global warming

By Richard Boren

(Rick Boren is a contributing writer at LowDownCentral.com)

There is new research (review of it attached) which you may want to pass along to anyone who has been persuaded that (1) humans are causing the planet to warm, (2) this will have a disastrous effect, and (3) we should try to do something about it such as passing Cap and Trade legislation, installing subsidized wind and solar power plants, buying hybrid cars, CFL bulbs and so forth.   The more scientifically-oriented of you can go right to the attachment.  The article begins at the bottom of the first page. Others may choose to read the rest of this e-mail. Everyone should understand that it is NOT a proven fact that humans have any effect on the climate.  However, the media and some politicians treat it that way.  Those who say that "the science is settled" are just plain wrong.  Even Mr. Gore, if pressed, would have to admit that the predictions of warming are 100% the result of computer models. That's right, 100%.  It's all a prediction somewhat like predicting the weather, only much, much, harder. The people making these computer models insert the known facts.  They also insert various assumptions of how these facts will interact with one another, coming up with what they hope will be a model of the climate that will produce accurate predictions.  Those assumptions mean everything, and now the research proves that they are wrong.  And not just a little wrong.  It turns out that the assumptions are exactly backwards. At the risk of using a dated computer expression, don't forget that it's still true that Garbage In = Garbage Out (GIGO).  Have you ever worked with a computer spreadsheet?  Have you ever inserted your estimates of future revenue and expenses and seen how  a few little changes here and there can result in either huge profits or devastating losses?  You might, for example, realize that at 3% revenue growth you'll go broke in four years, but at 7% you'll be a billionaire in six years.  It's hard to be objective in those circumstances, especially if you have investors.  In the case of the climate modelers, virtually all of them are funded by grants designed to study the climate "problem."  No problem, no grant.  No fame either.  No political power.  Objectivity can be difficult to maintain.  The computer models on which all of the fears are based rely on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2), a weak greenhouse gas, will trigger something called positive feedback which will amplify its weak effect, causing the effect to grow and grow.  (Positive feedback here is not the same thing as getting compliments about your job performance.  In this case, it means that when more of something happens it triggers even more of it to happen, with a snowballing effect.)  The climate models on which the current fears are based all assume that this positive feedback will occur. Without this assumed positive feedback, no human-caused global warming will occur.  Without the positive feedback assumption, the predictions of the models wouldn't scare anyone. The good news for the planet is that instead of having to make feedback assumptions there is now real data, and it shows that in the real world the feedback is negative. This means that the warming effect of CO2 triggers an effect that offsets it.  Therefore, all of the models are wrong. In plain English, this means that increased CO2 will not warm the planet. Whoopee! You can read more about this in the attached newsletter, Access to Energy, with the article beginning at the bottom of the first page. (I've been a subscriber for over 30 years.)  For more background, and what you should do, please read on. As most of us know, Earth has warmed by about 1 degree over the last century.  It has been much warmer in the past, and we are still here.  It has been much colder in the past and we are still here.  Today we are in one of the better heat ranges.  Of course, at some point it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it.  As most of us also know by now, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "greenhouse" gas.  That means that it tends to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space.  CO2 is what humans and all animals exhale after breathing in oxygen.  It is also what is produced when we burn so-called fossil fuels like wood, coal and petroleum products.  No one doubts the benefits of the energy we get from these inexpensive sources.  Furthermore, plants need CO2.  Increased CO2 has greatly improved the growth of plants and trees.  However,  a legitimate concern is whether there is a serious or even catastrophic downside because of CO2's greenhouse effect.  Studying this issue has been the right thing to do to. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas, which means that its effect in and of itself is small.  There is not much of it in the atmosphere, about 300-400 parts for every million parts of air.  However, we are adding to it at a fairly good rate.  Given the economic realities, there is virtually no chance that countries like China and India are going to stop or even slow down very much.  To hear some people tell it, the very existence of mankind is threatened. That is, of course, unless we here in America turn our lives upside down and spend trillions of dollars on more expensive energy.  That will apparently convince the rest of the world to do the same.  Well, maybe not, but at least we'll be "green" --  green and poor.  Have you ever noticed that the poor people of the Third World don't care about being "green?"  Food and shelter come first. President Obama has advisors who are committed to the belief that humans are causing global warming and that we need to stop it.  Their mantra is "the science is settled."  I do not believe that they are intellectually honest.  Why else do they refuse every offer to debate the scientific issues?  Why do they resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the evidence? They will never admit that they are wrong, and Obama is not going to hear anything else. The information in the attachment is not going to get to him. Can you imagine Al Gore walking into the Oval office and saying, "Mr. President, there is new evidence on global warming.  It turns out that I was wrong.  There's no problem. We don't have to do anything about it."  It has been said that Al Gore is going to make a billion dollars off of cap and trade.  In my view he would deserve to make even more if he actually helped save the planet.  But he and the others who stand to make money or wield political power don't want to hear the good news.   And they won't unless you and others do something about it.  Last Friday, Glenn Beck interviewed Christopher Monckton, who briefly presented what I've discussed above.  This is probably the largest exposure this will get in the mass media.  If this troubles you, please tell others, including your elected representatives.  Spread the word: the sky is not falling.

Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers swarmed the nation's capital Saturday to deliver a message to their elected officials: Don't turn our American Dream into a nightmare. A nightmare is exactly what America will be living if "cap and trade" legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions becomes law. That global warming tax would kill millions of jobs, bring an end to cheap energy and cripple the economy.

Even the Obama administration knows that taxpayers will feel the pain in their wallets -- though it admitted so only grudgingly last week after a Freedom of Information Act request by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. By the Treasury Department's estimate, Americans would pay up to $1,761 a year because of cap-and-trade.

The economically depressing facts calculated by the Heritage Foundation include more than 2 million lost jobs, $9.4 trillion in economic losses, and a jump of $829 per family for utility costs.  Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a stimulus bill for high-pollution China, which will get American jobs and keep emitting carbon regardless of what America does.

 The worst part of it is that the legislation is completely unnecessary. The push for cap-and-trade is driven by factually flawed fantasies of manmade global warming.  Environmentalists love to tell lies about an ice-free Arctic, and senators like John Kerry, D-Mass., repeat the lies even after they have been exposed.

Al Gore mastered the scare tactics in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth -- a film so riddled with flawed science and political spin that the British High Court won't let schoolchildren watch without a warning. Unfortunately, American students are still being force fed nonsense about global warming all the time.

We expose the devastating costs of global warming hysteria in our film Not Evil Just Wrong, but Gore and Hollywood don't want America to see it. That's why we're organizing a cinematic tea party, a natural outgrowth of rallies like the one in Washington last weekend.

Our movie will premiere in homes and on campuses across the country on Oct. 18. We hope it will be the start of a long-needed resistance movement against radical environmentalism.

CT Attorney General Dick Blumenthal never met an energy project he couldn't litigate or regulate out of existence, whether it be for the "save the planet" global warming crusade or the NIMBYism of neighbors opposed to power lines.

So when he got called out on driving his state issued Ford Crown Victoria all over the state he promised to switch his official car to a hybrid

Oops, looks like his carbon footprint is getting floored once again.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, an environmental champion, is no longer driving his state-issued Honda Civic hybrid. He returned the “silver bullet” a few weeks ago to the state garage and traded it for a gas guzzling Crown Victoria.

He said earlier this week that he’s waiting for another Honda Civic hybrid with lower mileage, but refused to take back the one he brought in for repairs.

A few weeks ago, he was driving down I-395 when the dashboard lights started flashing at him. He said this was the second time the car had given him problems, the first was back in May when a battery needed to be replaced, a few days after the check engine light appeared the first time.

Typical liberal: demands the common folk drive whatever the experts order; but makes sure he goes in style for his own ride.

At least Chris Murphy is helping the environment; since he's been scarce in public since the Simsbury Stop & Shop Showdown he's not doing much harm even if he still has HIS gas guzzler.  

Full disclosure: I drive a Toyota Corolla (36 mpg hwy); the Mrs. drives a late model Malibu (33 mpg hwy).

Albany Times Union,  December 14, 2008

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Albany Times Union, July 20, 2009

Cool, clouds, rain, repeat

During what some are calling "the year without a summer," farmers, gardeners and nurseries are dealing with a steady drumbeat of cool, rainy days. People looking forward to outdoor parties and barbecues are putting on warmer clothes and dodging deluges..........

The result of all this? So far, the warmest day of the year in Albany was April 28, when the temperature hit 90  degrees . There have been just nine days with temperatures above 80 since June, which Johnson called "pretty pathetic."

In New York City, temperatures failed to top 85  degrees in June -- one of only three times on record when the mercury didn't hit that mark.

By, the way, I'm not taking Nate Silver's sucker bet over @ 538.com. He's willing to bet on global warming for the next thirty days. Since he's a baseball number junkie, he knows exactly what he is doing. And so do I.

Let's say Johnny Damon is a career .300 hitter who in is the midst of "career cooling" dropping his sustainable long term average to .250. I catch Damon at the tail end of a 10 for 60 slump and then take a bet that over the next 100 at-bats Damon won't hit .300 over this period. I'd be pretty dumb. But Silver's set this up to goad people to bet on the basis of recent unusually cool weather and pick their pockets on the uptick. 

The concept as Nate well knows is "regression towards the mean". Damon's prior .167 performance had to adjust back to .250.  So let's say he hits .310 over the next 100 at-bats, and "proves" he is a .300 hitter in the Silver theory? Say what? He's gotten back to .256. which is about his new "sustainable" level and well under the old .300 level.

Silver's 30 day time line is just long enough to catch the uptick of the regression and not long enough to ascertain if the mean actually moved.  Nice try, Nate.

I can recall sweltering on hot day in midtown Manhattan pre-Rudy trying to meander around the various three-card monte artists on the sidewalk.  They are now long gone, and so far in 2009, so is the sweltering heat. 

Jon Henke is obviously a more astute analyst than moi, so I post this with some angst. But I think he is thinking along the lines of French military strategists after World War I,

As historians recall, France was bled dry from fighting a trench war deep in its own terrain. So apres guerre the French decided to build high tech fortifications-- the Maginot Line--along their frontier to cause the war to be fought on the German side of the border and on  French terms.

By 1940, of course, the Me 109 and the Stuka proved to be well able to fly over fortifications and destroy French forces from the air. Oops.

I fear we may be doing to same thing by trying a new and improved strategy to deal with "climate change".  Both the ambient and political climate may not be what we expect.

First, there are two central flaws with the Republicans becoming the champions of carbon taxation. First, it muddles the party's anti-tax message. It's easily trumped politically by the advocacy of economically delusional class warfare.  Instead of arguing taxes in general ought to be reduced or kept from rising, we are left bargaining over what taxes to raise. Is that an argument that is going to win elections?   

Secondly, if the carbon tax works it will generate progressively less revenue. Since I think the "starve the beast" strategy has pretty well been proved to be a failure in practice (expecting a long term libertarian control for Congress is daft) the result will be progressively higher deficits and demands to raise other taxes. While payroll or sales taxes do penalize "good" activity, they also tend to mirror the overall economy. A carbon tax intended to readjust the economy to lower carbon use will inevtiably reduce its own revenue and plants the seed to bring back other taxes.

That said, I'd rather have the efficient mechanism of a carbon tax than the crony capitalism of cap & trade. But I think we ought to reconsider whether either is inevitble.

I'm a skeptic on global warming, not a denier, but the empirical observable information in the northern US this year puts a real dent in the alarmist camp.  We have yet to see 90 degree weather in CT all summer, and this seems to be the case as well in MN. 

I'm not sure hitching our political wagon to getting huge heat waves in populated areas is so wise.   It's "An Inconvenient Truth" the salience of this issue depends on observable episodes of warm weather.

I also think the based on my read, the salience of the "climate change" issue is focused on a) younger and b) better educated voters.  I suppose a long run argument can be made to address this issue, but in 2010 we are going to be dealing with an electorate which is going to skew older.  Are we better off using limited time and resources talking to 50 year old people who are highly likely to vote than 20 year old voters who may have simply cast an Obama-mania  vote in '08? 

It may be true that the "chattering classes" may think a response on this issue is essential ( see David Cameron, UK) but the cold hard truth is we've already lost virtually every one of the high end House seats where this issue matters (WA 8 and IL 10 the visible exceptions). The low hanging fruit for Republicans in 2010 is likely to be in blue collar places like IN 9 and OH 16 where the cost is obvious and the reward speculative for enviromental legislation.

Now how are the Democrats reponding? And doesn't that say something.

My Congressman, Chris Murphy, who holds a swing seat in a blue state, voted for Waxman-Markey. And how did he justify his vote? Based on the alleged argument the bill would wean America from foreign sources of energy and the cost of inaction was too high. (hmm, open up ANWR, naw!)

As the CT Republican State Chairman pointed out in his weekly e-newsletter.     

But here is the kicker - no where in this entire letter is global warming mentioned or the need to save the polar bears or the quality of our air. In it he simply says, we must rush to placing the development of a new whole technology in the hands of the government, to decide, through taxes, who can use what fuel for what purpose. If it doesn't work out, well, at least Uncle Sam tried.

(IM: Guess it's now not so much fun being Henry Waxman's towel boy, Chris.)

  I think that Democrats have decided that the Global Warming issue is a stone dead loser in the face of the Great Recession. (Yes, the salience of the environmental issue moves in lockstep with the economic cycle).Much like the antiwar movement, this was a useful cudgel against the eveeeel Republicans, but now they are quickly losing their desire to actually have to walk the walk on taxing the crap out of everyone to "save the planet".  Looking at the climate issue through the prism of: a) the 2006 election when the economy was prosperous; or b): the 2008 election with its unusually high youth vote, may just cause us to fight the "last war"; now that we are going to be dealing with the grim economic conditions expected for 2010 and 2012.  Given our opponents were astute enough to win the last two elections, why would we benefit from picking up an unpopular issue they are now either walking or running away from? 

Dear Leader ZerO said that he will not raise taxes for anyone making under $250,000. He has a way to do it through the back door. You will pay more for energy and anything that energy is needed to make (everything). He will tax the Energy companies and they will charge you more. The Energy company pays a tax, you just pay higher bills.

As Dear Leader ZerO said in an interview in January 2008 with the San Francisco Chronicle:

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers."

Your electricity bill will go up by 90%. If you are paying $300 a month now, you will have to pay $570 a month after this "non tax" is signed into law.

The cost of gasoline will go up by 58%. A gallon of gas that now costs $2.64 will cost you $4.17 a gallon.

On average, every families energy costs will go up by $1,241 per year on average. That is an extra $103.42 per month you will have to pay. But mind you, it is not a new tax on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Just a way for you to pay more to your gas station or more on your electric bill. The tax is being paid by them, not you.

Reference : http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm

The House of Representatives bill is H.R. 2545, sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA). On June 26, 2009 the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2545, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act". 219 Representatives voted for it, 212 against.

If your Representative voted for it, they should be fired.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/index.asp http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml

The United States Senate has to pass their version now. You can help stop this hidden back door tax by contacting your Senator now.

United States Senator Directory:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Call your Senator now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCde5haxalA

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

The sudden disappearance of GPP Pirhabbits under Obama is as mysterious as their first appearance on the scene, as this report from 2006 illustrates:

Giant Panamanian Polar Pihrabbits Strip Flesh From Helpless Carrots

Mai Hoo reporting from Garbonzo, Panama

Feb 12, 2006

As dawn broke in this usually peaceful jungle village, sobs were heard coming from the humble garden plots of the local residents.

Once again, giant pihrabbits had mercilessly devoured many of the carrots which had been lovingly planted by the gentle jungle-dwelling natives of this highland territory.

"We don't understand why these monsters are coming into our village", said one distrought gardener, as she gazed at several green remainders of devoured carrots. "Look, it is just like those rabbits ate the body, but left the green hair behind. How can we tolerate this? Will our cabbages be next?"

Brazillian investigators have fielded the theory that global warming drove Amazonian bunnies into the Amazon river, where they found relief from sweltering heat. But how those bunnies were impregnated by the vicious, flesh-eating river pihrannas, remains a mystery.

Bush administration officials scoffed at this theory, stating that global warming is as big a myth as giant jungle bunnies who raid carrot gardens in the dark of night.

"Bunnies remain the penultimate archetype of fuzzy cuteness", said a White House spokesman. "The natives of Panama must be mistaking chupacabras for rabbits. Global warming is not a proven theory, unlike Intelligent Design."

Local genetic scientists, working under the handicaps of lack of electric power, clean water, and modern instrumentation, have analyzed samples of the bunny-saliva and have determined that the genes of polar bears has been found, as well as rabbit and pihranna fish. "Hey, we may live in a jungle, but we watch CSI too, you know", they said. "Modern genetics is now our primary tool, in our quest to abolish superstition and bring Panama into the 21st century".

Peruvian scientists have theorized that due to global warming and the breakup of arctic polar ice, polar bears stranded on icebergs have drifted south, and have been sighted swimming in the Amazon river. But US Government officials, on condition of anonymity, revealed that recent satellite photos do not show any polar bears south of northern California. "Polar bears do not mate with pirhannas, they eat them."

Argentinian psychiatrists have expressed alarm at the mood of polar bears sampled thus far, and fear that global warming has changed the chemistry of the bears brains, causing bipolar disorder. "We have noticed that these polar bears are either very depressed, or inexplicably happy, even ecstatic", said one scientist. "We theorize that these bears, in their understandable desperation for relief from this painful disorder, have resorted to having sex with cute little bunnies, but only when the bears are in their ecstatic mood. Otherwise, they just eat them".

Is it possible that this accounts for the origin of the gigantic, carrot-hungry pihrabbits of the Panamanian jungle highlands? And is this yet more evidence of global warning, or is it yet more hysteria generated by hordes of disenfranchized expatriot liberals, who have chosen to live in foreign jungles, rather than to cruelly carve out a conservative lifestyle from the heart of America?

Add yet another “R” to the things Republicans need to do to pull their party from the abyss: Risk. What sorts of risks can the GOP take? Let's start with policy. Consider some platform changes that may seem crazy at first, but if you’re prepared to embrace them, own them and see them through you could a) change the national conversation, b) restore your credibility on all this recent “freedom” talk, and c) win younger voters.

Here are 5 to start:

1. Legalize Drugs - You have turned a corner on this issue. All evidence and economics indicates that prohibiting anything for which there is a demand causes black markets. The black markets in drugs mean the costs of doing business are higher—but that means so too are the profits. These profits (and turf) are protected violently by gangs and drug cartels. Gang culture is built around said profits. Remove the profits through legal competition and the gangs fade away eventually (just as they did after alcohol prohibition was repealed). Yes, there will be secondary social costs. Yes there will still be petty crime due to addicts—despite lower-cost drugs. But you can offset those social costs by taxing the product to build rehabilitation centers, which are preferable to building more prisons and morgues. You get credibility points for admitting that people have a right to do what they like with their bodies. Freedom is freedom, warts ‘n’ all.

2. Civil Unions – Want to shake everybody up? Try this: The state should get out of the marriage business. Period. End the debate. Marriage is a matter for churches, mosques and temples. Civil unions ensure that people who unite contractually are treated equally before the law, as the Constitution requires. If a church is willing to marry two gay people, fine. It’s none of the government’s business. Government will, however, offer equal tax treatment. Civil unions cover this just fine and states may craft their own civil union variations. Ultimately, though, marriage is ritual and, therefore, a private matter.

3. Means-test Everything – If it is to exist, every federal social program should be designed to help the very poor. The middle class only a little. The rich none. Government welfare programs for the rich, such as Medicare, are insane. Let's say so. (That includes a louder call for bringing Medicare back from the precipice.) Shame rich, old people: “You cannot continue to rob the next generation and get away with it. You have more resources and your healthcare costs more. Pay for it. You owe it to ‘the children.’” Thus: No welfare for the rich. No corporate welfare.

4. Taxpayer Bill of Rights & Balanced Budget – After this monstrous growth of the federal government by the Obama Administration, people are very likely going have an appetite for some kind of limits on government bloat. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights – which would lock government revenues in at population plus inflation as measured by acceptable cost of living indices. Couple this with limits on national debt that would force cuts. Plus, say we’re not going to charge up the national credit card and the bill to Generation Y. This is grossly unfair. We need to have a limit on deficits and balanced budgets within a certain timeframe, or consequences will follow.

5. Global Warming: “More Technology, No More Taxes” - We’re willing to fund sequestration technology. We’re willing to fund geo-engineering technology. We’re willing to use X-prize-type contests to do it. But we’re not willing to tax the American people as they rebound from a severe recession—for all for a hypothetical “crisis” that has never quite materialized.

It’s time to be the party of ideas again. And ideas are risky. (Nos. 5 through 10 now up).

From the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Rep. Shimkus certainly cleared up a theological dilemma for me since he reconciled the dinasaurs and their environment with the Bible. Yay! Also, wonderful faith affirming news about the fate of the earth. How often we forget to just go to the source of all wisdom!

visit us at: http://keepconservativesusingfreedom.blogspot.com/

With his speech to Congress, and his subsequent radio address, this President's modus operandi is now clear. He makes agreeable noises, language inoffensive to all, then pushes bills through Congress that are full of controversy, and that in some cases, contradict his spoken intentions.

In his speech to Congress, he said he would cap carbon emissions. He did NOT utter the magic words "cap and trade." But we see that is precisely what he intends to do, and I wonder if the public, lulled and hypnotized by his rhetoric and winsome smile, will pay attention to his actions before their first Obama electric bill arrives in the mail.

Here's the deal: Government experts tell you (individual or corporation) how much carbon you can consume. You pay fines to Uncle Sam if you exceed the limits. Uncle Sam then distributes the fines to the middle class and the poor (or in the vernacular of the Obama White House, "the vulnerable") to help them pay for the higher energy costs that Cap and Trade created in the first place. Meanwhile, those who invest in creating energy exchanges, like Al Gore, will get rich off the trades, and the government creates a new "revenue stream" (i.e., tax). In his speech to Congress, Obama told us that he will see to it that renewable energy becomes more affordable. He didn't say that he would do so by driving up the cost of oil, coal and gas generated energy. But that is exactly what he is proposing, and it is consistent with the thinking of the Earth First / No-Growth crowd, who would have us canning beats for the winter rather than buying avocados from California. It all makes you wonder how far he wants to take the extremist environmental agenda. Really, it should come as no surprise for those of us who raised an eyebrow last summer when he was asked how he felt about $4/gallon gas, and responded that it was a shame only that the price went up to fast. See the video...

Have we ever concocted such a disruptive solution to a problem that may not even exist?