Well guess what, Attorney Stephen Joseph is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore!
Learn cool things like whether or not plastic bags are really made from oil. Or how a never-ending campagin of mis-information has turned anyone requesting a plastic bag at the supermarket into Hitler's next-of-kin.
-James A. Peden
Former Atmospheric Physicist
Space Research and Coordination Center
July 14, 2008
Dr. David Evans, a former consultant to the Austrailian Greenhouse Office has recently penned an intresting commentary for the The Australian newspaper that is being conisdered by many on the climate debate circuit, quite the eye-opener...But hey, why be so critical when you're on the government gravy train?
That's $50 Billion with a "B" folks. Tell the people starving in Africa and other parts of the World to chew on that for a while...
Well put away the suncreen and flip-flops, because real climate change is now upon us. According to John L. Casey, Director of the Space & Science Research Center however, it's not what we were expecting...“I have consulted with colleagues world wide who have reached a similar
conclusion. They have likewise been attempting to advise their own governments
and media of the impending cold era and the difficult times that the extreme
cold weather may bring. They are to be commended for their bold public stances
and publication of their research which of course has been in direct opposition
to past conventional thought on the nature and causes of the last twenty years
of global warming. These last one or two decades of increased global warming
were essentially the peak heating phase of the 206 year cycle.
Forget about Polar Bears. What about these poor reptiles that went extinct up in Antarctica, when their once mild habitat completely froze over? Talk about victims of climate change! Now, I've never been really good at math, but according to the article below, this happened way before we started driving around in SUVs..."Cat-sized reptiles once roamed what is now the icebox of Antarctica, snuggling up in burrows and peeping above ground to snag plant roots and insects."Last time I checked, reptiles don't like ice, so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw here, but believe it or not Antartica wasn't always the frozen wasteland we know today.
"At the time the ancient animals presumably were excavating their subterranean homes, Antarctica would have been ice-free, with a cool temperate climate, Miller said. And Antarctica and southern Africa could have shared residents, since during the Triassic, the two regions were connected as part of the supercontinent Pangea."So for all those people running around worrying about glaciers receding and ice sheets melting away, don't forget that the climate is always changing and believe it or not, most (if not all) of it has nothing to do with you or your SUV.
OK, for those of you who are already subscribing to the theory (despite emerging science that indicates otherwise) that increased green-house gas emissions (namely C02) are the chief cause of a warming climate, I've got some intresting news. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and that we do need to keep a close watch on man-made CO2 levels in order to keep the climate in balance. Just how do we go about doing that? Well according to those on the socialist side of the house, man-made CO2 emissions can be reduced by a carefully implemented plan of punishment and control. Better known as tax and regulate. So far, it seems that this has been the only proposed solution for this yet to be verified crisis. But as luck would have it, a new idea looms on the co2-choked horizon... Don't like so much CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem... just suck it all out. Like a big giant vacuum..."The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries"Translation? "Greener lifestyles and industries" = only those that can be taxed and regulated by the heavy hand of Big Government.
I know I've asked this question before, but when you come across stories like this, you can't help but wonder. So who do you think is making more money off of this whole global warming thing? Those who are trying to prove it's not really an issue or those who are claiming that doomsday is just around the corner if we don't change our devilish ways?"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."If you haven't figured it out already, this carbon offset thing is nothing more than the original shell-game (with much higher stakes of course)...
"The market for UN's CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits is growing fast. At present it is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years. More than 1,000 projects have so far been approved, and 2,000 more are making their way through the process."Like I said, a lot of real green is in play here folks. When sums of money like this are involved, serious corruption is always a possibility. What's more alarming in my mind however is that all of this is all based on theoretical science that to this day, has not been settled.
Well, many of us have been asking this question for some time now. Especially over the past couple of years with all of the neo-environmentalism currently taking place. In fact, one of the very fist blog entries here at Eco-$ucker discussed the Eco-Chic phenomena from a business perspective; noting how the green movement has really been a dream come true for advertisers and marketers alike. At the end of the day however, one has to ask... do these "green" products actually deliver?The Honda Civic hybrid, regarded widely as one of the lowest emitting cars, performed the worst in the tests.Splitting hairs perhaps? Arguing that even the worst hybrid vehicle is significantly better than a conventional gas guzzler? I can't answer that, but think about how much C02 is released into the air by a single volcanic eruption versus how much C02 is put into the air by all humans combined and that "significant difference" becomes mute faster than a Toyota Prius can hit 60.Instead of the 109g/km of CO2 claimed in the makers’ specifications, it was found to put out 171g/km. The testers said its electric motor was “not strong enough to propel the oddball four-door Civic on its own” and they concluded that the vehicle “failed to match the firm’s economy claims”.
Just received this via the newswire. Looks like the folks over at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will be releasing the names of the more than 30,000 scientists and academics who are challenging the status quo regarding the hypothesis of man-made global warming..."The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists."What the response will be, I certainly cannot say. It will be very interesting however to see if any of this is even acknowledged by the main street media. After all, I'm sure they enjoy schmoozing with the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio rather than some lab geek with glasses and a pocket protector.
Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist
From War Veteran to Eco-Criminal
All I know is that there are a lot of people here in Southern California right now who've been waiting for the Sun to make itself known. We had one really hot day a few weeks ago, but that was about it..."The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."Yes, yes I know. We're very spoiled here in (usually) sunny So. Cal. but remember, we rely on things like enviable weather and incredible scenery to keep our mind off thing like rising gas prices, violent crime and soaring taxes.
Consider yourself warned...
And who do you think is getting the short-end of the stick here folks? Wealthy Americans on their way to the mall in shiny new Flex-Fuel SUVs? Think again. Look what's happening in Europe..."The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package."A crime against humanity? But, but... we had only good intentions. It seemed like a good idea at the time, etc. And you thought I was being overly critical of all these nice people.
Spreading global dissatisfaction in recent months has intensified the food-versus-fuel debate. Last Friday, a European environment advisory panel urged the EU to suspend its goal of having 10 percent of transportation fuel made from biofuels by 2020. Europe’s well-meaning rush to biofuels, the scientists concluded, had created a variety of harmful ripple effects, including deforestation in Southeast Asia and higher prices for grain."To quote the always wise and eloquent Homer Simpson... Doh!
Over at IceCap, Lawrence Solomon has come across something rather fishy happening at Wikipedia...
Breaking News: CNN is reporting a political cave-in at the White House. This afternoon, President Bush will give a speech regarding Global Warming (er, Climate Change) and his plans to promote legislation intended to curb the amount of man-made greenhouse gases produced in the U.S.The new goal for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is an attempt to short-circuit what White House aides call a potential regulatory "train wreck" if Congress doesn't act on climate change. The president's speech is aimed at shaping the debate on global warming in favor of solving the problem while avoiding heavy costs to industry and the economy.And people say Bush is out of touch. Well, let's just hope it turns out little better than the whole Bio-fuel debacle. That was born out good intentions too... ya know?
In his speech, however, the president will not slam the door on discussing market-based approaches to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.Gee, I hope not. That's a little reassuring. It's either that or turn the whole thing over to the UN right? I'm sure that the first thing they'd do is outlaw all BBQ in the state of Texas.
The folks over at Copius Dissent bring us news regarding a new bill being introduced by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to combat the proposed ban on conventional (aka Edison) light bulbs as put forth by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (don't you just love how even lousy legislation can sound so great? These guys should work on Madison Ave.)
Robert Bidinotto, editor of The New Individualist magazine seems just a little miffed at all of the apparent hypocrisy surrounding the upcoming Olympic Games and it's expected impact on the environment.
Christopher Monckton, former policy adviser to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, goes a little medieval on all of the Global Warming alarmists in his latest commentary..."Polls reveal that voters worldwide, bored with wolf-crying scientists, see "global warming" as just another pretext for more tax, regulation and empire-building. So the tiny clique of politicized scientists driving the scare are desperate to revive fear of doom. Otherwise, the multibillion-dollar climate-change industry is headed straight down the pan."I find it fascinating to watch how behavior can change when people start to become desperate and this is no exception. Think about how much money is at stake here! Think of all the carbon credit firms, all of the industries who are solely dependent on environmental legislation making it's way through the halls of congress and parliament. Can you say Ethanol? There's definitely a lot of coin riding on this um...debate.
"In the Arctic, the media reported less summer sea ice than at any time since records began. Most did not report that records began only 30 years ago; that at both Poles there is more sea ice now than ever since records began; that there are five times more polar bears today than 50 years ago; that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than today; or that the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet grew by 2 inches yearly from 1993-2003.Perhaps Mr. Gore just bought stock in an inflatable boat manufacturer. But I digress. By the way, I always found it odd that people often refer back to the UN in all of this. Since when did a lethargic bureaucracy like the UN become the standard-bearer for climate research?
Even the UN's climate panel says melting ice will not raise sea level by Al Gore's imagined 20 feet for several millennia, largely through natural causes."
Washington Post writer, H. Sterling Burnett comments on the much ballyhooed UN IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001 climate report and their now infamous climate "hockey stick" temperature model. For you eco-newbies, this is the report that basically formed the cornerstone of the whole global warming hysteria movement."IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed."Flawed? Dissension in the scientific community? Somebody get Al Gore on the phone, I feel a debate coming on.
"..several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic."Could it have anything to do with the fact that the guys who created the report weren't actually scientists or even worse, not qualified to produce such a report?
"In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions."60 out of 127... I'm no statistician, but according to my trusty Radio Shack solar calculator... that's 47% folks.
OK, so a few months ago I talked about the Biofuel Bandwagon and the consequences of jumping into fossil-fuel alternatives that may not be all that they are cracked up to be. How many of us have seen these wanna-be Greenies driving around town in their Flex-Fuel vehicles with their collective holier-than-thou noses in the air? Well here's something else that us loathsome, polluting heathens may find solace in...In an outspoken attack on a policy which comes into force next week, Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it would be wrong to introduce compulsory quotas for the use of biofuels in petrol and diesel before their effects had been properly assessed.What?! He actually suggests that we assess the situation and look at the results instead of just jumping in head-first with all sorts of new rules and regulations? Heretic!
"In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring."Does this mean that all our collective worries about drought ravaged fields in the West have just been nullified? Again I'm not sure, but we'll take the water.
Make up your mind. First, everyone says we need to ban plastic shopping bags (see previous post: Be Happy- That's an Order!) for various environmental reasons. Now I'm catching news that most of the data supporting these bans may be complete hogwash..."The claim that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals every year is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 animals were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags."Subsequent studies also seem to teeter somewhere between "yes they [plastic shopping bags] are huge problem to "no they aren't."
"The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive.""Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn't achieve anything."
At least it's nice to know that Lord Taverne sees this pretty much the way I do. Too many people are getting caught up in way too much emotion and ignoring facts about what our environment may really be saying.
The geniuses at the UN have recently admitted to having a shocking revelation regarding climate change..."The private sector must be encouraged to help developing countries combat climate change now, before it becomes too severe to handle, the head said."Encouraged? Like how? By taxing people and passing on the revenue to subsidize useless eco-friendly product development that is totally irrelevant of market forces? Pure genius.
Question. What do you do when someone doesn't agree with your particular point of view? Simple, you just punch them in the face and then continue to beat them senseless. At least that seems to be the logic followed by the folks at ELF (Earth Liberation Front). If you don't like something that belongs to someone else, just destroy it. Same 'ol radical leftist agenda here folks... Kill the rich and empower the exploited.
I know it's purely anecdotal, but headlines like this always make me laugh. Courtesy of Drudge...
