Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Very cool video which needs to be spread around. On the surface, you can readily see seasonal changes to the ice pack. Looking more carefully, you can see effects from wind and weather patterns. What you cannot see is any effect of global warming. The polar bears are safe.


Read Full Post »

What is in the water in California that causes that State’s residents to plague the rest of the country with absolutely complete idiots. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein are well known examples. Today we must add Henry Waxman to this illustrious list of mentally challanged State Representatives.

What did Waxman do to earn his place in history as one of the dumbest people in history? Let me quote him:

We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.

It is sad that the average third grader would be able to correct Henry and teach him that there is no land, much less tundra, underneath the North Sea ice cap. It might take a seventh grader to inform poor Waxman that ice does not evaporate unless placed inside a vacuum, where it sublimates.

The really troubling idea in this quote is that the ice cap, somehow, holds down the tundra. Would this imaginary tundra somehow fly away if the ice were to melt? Is the North Pole Miyazaki Hayao’s Laputa? Is Waxman a heavy drinker?

We may never know as I’m sure that if this mouth-breather is ever confronted on his stupidity, he’ll just laugh and say he misspoke. In the mean time, it is painfully obvious that he has no business as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee which puts him in charge of the global warming “strategy” to be rammed down America’s collective throat, as well as our nation’s energy policy. He has no business running a lemonade stand.

And California be known for it’s happy cows, but it is also known for it’s stupid politicians.


It appears, he doesn’t want to debate anything, just ram it through.

Read Full Post »

July 20, 1933 – General Hugh S. “Iron Pants” Johnson, the head of the National Recovery Administration, declares the Blue Eagle to be the symbol of compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act. The NRA was an agency created by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, modeled on the War Industries Board of WWI, and was a part of the continuation of the war time economy, shifted to combat the Great Depression.

The Act instituted codes of “fair competition” for a multitude of industries, set minimum wages, maximum hours, and a pricing floor for almost all goods. This intrusion into the workings of the free market, even though the different elements were “voluntary,” were partly responsible for prolonging the depression, as well as highly unconstitutional. Housewives were urged, pressured, and embarrassed into purchasing products only from companies displaying the Blue Eagle symbol. Slogans of “doing your part” and “Buy now under the Blue Eagle” were rampant.

In a fireside chat, even Roosevelt spread the propaganda

In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure their comrades do not fire on comrades, on that principle those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance.


Read Full Post »

Event Link

A veritable “who’s who” of climate scientists, who are “in the same camp with Holocaust Deniers,” are meeting this week in New York City. An expected crowd of 800 will be in attendance for the three day event, featuring no less than 73 conference speakers (most with Ph.D.’s), sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Details of the event are being posted on The Climate Scam blog.

Here is a snipit from the opening remarks by Joseph L. Blast

If the scientific community were convinced that we could reliably forecast future climates, or that the consequences of some warming would be catastrophic, then perhaps no price would be too high to pay to save the Earth. But that is not what the scientific community is telling us. According to the most recent international poll of climate scientists,

* Most climate scientists believe global warming “is a process already underway.”

* But that “consensus” drops to below 60 percent when climate scientists are asked if “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

* 65 percent of climate scientists do not believe “climate models can accurately predict climate conditions in the future.”

* 68 percent do not believe “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climatic variability on time scales of ten years.”

* 73 percent do not believe it is possible to predict climate “on time scales of 100 years.”

* About 70 percent of climate scientists think “climate change might have some positive effects for some societies.”

* Finally, on the question that might matter the most, climate scientists are perfectly split over the question of whether they know enough about global warming to turn it over to policymakers to take action, with 44 percent saying we do and 46 percent saying we do not.

This extensive disagreement within the scientific community is not reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why is that? Maybe because, to quote Alexander Cockburn again, “the IPCC has the usual army of functionaries and grant farmers, and the merest sprinkling of actual scientists with the prime qualification of being climatologists or atmospheric physicists.”

Here is a small part of the remarks made by Richard Liznden, Ph.D.

Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an up-hill battle.

In this talk I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our side of this issue.

First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist. Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.

For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition.

Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature, and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has several major oceanographic programs to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal.

Perhaps the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.

For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding, provides little incentive to complain about the spin.


The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science — especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.

Strangely, no news has been released by the MSM. I guess Al Gore was unavailable for comment.

Read Full Post »

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, plans on having two hearings per week until he completes a comprehensive revamping of the country’s environmental policy. This according to a Politico article published today (link). In the process he is ruffling a few feathers, most notably that of Charlie B. “Why don’t you mind your g*damned business” Rangel (D-NY) of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Turf battles are commonplace on Capitol Hill, especially over major legislation, but this one — should it shape up — could have a distinct impact on the substance of the legislation Congress enacts, on an issue that could divide Democrats more than any other in President Barack Obama’s agenda.

The basic goal is an overall reduction in carbon emissions, with rebates to help households pay for higher energy costs. But how to achieve that goal is the rub, and there are differences between the Waxman approach and those being offered by members of Rangel’s panel.

Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both prefer a cap-and-trade measure — the president included hundreds of billions in revenue from this program in his first budget blueprint — giving Waxman an advantage at this early stage in the debate. Ways and Means members are considering a more direct tax on carbon emissions, with rebates on utility bills passed back to consumers.

“I think we are going to end up with a cap-and-trade bill,” Waxman told reporters last week, before reiterating his willingness to work with other committees of jurisdiction as Congress and the White House lurch toward a comprehensive climate policy.

Waxman, who was responsible for major changes to the 1990 Clean Air Act has now turned his attention to climate change. Initial CBO estimates for his cap-and-trade system show it generating between $50 and $300 billion during the first year of trading. This money would go to technology research, mitigating global warming, and providing offsets for consumer’s higher energy bills.

First, there is alot of room between $50 and $300 billion. I’ve written business plans before…who are the nitwits who came up with these numbers? That’s like some small business going into a bank, claiming first year sales between $50,000 and $3 million dollars! Second, all of it is a hidden tax. Everything that uses energy will increase in price to cover this money. Food will increase, gasoline will increase, heck, movie tickets will increase!

Getting to the destination for your increased taxes, technology research I can understand, but why does technology research require government funding? If it was any good, the private sector would be dumping money into it. Just research what happened to my previous field, fusion energy, when the government got involved (small tangent…thanks Al Gore…thanks alot…creep).

Mitigating global warming…mitigating global warming…hmm…assuming that global warming is a) happening, and b) controllable, does anyone have the slightest idea how to do that? [insert sound of chirping crickets]. Giant mirrors in the Sahara? Millions of snowmachines? Growing an Audrey-II?

Then the kicker, compensating people for rising energy prices. Huh? If all of our energy prices go up, and the government is taxing energy, and they are going to compensate us for our rising energy prices – then all we’re looking at is another money laundering scheme. The real question is who are they going to compensate. I’m positive it will not be you or me.

People in Waxman’s 30th District who still have their sanity: Write this nit-wit. Blow up his phone, fax, and email server. Fight this kookyness before someone loses an eye.

Read Full Post »

I just found this on a blog from bikerbernie. Nice one.

Read Full Post »

I was surfing a Chinese news website early this morning (Chinaview), you know, ’cause I was awake, and I have a hard time finding real news from our “free” press, anyway, I found this cool article on the Top 10 Amazing Holes in the Earth. This picture caught my eye. It seems that while drilling for natural gas in 1971, the brilliant Russian geologists and miners in the former Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan (yeah, I had to look it up too) made this hole when the rig collapsed. Being the Earth conscience people that they are, they let the gas burn rather than have it escape into the air…it is poisonous you know.

So this hugantic campfire, in exactly the middle of nowhere, has been burning untold millions of cubic feet per year of natural gas since 1971, and I’m supposed to worry about my light bulbs. Umm, can somebody contact Al Gore? Surely he can come up with a 10 year plan to put this fire out.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »