The World As I See It

Archive for June, 2009

Liz Peek, FoxNews.com – Can the Climate Control Zealots In Congress Be Stopped?

Posted by SteveB on June 29, 2009

Is the president losing his cool? In his press conference on Tuesday President Obama showed rare flashes of sarcasm and impatience as he dealt with veiled criticism of his muted response to the brutality in Iran and the prospect that his beloved health care legislation may not survive the bloody birth canal that is Congress.

Still, the president was collected enough to employ an old favorite of those under pressure, the tried and true “bait and switch” approach. Hey, if your health care package is getting torched, start playing up the importance of your equally gigantic land-grab known as the American Clean Energy Security Act. Also called the Waxman-Markey bill, this legislation was suddenly number one on the president’s agenda. That’s bad news for those ramming through this dangerous re-write of our energy industry. While most talking heads have been focused on health care, the climate control zealots had their hands on the throttle. Shining a little light on this endeavor may better reveal some of the bills warts’ and just in time since it moves to the House floor today.  

The American Petroleum Institute sent a letter to Congress this week which claims that the Waxman bill “would mean gasoline at more than $4 per gallon” and that “the bill will cost Americans billions of dollars in higher costs, kill jobs and will not deliver the environmental benefits promised.” The API note references a study done for the Black Chamber of Commerce that estimates the bill will result in a net loss of over 2 million jobs a year (net of added “green” jobs). The study also estimates annual drops in GDP of $170 billion in 2015, $350 billion in 2030 and $730 billion in 2050. In short, the API describes the bill as “fundamentally flawed.”

Read the entire article below.

Opinion.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The vindication of carbon means the vindication of human freedom

Posted by SteveB on June 28, 2009

The fear of carbon is the fear of life.  The love of carbon is the love of life. Humans are animated carbon. Everything we consume and emit is carbon-based. Everything we make or purchase causes carbon emissions. It is not possible to control and regulate carbon without controlling and regulating every aspect of human existence. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-human freedom.  

The war on carbon is an ill-disguised war on humanity, a war on human freedom. Carbon and carbon emissions are simply a proxy for human activity. This whole movement to demonize carbon is driven by a world-denying, man-hating worldview.  It is time to rip away the mask and expose the movement whose real aim is to put the human race in chains to a system that controls every aspect of human existence. It is time to stand up and say, “You take your jackboots off my carbon and off my life.”

It is heartening to see that more and more scientists are waking up to the junk science of man-made global warming alarmism and that they are now coming out of the woodwork to say so. The movement to shut down our energy sources by a beat-up against CO2, if successful, would turn off the lights of civilization. It is fitting that the symbolism of the recent Earth Hour was darkness rather than light.

Robert D. Brinsmead is a Horticulturist and a free-lance Writer.

Read the entire article below.

The vindication of carbon means the vindication of human freedom.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

nzclimatescience.net – THE TRIUMPH OF DOUBLESPEAK

Posted by SteveB on June 28, 2009

THE TRIUMPH OF DOUBLESPEAK

Despite over 20 years of effort and four major Reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has not succeeded in providing any evidence that increases in greenhouse gases are having a measurable effect on the climate. Why is it, then, that so many people believe that they have done so? The answer lies in their subtle use of doublespeak, the technique of creating confusion by manipulation of language. This newsletter shows how they have confused and twisted the meanings of words in such a way as to create triumph out of failure.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Framework Convention on Climate Change which was signed by so many nations, including our own, started the whole thing off with this definition of “Climate Change”, from  Article 1 as follows :
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” 

They have suddenly changed the meaning of “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause.  All they need to do is to get people to use the term “climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not.

There does not need to be any actual evidence. All that is needed is for somebody. such as an IPCC climate scientist, an environmental activist, a politician, or a journalist, to “attribute” it. The “attribution” does not even need to be “direct”. “Indirect” can be as obscure as they chose it to be.

This device has been an outstanding success. Any “climate change” which is disapproved of, be it a heat wave, cold spell, flood, drought, or hurricane, is today routinely “attributed” to human influence on the atmosphere.

They confuse matters further by their additional statements. “Climate Change” is now only one of the many possible reasons for “change of climate”, a term which seems now to have replaced the original meaning of “climate change”. They are reluctant to enlarge on the possible other reasons for “change of climate” apart from “natural variability”.

“Natural Variability” evidently does not “change” it merely varies. Only “climate change” actually changes.

What is the difference between “change” and “variability”? Climate is known to vary over many different periods, from a few seconds to millions of years. How can you tell whether it is “changing” or “varying”?

They have left out altogether an important component of “change of climate”, and that is change of climate caused by humans which does not involve changes in the composition of the atmosphere.

Read the entire article below.
nzclimatescience.net – THE TRIUMPH OF DOUBLESPEAK – HOW UNIPCC FOOLS MOST OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Politics, Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Carbon Footprint Offsetting from The Onion

Posted by SteveB on June 23, 2009

The Onion

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Warning Signs

Posted by SteveB on June 21, 2009

By Alan Caruba

Years ago, beginning around 1984, I became “famous” as the creator of The Boring Institute, a media spoof that literally garnered international attention for its annual list of “The Most Boring Celebrities of the Year.” Until around 2002 I averaged a thousand radio shows and television appearances as the result of the Institute’s spoofs.

Along the way, I became an expert on the subject of boredom and was astounded at the links between boredom and many social problems. It is a frequent factor in various addictions, in crime, as a reason why children drop out of school, why marriages fail, and a host of other problems in people’s lives. It can be an indicator of depression.

You can criticize people in many ways, but telling them they’re boring are fighting words.
We spend a lot of time avoiding boredom because it is such a constant factor in our lives. Watching television is for the most part boredom avoidance. Almost anything that does not require us to actively use our brains falls into this category. Thinking is scary.

So, because I tend to write about certain topics and am increasingly convinced that Barack Obama is just about the worse thing to happen to this nation since the horrid Jimmy Carter, my question is—am I boring you?

Read the entire article below.

Warning Signs.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

We can put a man on the Moon….

Posted by SteveB on June 20, 2009

All this discussion about global warming and the supposed proof that Co2 is the main culprit got me thinking.  The discussion of proof, or lack therof, is centered around historical data and climate models for the most part. What was the temperature in the past? Whatever past time-frame you want to use to support your argument; And what the climate models tell us about the future climate.  Again, whatever future time frame is used to support ones argument. 

But all this discussion about what was and what will be never seems to competely include exactly how it is that Co2 causes the Earth’s temperature to increase.  We hear arguments about the so-called “greenhouse effect.”  It sounds like a very simplistic and reasonable answer.  But if it were such a simple and reasonable answer, why are there so many scientists that do not support this view?

To use an old phrase…”We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t…..” This is really the key to the entire issue.  We can talk ad homonym about past temperature records, climate models, ice melt, the loss of glaciers, the recent cooling, or past 30 year warming all we want.  But the real discussion should be – how exactly does Co2 cause the Earth to warm, if it does at all?

I did a Google search.  “How does Co2 cause global warming.”  I didn’t get much in terms of an actual answer.  Probably the clearest and simplest answer I found is below.  See the paragraph italicized for emphasis.  This is the crux of the entire debate.

One simple little statement.

How does carbon dioxide cause global warming? (Lansing State Journal, August 31, 1994) ——————————————————————

Fossil fuels such as gasoline, methane and propane contain mostly carbon. When these fuels are burned, they react with oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.

Because of our heavy use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution.

The destruction of forests which use carbon dioxide also contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide.

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn’t let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.

Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of about one part per million per year. If this continues, some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius. This doesn’t sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding.  END.

This is what it all comes down to.  Co2 absorbs some of the Sun’s energy that would otherwise be radiated back into space from Earth and holds it in the atmosphere.  Why can’t all the great minds in the world get together to figure this out?  I know there is actually is a great deal of literature out there that explains how there is no real greenhouse effect.  But the point is, why so much disagreement?  It doesn’t seem like it should be so complicated to at least figure that out. 

As I said, we can put a man on the Moon…

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Few Simple Words to Correct the Frauds on Global Warming.

Posted by SteveB on June 20, 2009

 Gary Novak
Independent Scientist

 

A Few Simple Words to Correct the Frauds on Global Warming
 

Each person has a different concept of what is happening based on different knowledge. This is often true within science, where each scientist is only familiar with a small part of the subject. Climate science is so complex, with so many details, that most people cannot grasp it all. So this description attempts to cut through the confusion with summary statements in simple language. Read the entire article below.

