no secret how much liberals covet European models for just about everything. Yet, Europe's even less intrusive attempts at cap-and-trade have failed miserably, wreaking havoc upon economies with no significant decrease in atmospheric carbon levels. Britain's efforts to legislate carbon limits have sparked trucker and taxi-driver strikes and protests and even threaten Labor's majority. In fact, climate legislation across the pond has failed so miserably that a new poll found "more than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change." Yet, despite all the consumer misery endured, CO2 levels in Great Britain still increased by 3.39% between Kyoto ratification in 1997 and 2004. True, the global average was 18.05%, but the United States, whose refusal to ratify allowed continued economic growth, managed a mere 6.57% increase. Compare that to other Kyoto signers like Japan (10.61%), Russia (15.61%) or Italy (15.53%). In fact, lib-beloved France, with all its Carbon pontification, barely beat the US (6.21%), despite deriving the majority of its electricity from carbon-neutral nuclear plants. S.3036 ostensibly gambled on non-existent technology to accomplish essentially nothing at inescapably catastrophic costs. The Silence of the Shams GOP failure to challenge the act's underlying premise of man's influence on climate not only circumvented the strongest case against it, but also set perilous precedent by implying acceptance of the unaccepted in the halls of congress. Such oblique capitulation throughout the MSM, the leftie blogosphere and pop culture has already handed the alarmists a victory of sorts. And a Senate floor debate tacitly based upon the junk which is the Democrats' science can only serve to further dye the fraudulent claim of "consensus" into the ever docile fabric of public psyche. Consequently, from the outset of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 debate, the greenie claim that the global warming "debate has ended" appeared as though a foregone conclusion. And everyone from Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to John Warner (R-VA) to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was thus handed the pulpit from which to preach that we have no choice but to act now regardless of the economic fallout involved -- to do otherwise would be downright immoral. During last week's Democrat radio address Boxer waxed Goraclesque:
And with this shifty alarmist sleight-of-tongue (intentionally omitting the "anthropogenic" prefix), the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chair set the tone for debate. Not whether or not mankind's Carbon footprint stinks, but rather what steps are necessary to assuage its feculence. A June 2nd piece at WaPo lamenting the Senate's probable failure to pass S.3036 (for now) further exemplified the left's disregard for the science by stating that:
An interesting accusation, particularly considering that the planet stopped warming 2 years before Bush took the oath in 2001, has been cooling since 2002 and that this year's was the fourth coldest May since 1979. That's right -- the University of Alabama, Huntsville just published its satellite-derived temperature anomalies for May. The figures depict a global temperature drop of 0.195°C between April and May, and a drop of 0.379°C since May of last year. Anthony Watts, one of myriad scientists attributing recent cooling (and global temperature anomalies overall) to the activity of that yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system and other historically correlative natural forces, notes that: [emphasis in original]
Please consider those words carefully. And also that, as previously noted, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently confirmed that an impending phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years. So amid all the dreadful economics, the Democrats were actually proposing the single largest government intrusion into the nation's economy since WWII rationing in order to stop something that stopped almost 10 years ago. And which, despite continually rising atmospheric CO2 levels, exhibits no signs of restarting. A socialistic solution in search of a problem if ever there were one. Das Klima Kapital Have I mentioned that there's no proof whatever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction? In last Tuesday's NRO, Lawrence Solomon reminded us that Lieberman-Warner is based primarily upon the premise that there exists "scientific consensus on [manmade] global warming." And that this over-talked talking point is based largely upon the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's headline of "2500 Scientific Expert Reviewers." Even if true, why then does Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's petition against global warming alarmism continue to add signatures to its over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs? Just who are the UN's "expert reviewers" whose opinions have been elevated to the realm of "indisputable?" Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon:
So why champion a bill that gambled on non-existent technology to accomplish essentially nothing at inescapably catastrophic costs to solve a non-problem that no one has the slightest idea how to solve anyway? Addressing the National Press Club last month, Czech President Vaclav Klaus described the government control over business afforded by cap-and-trade as "something which resembles very much the dreams of communist central planners." And while Lieberman-Warner, which would have extracted trillions of dollars from the economy by selling greenhouse gas credits to American industry, already fit that bill, the so-called Boxer Substitute Amendment would bring a smile to the face of comrade Marx himself. Responding to claims that cap-and-trade would harm poorest Americans the most, Boxer's was a typical liberal fix that "sets aside a nearly $800 billion tax relief fund through 2050, which will help consumers in need of assistance related to energy costs." Translation - control the nation's commerce while redistributing its profits. In 1867, Karl Marx argued that capitalism's cycle of labor exploitation could not endlessly sustain itself and would ultimately be its doom. Modern greenies insist that capitalism's cycle of environmental exploitation will not endlessly sustain itself and will ultimately be not only its doom - but the entire planet's. Cap-and-trade thus represents the perfect liberal synergy of environmentalism and socialism. With both energy costs and atmospheric carbon levels on the rise while global temperatures fall, one might expect prudent policymakers to adopt a watch-and-wait philosophy over the next 10 years or so. But the envirosocialists are instead feeling the heat to enact their green-red social reforms before the "consensus" lie is exposed -- and the public's hypochondriacal fever cools. All the more reason why Republican senators should have scooped up handfuls of nascent practical science and with it buried the decaying piles of junk science that shelter the counterfeit arguments coming from the other side of the aisle. And Friday's defeat of S.3036 doesn't change that imperative one iota. Yes, having failed to muster the 60 votes (48-36) necessary to overcome a GOP filibuster and move to final consideration, Majority Leader Harry Reid was forced to pull the bill from the floor. But with both Presidential nominees supporting cap-and-trade and likely Democrat gains in both houses, this insidious scheme may smell funny, but it's by no means dead. Especially with a majority of the citizenry reading headlines the likes of Republican lawmakers block US climate bill still of the mind that their carbon-spewing lifestyles somehow threaten the world of their descendancy. So when next the battle wages, government topography, public hysteria and lower energy costs might coalesce to favor the alarmists' scare tactics over the economic realities. That's why then -- as now and before - disputing and debunking the sham science will be key to curing this greenhouse gas dementia once and for all. Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your feedback.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts |
|
||
Comments
Perhaps a moment spent at Watts Up With That {see the following} --
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
will give some rational politicians some ready answers, such as that increasing CO2 levels are turning out to be beneficial to the planet. Who'd have thought ~ a coal-fired, CO2 spewing electric power station turns out to be green after all!
Posted by: Leon Brozyna | June 9, 2008 01:42 AM
If man could control global temperature, what would he set the thermostat on, and where would he measure it? Iceland? UK? The northeastern states of the US?
Posted by: Realist | June 9, 2008 01:49 AM
I thought that, alone among the Democrats (sic) in the Senate, that Lieberman possessed the capacity for critical thought.
Alas, I was wrong.
Posted by: Mark Roth | June 9, 2008 04:33 AM
Didn't Maxine Waters (D-Al-Qaeda) confirm this? Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
Once Government controls our healthcare and energy consumption: What is left?
Posted by: Otis A. Glazebrook, IV | June 9, 2008 06:51 AM
Don't forget the RHINOs contribution!
Posted by: arthur g hageman | June 9, 2008 07:34 AM
Last night as I watched yet another commercial about "Global warming" I thought, "When is someone going to counteract this stuff". Someone, somewhere needs to begin an ad campaign designed to combat this. It is true that "Global warming" has become a no-brainer for people. They believe it and they think that humans are causing it. My daughter recently came home from school (3rd grade) everyday talking about the Polar bear, etc. Our kids are being brainwashed at a very early age regarding this foolishness and it will be difficult to change. We need to start now.
Posted by: Eric Shirley | June 9, 2008 07:45 AM
Keep writing/calling your Senators. Corker and Alexander are my guys and I watch their every vote.
Posted by: Sandra Hurt-Norris | June 9, 2008 07:56 AM
Well, there is one senator and one Rep. I know of who have opposed the actual premise of AGW, those two being Senator Inhofe and Rep. Rohrarbacher.
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424 and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5f9c951d-802a-23ad-4c15-0d6261356020
We owe these two a debt of gratitude for their fearless defense of the American people against a corrupt Congress whose seemly sole ambition in life is to line their pockets with contributor's dollars while giving billions of taxpayer dollars away to those same contributors all the while claiming there is a moral imperitive that the taxpayer should rejoice as sheep being shorn. Little is said of the kickbacks these corrupt members of Congress receive for their votes, they have made Democracy an obscenity. Did anyone else notice the vast sums of money certain groups were giving the candidates? The very groups who stand to financially gain at the imposition of this legislation.
Take note of every politician who voted for this corruption, they are not on our side, they are in fact for themselves at our expense.
Posted by: dscott | June 9, 2008 08:41 AM
What baffles me more than 36 Senators voting for bills like this is why they would do so, and why both of our Presidential nominees would do so. What sort of information do they get that leads to such votes and positions? Are they so isolted that they see only one side of this argument? How does something so obviously wrong become so established in such a short time. It can't be just the media causing that. Maybe it's a lack of leadership to counter anything, to lead us is a different direction that makes sense. I guess we get the government we deserve.
This bill should serve as a reminder that the Congress can be just as important as the Presidency when it comes to controlling our lives despite that race getting all of the publicity.
Posted by: Joe Dantone | June 9, 2008 09:11 AM
Excellent article Mr. Sheppard!
The fight against this junk science must shift into high gear, lest we be saddled with the same spurious regulations and economic poisons as the EU.
I heartily encourage everyone to:
1.) Write to their congressional representatives; making their position clear on this proposed legislation AND pointing their attention to the UAH and RSS data that supports the debunking of the AGW myth.
2) Write to their congressional representatives demanding the removal of NASA's Dr. Hansen, the "climatologist" who has fiddled with the NASA data to make it support the AGW argument. He should be fitting any curves to the data points-not fitting the data points to his desired curve!!! This is unconscienable in science and should be a moral outrage to all as it undercuts the ethos of scientists everywhere.
3) Write a letter to McCain's campaign reiterating the aforementioned points. Perhaps if enough of voice our strong opinions on this issue he will recognize the public's will on this matter.
While we need to find an alternative fuel for our transportation uses-FOR MOSTLY ECONOMIC REASONS-Washington does not have to rape our wallets any more than usual to do so! This phony path to yet another big government solution to a non-existent problem must be avoided at all costs!
Posted by: Bob Reed | June 9, 2008 10:11 AM
Mr. Shirley, it's not "global warming" - it's climate change. If the earth begins to show signs of cooling down, it's because of climate change. If the average temperature rises, it's climate change. No matter what the weather is, it's all climate change and the powers that be will enact laws and raise taxes to combat climate change.
The laws and taxes will have as much effect on the climate as King Canute ordering the tide to turn back. But we will be the ones to suffer unless we get rid of the idiots in congress and elect some people with sense.
Posted by: Ellen | June 9, 2008 10:11 AM
I've contacted my Senators- Levin and Stabenow. They don't even bother to reply to me, since they support this bill whole heartedly. The irony is that the bill they're supporting is going to kill the auto industry, which is the industry that employs many of their constituents.
Posted by: shibumi | June 9, 2008 10:18 AM
Excellent article.
The recent global cooling may have an effect on climate, but weather is only the noise in climate. This cooling needs to be examined in the context of the average global temperature over a minimum of three decades, and perhaps a century. Sheppard's suggestion that Congress should adopt a wait and see attitude is a sane and minimum suggestion, if for no other reason than the on-going cooling.
Both Obama and McCain support some reduction in carbon emissions. An ancient proverb says, "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool: shun him." As far as the election goes, the issue is a push. The US can only hope that whoever becomes President, he will acquire a non-radical science advisor. Skepticism is a scientific virtue. Buying into scientific belief systems is some sort of aberrant religion.
On the positive side, McCain has said that he will require that China and India be subjected to the same carbon reductions, but they will never agree to that. If McCain is stubborn enough to stick with his fallacious science, maybe he'll also stick with his requirement that the US not go it alone.
What the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with their Global Climate/Circulation Models (GCMs), endorsed by NASA's James E. Hansen and NASA's Gavin Schmidt, has done is shameful, unethical, and the antithesis of science. The GCMs are based on a scientific conjecture: that greenhouse gas increases can cause a runaway global temperature. But the GCMs fail even to be a conjecture because they don't fit the existing climate record. That record is dominated on every scale by ice ages, which the GCMs do not reproduce. Earth is still warming from the last Major Ice Age, from the last Glacial Epoch, and even from the Little Ice Age. The GCMs don't account for that warming.
After fixing their models to fit the record, the climatologists need to make at least one non-trivial prediction that can be tested in the near term. When that prediction is confirmed by measurements, the GCMs might then advance to the level of a theory. Only then can a reputable scientist urge public action based on his modeling.
Science is not about voting, nor is it about what "most scientists believe". Nor is it much about discovery. It's about models that have predictive power. Science advances not by committee, but by one person at a time creating a model that actually works, i.e., is validated.
CO2 is a small GHG contributor. Its effects are dominated by water vapor. When the climate warms for whatever reasons, CO2 and water vapor both increase because the atmosphere is largely a by-product of the ocean, providing both gases in proportion to the maximum ocean surface temperature. The increase in water vapor increases the global cloud cover, which reflects sunlight back into space. The GHGs hold in the puny radiation from Earth; but the cloud albedo holds back the lethal radiative energy from the sun. The negative feedback of the cloud albedo reduces the GHG effect by an order of magnitude from what the GHGs would do open loop (with a constant cloud albedo). Earth's climate is not regulated by GHGs, but by cloud albedo. The GCMs do not reproduce this cloud albedo effect. They are unable to produce meaningful cloud effects at all. They don't reproduce mass flow, and they don't reproduce meaningful feedbacks.
This is the tip of the iceberg, to mix a metaphor. The GCMs and the IPCC reports contain some fine science, but in the last analysis, for the reasons above and more, they are incompetent. And there would be no climate crisis but for the IPCC, and the reaction by NASA, Congress, Obama, and McCain.
And thanks Bill Clinton for allowing the US to import only the finest oil - light sweet crude. Just because we might import lower grades does not mean that we have to emit more obnoxious gases. We need not only more refineries, but better refineries.
And thanks George W. Bush for all the silly biofuels. We're burning up fuel to make less fuel out of food. And all the while, we sit on the coal, we sit on the uranium, and do whatever with the natural gas, while we burn the foreign portable fuel in stationary power plants.
Every commodity requires energy to produce and deliver. As energy prices rise, so does the price of everything else except art. The health of economies is proportional to the energy consumed.
And let's not forget the oil companies. Just because of accounting standards, their profits soar when their raw material prices soar. A CEO's delight.
And let's not forget OPEC. It withholds oil from the market just to drive prices up, and every administration winks at the problem. Our economy is being wrecked by what is not allowed domestically: a monopoly. We need to embargo everything that goes to OPEC, from prescriptions and trips to the Mayo Clinic to spare parts for their F-15s, so that we're revenue neutral at, say, pre-Nixon prices.
Enough! When does common sense kick in? It's not rocket science. They're laughing at us.
Posted by: Jeff Glassman | June 9, 2008 10:31 AM
The weather man can't predict the temperature a week from now, but I'm supposed to believe they can tell me what it will be 10 years from now?
Posted by: Jeff Nagengast | June 9, 2008 11:44 AM
Do these EU gains look impressive?
Great Britain, +3.39%
France, +6.21%
United States, +6.57% [NO CARBON TRADING]
Japan, +10.61%
Italy, +15.53%
Russia, +15.61%
They shouldn't, More than 33% to 66% of the carbon trading emission cuts were fraudulent as noted in the news snippet below.
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
The Guardian, Monday May 26 2008
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.
Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
The criticism centres on the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.
"It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." -- David Victor, Stanford University and co-author of a study examining 3000 UN funded offset programs
[The above refers to Michael Wara and David G. Victor, A Realistic Policy on International Carbon Offsets. Stanford University, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development]
Posted by: John in Oregon | June 9, 2008 12:11 PM
Do these EU gains look impressive?
Great Britain, +3.39%
France, +6.21%
United States, +6.57% [NO CARBON TRADING]
Japan, +10.61%
Italy, +15.53%
Russia, +15.61%
They shouldn't, More than 33% to 66% of the carbon trading emission cuts were fraudulent as noted in the news snippet below.
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
The Guardian, Monday May 26 2008
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.
Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
The criticism centres on the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.
"It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." -- David Victor, Stanford University and co-author of a study examining 3000 UN funded offset programs
[The above refers to Michael Wara and David G. Victor, A Realistic Policy on International Carbon Offsets. Stanford University, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development]
Posted by: John in Oregon | June 9, 2008 12:13 PM
Exploiting a vital food crop for alternative energy is as ingenious as upside down lighthouses for submarines. Has anybody noticed the recent flooding of corn belt states? Ever heard of hail? Ya think this'll negatively effect food and energy costs? (Note to addicted day traders-sell short.) My squirrel buddy 'Skippy' posesses the natural wisdom of keeping his abundant acorn surplus high and dry. (His food crop is FREE.) Fossil fuels are underground, secure from the catastrophic weather their usage is fraudulently rumored to cause. Plutonium pellets are also impervious to rain, snow, sleet and hail. Been outside lately? Sun and wind are random and capricious in their dubious gifts. If you could capture the water flow of the recent floods, you could spin a dynamo that would power the high horsepower pumps that are sucking water out of people's basements. 'Un-evolved' Skippy has no pity on us. When I'm gone he'll chew his way into the house and thrive big time. I prefer the rare ideology of Squirrel Nut Skippy Sense, to the fashionable PC Stalinist 'Lysenkoism' of the extremely influential Green Weenie Cult--- the delusional few that are deliberately toppling capitalism one precious brick at a time in their deranged, demented quest for a classless new world order. ("You walk the streets of Utopia and don't even know it." Martin Buber.)
Posted by: Ranger Joe | June 9, 2008 12:18 PM
It's too bad that McCain is also a global warming (GW) devotee. What this country needs is to focus on the energy crisis, not on GW. GW is being used as an excuse to hinder progress on solving the real crisis. Liberal politicians are making the US look foolish. The energy crisis is largely a problem created by our politicians. If France can use nuclear, why can't we. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and shale oil, not to mention oil off the coast and in Alaska. The US could be energy independent in 10 years if we had some leadership. Then we would have plenty of time to move toward a permanent solution, perhaps hydrogen. The time is ripe for a politician with real vision, but where are they?
Posted by: pvandeus | June 9, 2008 12:34 PM
This has been a real lesson in lies even for those of us who cut our teeth during the Clinton years. The "Hockey Stick" and Hansen are both utter frauds and were the two oars that propelled this crap into the mainstream. Now it floats on. As the mentioned event with the UN panel, they journos lied about the report but since they lied in the right direction the UN does not correct the record nor take responsibility for the lie, even though this particular lie has caused food prices to escalate globally, further starving the starved. The true disgrace is not that McCain falls for this billious fiction; he's half Dem anyhow, but there was not one, NOT ONE candidate who would do anything other than nod at the baseless and witless assertions of the warmists. The expression is overused but this is truly frightening to see in our politicians and fellow citizens. DO NOT let ANYONE say a THING about global warming without you telling them the TRUTH. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. THERE IS GLOBAL COOLLING, DUMMY.
Yes, just like that.
Posted by: megapotamus | June 9, 2008 12:51 PM
A little while back, Hannity showed how 50 billion dollars of NGO money went to Global Warming Research (to Al Gore & Co to prove it exists) and as a balance 50 million dollars went to global warming detractor NGOs.
What we are witnessing is an advertising campaign - the largest boogey man shamshock in the history of the world. It is pure insanity, plain and simple. However, what it proves is that the government understands that television campaigns are a conditioning apparatus. Slowly but surely we were weened off of IslamoFascism fears and focused on the dire need to go Green. Instead of worrying about a failed border policy which has led to insurgents in the United States, we worry about a newly invented phenomenon "Our Carbon Footprint". It was a campaign of fear shifting. The question is, why did our government officials decide to buy into the fear shifting?
Ask yourself this - did you vote in the last election for a "Green Revolution?" No, but since Nanci Pelosi and Harri Reid took the reigns of government, a "quasi-mandate" existed for what Barack Obama refers to as "Change".
No one ever defines this change. No one ever says, hey let's get on the fast track to Fascismo. No one says hey, let's jump on the stalin trail. But in effect that is what is happening. Democracy has become populism. We are witnessing the crack up of our constitutional rights and our sovereignty due to the pressures of a media circus and the innate hatred of the Democrats. Whether anyone agrees with this or not is irrelevant, because it is the truth: namely, the chief hero of the Democrat Fascists is Robin Hood. And the target of the Green Revolution is none other than Oil companies who are "making record profits"...companies that Clinton and Obama have already promised to steal from...the only way that legislation can go through...is due to Greenhouse gas emissions. Sooner or later we will realize that the Law of Bastiat is right - people are not driven by class, classes are driven by punishment.
Posted by: MacZed | June 9, 2008 12:59 PM
We're in tough shape in this country right now. The gasoline price hikes that are reaching into all of our wallets are caused by two things: First, the erosion of the value of the dollar, which no one in the administration or in Congress seems to see as a problem. Second, the policies hung around our necks by Congresses past and present that we will not develop our own oil, whether offshore or on the North Slope, to the point that we might as well just say to OPEC "We're yours - charge us what you will! We don't have the guts to do what's right!"
While there's no hope for us at all on this issue if Obama gets elected, it doesn't look that much better when McCain seems to think that a cap-and-trade program is a good idea, a sign that he doesn't see "anthropogenic global warming" as the scam that it is.
Posted by: pete | June 9, 2008 01:18 PM
I am so tired of the global warming farce and the fact that it is being shoved down our throats. It's a great scam - and it is at the cost of the American people.
What is sad is there are some real environmental issues we can actually do something about - like recycling, providing safe drinking water to people around the world who do not have it, safe landfills, etc.
Instead we have a bunch of idiots spewing this global warming junk at us and ignoring more important issues.
Posted by: Jennifer | June 9, 2008 01:36 PM
Right on, Jeff. I've forwarded your words to most of my address book. Thanks
Posted by: Tom Preuss | June 9, 2008 01:37 PM
As Hitler stated, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. "
MMGW anyone? Oh excuse me, climate change.
Goebbels and company would be proud.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Posted by: DaveT | June 9, 2008 02:29 PM
Great Article!
As some have suggested to compare the changes to 3 decades of data.. we don't need to.
The Global Warming model has not been able to be on track with existing climate data, and has been recanted.
why would I want to use a flawed THEORY as if I hope it is still adequate in describing reality?
Absolute blather foisting itself as if it were science.
Consensus indeed.
Posted by: Tom Trollhammer | June 9, 2008 03:01 PM
I think it was in the 80's that the UN overcounted (lied) about the number of people that had or will be infected with AIDS so that billions mostly from the US were poured in to the UN. And this funding continues to this day.
Now the IPCC never bothers to set the record straight (lied) that there never was a concensus about GW. But member countries should still fork over billlions.
Posted by: Raemon | June 9, 2008 03:20 PM
Realist said:
If man could control global temperature, what would he set the thermostat on, and where would he measure it? Iceland? UK? The northeastern states of the US?
The thermostat would be installed at the center of the universe -- Washington, D.C.
Posted by: donb | June 9, 2008 03:29 PM
What I find fascinating is that the environuts call me a denier, yet I acknowledge that climate change exists and has existed and will exist. I refuse to agree that humans are causing it. I always push back and say it sounds like the denying going on is embracing climate stasis.
Posted by: thelaw | June 9, 2008 05:06 PM
Hang on to your hats ladies and gentlemen. The backlash from having global warming shoved down our throats is going to get very ugly.
Just imagine gas at fifteen dollars a gallon and these outrageous laws on the books.
I don't see how the future avoids the likes of Al Gore washing dishes in prison.
Justice demands it.
Posted by: SteveH | June 10, 2008 05:35 AM
So.... It took 50 years to deplete the rain forests by 20%. The next 20% will be gone in less than 10 years, at this rate of logging.
---means nothing to you guys. you KNOW that won't have any, or minimal, effect on the global... climate (you like THAT word, huh? Big difference, right?).
50%+ oxygen is created by oceanic plankton. Some zones are 80% depleted. There are NO ocean water zones that are not affected with most zones depleted by 40%.
Mercury causes the most damage: China, as of a few years ago, had NO waste filtration for this chemical and ran it straight into the rivers, lakes, seas, etc or just dumped it on the ground... straight into the water tables. Most other nations do the same to one degree or another.
---means nothing to you. THAT won't have any, or minimal, effect on the global climate.
As long as the logging and dumping goes on these are just two areas which cannot be
replenished. Get it? CANNOT BE REPLENISHED. Note: Plankton will increase....it's a living organism, after all. Sure, but NOT while the mercury is present. Ever thought how difficult it would be to filter the Seven Seas?
---means nothing to you guys. lt's just a political ploy. They won't have any, or minimal, effect on oxygen regeneration or ozone depletion. Right?
After 9/11 the Bush administration grounded ALL USA domestic and international flights. Well....all but those planes taking every one of the Bin Laden family out of the country: Bush decided that having them interviewed by various law enforcement agencies would be, and I quote, "unfair" and "unproductive". Anyway....
There were HUGE changes in the skies over the USA and elsewhere. Temperatures jumped 8-12 degrees in those 3-days. That was just one change that occurred because human activity was suspended. Activity, that when stopped briefly, proved to be DRIVING the global climate to a large degree. As much as 15% to higher temperatures.
---totally insignificant to you guys.
Really?
And you people listen and applaud this fellow who writes: "no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction."
Well, in those 3-days the climate was affected by a lot more than 1*... a LOT more. Because the pollutants which are spewed out on a daily basis were stopped in the USA.
I'm a born-again Christian and those, like Mr. Sheppard, et al, remind me of the Word which states: "Satan is come to kill, steal and destroy." To argue that the situation is not as dire as some writers insist is one thing. To insist there is NO problem is either murderous or suicidal: both of which come from the Father of Lies.
Posted by: paleocon444 | June 10, 2008 06:07 AM
Well pass the tinfoil hat for paleocon444. He, or she, lives in an alternate universe. He, or she, has taken the liberal bait, hook, line and sinker. He, or she, exposed himself with his hate Bush rabble.
Posted by: Smokehouse | June 10, 2008 08:04 AM
To paleocon444,
"There were HUGE changes in the skies over the USA and elsewhere. Temperatures jumped 8-12 degrees in those 3-days. That was just one change that occurred because human activity was suspended. Activity, that when stopped briefly, proved to be DRIVING the global climate to a large degree. As much as 15% to higher temperatures."
According to this portion of your tirade we should increase our activity in order to prevent "climate change". If human activity suspended for three days = 8-12 degree temp increase, then it follows that increasing human activity will cause the temp to decrease.
Posted by: Robert | June 10, 2008 11:01 AM
couldn't have said it better myself, good post robert
Posted by: Free Market Dave | June 10, 2008 02:47 PM
Yes. l thank you also, Robert. Really. Good post.
Then you agree: When Mr. Sheppard writes: "no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction." he is either lying or, at best, horribly wrong. That's important, at least to you who are (as Robert obviously is) actually thinking, as this blog's name
states. We'll ignore those with personal insults.
Lying or horribly wrong. Not a good choice. Besides, what does it matter.
As you, and others, cheer Mr. Sheppard, et al, on; as their ideas are propagated and sold; as long as a sizable minority of wage earners (voters) support them (the real Capitalists who is NOT the wage earner, as much as some,as l was, have been, erroneously to their own detriment, convinced to think they are); as money is donated or their products are purchased in lieu of donations:
As long as the above, and other, behaviors occur; as long as dealing with the situation can be stopped or slowed to a crawl.... As long as the money / profits of the Capitalists, and not Public Health and Safety, are the concern of many of us wage earners: you'll succeed. But, as you succeed, remember:
The most basic concept of the nay-sayers like Mr. Sheppard is a lie or horribly in error. And it IS the basic block of their opinions: There's NO proof.... or so they insist.
That temperature spike during the 3-days after 9/11 was known world-wide. The proof is right there: a basic requirement of our civilization ---transportation--- DIRECTLY affects; disastrously affects Global Climate.
The pollutants act as a lowered ceiling and lowers the ground temperature, considerably, by creating a space between the Earth and sun. And, as a corollary, this same lowered ceiling also acts as one would in your residence: prevents dispersion of pollutants (anyone smoke? cook food? pets fart? exhale?) and strengthens their effect which ("drum roll, professor" for those of us who enjoyed...still enjoy... Laural and Hardy) raises the mean temperature BELOW the (pollutants!) ceiling. Yep, Robert. A real Catch-22, wouldn't you say?
No. Wait. You DON'T say.
Guys... it's not a "tirade". I voted Republican for the first time when Sen. Barry Goldwater was the GOP Presidential Candidate in 1964 and continued thru 2002. To my Father, there were two kinds of people ("people" as in world-wide... NOT just Americans. Really.): There were "Democrats and then there were "S-O-B's". Literally: he dinned that into my head for 16 years and I actually felt a little relief, in 1964, knowing he was dead and that THAT was one discussion l would never have to face as I turned away from what I saw was Democratic cowardice and perfidy in the face of the World-Wide Communist menace. When Dr, Martin Luther King promoted a "Guaranteed Annual Income" for every American I clearly saw that they were using Public Funds to purchase their majorities... Well, just how unamerican were they? I STILL see much of that mentality today with the Dem's (and I'm totally un-thrilled with the GOP's Leadership stand on illegal Immigration).
Those are my bona-fides and I stand-by them. My youngest son who supports the GOP, as I once did, and my other son who runs a Leftist / anti-Christian blog are both chary of having ANY discussions with me (my eldest, a daughter, is looking for a "decent boy friend" and says "to hell with all of you" whenever we DO start up). Still..
even so.
But it's incontrovertible: The fish stocks are dying due to not just over fishing but depletion of their foodstocks thru the polluting of the oceans. The rising sea levels (Micronesia is being inundated: Pago-Pago (American Samoa) and Tonga will be first, apparently. Don't sneer: it'll come to the coast of Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana...). And, of course, as we've already agreed to, it's already strongly affecting the skies of the world thru temperature control and compellation of the ground temperature throughout the world.
Robert, and you insulters too, I think you guys are going to win. Or, at least, lose slow enough to keep the process running. l'll be with my Lord Jesus then and, if any of you are young enough now, when the effects.. IF the effects... of Global Climate Change reach the point that those 3-day post-9/11 occurrences suggest, if you haven't yet, l pray you too will reach out to Him. I wish you all the very best.
Lying or horribly wrong. Not much of a choice once you see the dilemma that was seen in the skies and on the ground after 9/11.
Posted by: paleocon444 | June 10, 2008 05:52 PM
paleocon444, start by getting your numbers incorrect... a search finds a temperature shift of 1 degree celsius, not both ways, but inclusive of both directions. Not an increase of 8 to 12 degrees.
Include a bunch of propagandistic parentheticals (propagating the lie about the Bin Laden flight, pulled straight from Michael Moore's lies; and you weren't "quoting" with "unfair" and "unproductive").
Move on to completely unrelated claims that have nothing to do with global warming.
Then progress to tales about how islands that were supposed to disappear already will someday disappear, then Florida... They haven't, they aren't, and apparently they won't.
Lying or horribly wrong? I think it's a bad memory and taking a frisson from apocalyptic visions.
Posted by: David | June 11, 2008 06:43 AM
paleocon444
Your incoherent ramblings aside, the fact is that this earth has cooled and warmed many times in the past and will do so in the future with little regard for what mankind does. This planet will continue to evolve long after humans have ceased to exist and will undoubtedly experience ice ages and heat waves. So what if oceans rise? People will do what they have always done. They adapt. Millions of years ago most of North America was underwater and what wasn't was a tropical paradise for the dinosaurs. No people around then I don't think.
The climate changed for some reason without any influence from people. The climate will change again with or without human help.
I do believe that we should be good stewards of the planet. It makes perfect sense to drive more fuel efficient cars and to look at new technologies that are cleaner than fossil fuels but until those technologies are perfected we must use what we have.
If you want to buy into the BS of man-made global warming you go right ahead. Myself, I've been thinking about buying a gas guzzling Hummer. With all of the environuts driving Prius's and lowering their carbon footprints I can use their carbon offset so that I can drive what I want.
Just kidding. I drive a Nissan. Gets 23 city and 30 hwy. I plan to get an even more fuel efficient car someday. Not because I'm afraid that I'm helping to destroy the planet but because of the cost of fuel.
Posted by: Robert | June 11, 2008 12:00 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_bum_rap_on_biofuels.html
Posted by: Brian | June 11, 2008 12:39 PM
The campaign slogan is this:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
GLOBAL WARMING IS AN EXCUSE TO RAISE TAXES
Posted by: SunnyvaleKen | June 11, 2008 01:28 PM
Thanks Robert / David:
I appreciate you holding back on the personal insults... for the most part. (8-).
Interesting: it doesn't light-up here, where we first type, but does in "Preview".
As my kids say: Dad. you're an idiot.
Here's a link to some of the info. but from a different angle on the lack of contrails during those 3-days. These are readings which are not in dispute and "interpretation " fails since there was only one global factor in play: 80%, or more, of jet travel world-wide had ceased; except for a few military flights, virtually 100% over America. Keep in mind: my statements were addressed to the statement made by Mr. Sheppard: "That's without even considering that there's no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction."
Keep in mind again: all this occurred in 3-days. And ended shortly after flights were renewed. That's NOT climate change as expressed in "Chaos Theory" which, as you point out, proves climate change happens on a regular basis; in a global time-line which encompasses millions of years. We're talking....ahem.... I"M talking about 3-days. You, and others, are studiously ignoring it. If you want to keep on ignoring it, I suggest you not click this link:
"ignorance is NEVER served well by information." --Ron Edge
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html
Sorry: The link won't "paste" here. You'll have to "copy" with your mouse... (Hmm. There's two of you. Shouldn't it be: "copy with your mice"? No... Can't be rig... Wait!! Copy with your mouses!!) Anyway.... Good day. RE
Interesting: the link doesn't hi-lite here, where we first type, but does after "Preview". Well....who knew.
Posted by: paleocon444 | June 13, 2008 02:41 PM
It's important that all those who know the truth about global warming become a part of the Revolution to create real change. Join us now! http://www.campaignforliberty.com
Posted by: HawaiianGuy | June 15, 2008 06:28 PM