It's stories like these that make me wonder if we really know anything about what were doing in response to our perceived environmental concerns. Today's post is dedicated to all those "we need to do something" meddlers who just can't seem to sit still.Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.Yup, $8.6 Million. (This is the part where I pontificate about one of the biggest design flaws inherent to large, bureaucratic governments- especially in scenarios like these.) Now that evidence is emerging that may contradict some previously good intentions, will anything be done about it? Should anything be done? Now that the USS Indiana is already full-steam ahead with it's current daylight savings regulations, how quickly can the ship be turned around if evasive actions are required? Hmm. Don't hold your breath. The moral of there story here: Almost no government-born solution to life's biggest challenges ever delivers as advertised.
Something new (and possibly controversial) from the DailyTech website. Michael Asher blogs about new evidence that the Earth's climate is actually cooling. And unlike all of the Global Warming rhetoric, this one is way beyond just theory or speculation..."Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases."Ouch! My narcissistic ego just took a major blow after that one.
"Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70."And all the while, the dopes at places like FlexYourPower.Org are tying to convince us that Global Warming is something we need to fight together, by changing our light bulbs and washing our laundry with cold water instead of hot.
I'm sure that even the Left-of-Center, pro-big-government inhabitants of the City by the Bay are a little miffed about this one..."Although it sounds very well intentioned, and perhaps even necessary, I'm concerned this is a case where eco-chic has gone out of control"What's even funnier is that Mr. Mirikarimi is the only member of the Green Party that sits on the city of San Francicso's Board of Supervisors!
...officials in the Newsom administration say that even 25 people working on climate issues is not enough and that having a director in the mayor's inner circle is necessary to coordinate all the city's climate initiatives.Wow! If there's one thing that our friends up north know so well, it's how to expand government. I'm sure the pioneers who settled this great city long ago are now spinning in their graves.
It's a gas, gas, gas..."We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."-Dr. Henrik Svensmark
Taken from the National Post's excellent 2007 series "The Deniers." I consider this article (and the series) a must-read for anyone looking for a balanced approach to the hysteria of Global Warming...With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.Over-hyped? That may be a fair assumption considering the amount of green (the other kind) that has been pumped into research with anything having even the most remote link to global warming over the past decade.
Meteorologist/Rebel..."It is the greatest scam in History. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a scam."
From the "Now I've Seen Everything" File...While he acknowledged that scientists are unable to predict its consequences, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.Really Mr. Mayor? So even though we can't be sure about the consequences of global warming we should go ahead and just have World governments start legislating and putting tabs on people's personal liberties anyway? Sounds like a great plan! Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Other participants in the conference called for a "war" against climate change, in which the United Nations would serve as a front-line combatant.(I'm sure the 90% socialist members of the UN just salivate over comments like that.)
Those crazy Canucks are at it again folks. Never ones to go along with the status quo I guess."Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined."What! Are you insinuating that we aren't the center of the universe!? Was Barbara Streisand wrong? How dare you utter such words!
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."Imagine someone who has cancer worrying about an ingrown toe-nail and I think you'll understand what I mean.
Found this in an article last summer...."Ethanol has been dramatically oversold as a green energy source"Surprisingly the story received very little coverage from mainstream media sources. Go figure.
Most ethanol plants are built in rural areas and are sold as major job-producing engines, but Becker said the tons of pollution the plants churn out will have a major impact on the heartland's air quality and, consequently, the area's quality of life.
More eco-car follies abound...
So I'm watching the Super Bowl post-game show last night. The show, sponsored by automotive giant GM was used to showcase their planned release of a new Cadillac Escalade... HYBRID in 2009. That's right, a 403HP V8, 7,000 lb., 23-inch rim, 8 passenger behemoth. Now why would GM spend all that money to build and market a fuel-sipping version of a vehicle that is most likely the anti-Christ of the Eco-Movement? Add to that the fact that most of the market for these types of vehicles is made up of rap-thugs, professional athletes and uppity executive-types working for evil multinational corporations. So does this mean that the idea of conserving energy really appeals to these types of people? You mean that these people may actually have a conscience about these things? Maybe, maybe not. The GM market-research department obviously thinks so.
For whom the (Kyoto) bell tolls...
There's a new form of character assassination...