A Few Simple Words to Correct the Frauds on Global Warming..

Propaganda is all the public gets, and a lot of erroneous assumptions result. “Climate change” is supposed to mean the climate is doing something it otherwise would not do. “Heat trapping gasses” is supposed to mean greenhouse gasses prevent heat from leaving the atmosphere. Why would scientists use those terms if they didn’t mean what they say? Because those terms are propaganda statements used by frauds. So here’s an attempt to cut through those frauds with simple explanations:

Greenhouse gasses do not trap much heat for many reasons. The number one reason is because they can only trap radiation, while radiation is almost nonexistent for them. The sun’s energy cannot be trapped by greenhouse gasses, because it is too high of a frequency, being in the visible range, while greenhouse gasses absorb low frequency radiation, which is invisible, called infrared radiation. (Small exceptions have no bearing on the subject and are not argued.)

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Remove the Golden Egg (CO2) from EPA’s GHG Basket — MasterResource

Posted by SteveB on June 17, 2009

Remove the Golden Egg (CO2) from EPA’s GHG Basket

In its Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Sections 202(a) of the Clean Air Act , the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) places six greenhouse gases into one basket. All are treated as equal, primary culprits in the anthropogenic enhancement of the earth’s greenhouse effect, and thus the EPA proposes to find that they “endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The six are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

But for many reasons, one of these gases is not like the others and should be considered separately. That gas is carbon dioxide.

Read the entire article below.

Remove the Golden Egg (CO2) from EPA’s GHG Basket — MasterResource.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Warning Signs

Posted by SteveB on June 17, 2009

By Alan Caruba

All those morons who are forever going on about the evil corporations never notice that it is corporations, great and small, that employ millions of Americans and the best of them do everything they can to ensure their workers are happy, if for no other reason than that it increases productivity. People don’t work just for money. They work for a sense of dignity and self-worth.

The Obama administration appears to be intent on destroying or driving out one corporation after another by any means possible. This amounts to punishing success and crushing it in the meat-grinder of government regulation. The latest victim is Fedex.

A June 9 Washington Times editorial noted that, “Led by Rep. James L. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat, the House on May 21 passed legislation that contains an almost hidden provision—a mere 230 words—that would hobble FedEx Express. It would do so by completely changing the labor laws under which the company operates.”

Read the entire article below.

Warning Signs.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

American Thinker Blog: WSJ Publishes Nutty Global Warming Geoengineering Plan

Posted by SteveB on June 16, 2009

June 15, 2009

WSJ Publishes Nutty Global Warming Geoengineering Plan

Marc Sheppard
Can you imagine anyone being loony enough to declare an unproven solution to an unproven problem to be “enormously risky” and certain to “lead to troubling unforeseen consequences” and “international tension,” and then proceeding to advocate for it nonetheless?   Or a highly respected international news source making the decision to publish such lunacy as a cover story?

Try this — in today’s Wall Street Journal article It’s Time to Cool the Planet, Jamais Cascio, a San Francisco “Environmental Futurist,” claims that it’s too late to avoid an “unprecedented global catastrophe” by merely cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.   No, in addition to shutting down progress in a futile effort to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, we must also take steps to counteract the warming we’ve already supposedly unleashed in order to “delay potentially catastrophic ‘tipping point’ events.”  Such “geoengineering” would represent a “stay of execution” while we work toward “a pardon.”  Oh brother.

Cascio divides geoengineering into two categories: carbon management and temperature management.  The former, which involves methods aimed at scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, he dismisses as too slow to meet the task.  That leaves us with attempting to block or reflect some of the sunlight that hits the planet. According to Cascio, “increasing the planet’s reflectivity by 2% could counter the warming effects of a doubling of CO2 emissions.”  And from where did he derive such figures, perchance the same ouija board used by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to predict that simple reflective engineering would have the same effect on global warming as taking all the cars in the world off the world’s roads for 11 years?

Read the entire article below.

American Thinker Blog: WSJ Publishes Nutty Global Warming Geoengineering Plan.

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »