We'll make it up in Volume!

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.

Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says

According to a recent study, something that we all thought would be a good idea to reduce energy usage (and hence save the planet) may not really be having the desired effect. University of California Economics Professor Matthew Kotchen used the good folks from the great state of Indiana as guinea pigs for a three year study of their energy usage. Here's a little of what he found...

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.

Americans are funny. They pay tons in taxes and almost always get a negative return on investment. What's even funnier is that most don't seem to care. But when the kid at the McDonalds drive-thru gives us regular coke instead of diet coke we're ready to call in an air-strike. Go-figure.

The Final Nail?

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...

Temperature Monitors Report Wide-scale Global Cooling

Of course as we all know, many global warming alarmists had quietly anticipated such a scenario; hence the subtle (and quite brilliant) branding change from Global Warming to the all-encompassing "catch-all" Climate Change.

Mr. Asher notes (as have I) that the latest evidence points to the Sun being exponentially more influential on our planet's climate than all of the human impact combined...

"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.

Absolutely amazing. Billions of dollars spent, countless hours of research and heated debate only to find out that the only real threat of serious climate change would need to start with a dramatic change to how the Sun affects the Earth. Deep down, I think most of us already knew that by the time we were five years old.

By the way, have you ever heard of a little thing called the winter solstice or the summer equinox? These terms are not new, they've been around for almost as long as we have. This would explain why places like St. Louis Missouri are frigid in January and sweltering in August. Just like they should be. And guess what, none of these solstices or equinoxes or even Goldi-lockses exist unless the Sun says so...

On a more sobering note, Mr. Asher also points out something that actually makes sense about why many of us would prefer a warming Earth to a cooling 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.

This is all very confusing...

A Vegetarian Gravy Train

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...

Mayor's climate aide gets $160,000 a year

Talk about generous. The taxpayers of San Francisco are the best in the World! I'm sure other city and state governments around the country are green with envy. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us), not every city can be like San Francisco.

I think SF Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi sums it up best...

"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!

Someone refresh my failing memory... what was I saying a few weeks ago about "the road to hell?"

As expected, official's with Mayor Newsom's administration shot back with this...

...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.

Surprisingly after reading all this, I have only one question... Where do I apply?

Denier Quote of the Day...

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
Weather Scientist- Danish National Space Centre
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming- London Telegraph (Nov. 2, 2007)

Now, all we have to do is figure out how to reduce all this darn water vapor that's in the air...

About Face?

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...

Allegre's second thoughts

Dr. Claude Allegre; this guy practically "invented" the whole Global Warming phenomenon we know today. After more than a decade of research and debate however, it would appear that Mr. Allegre may be coming down with a severe case of objectivity...

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.

If it feels good... (Part 1)

The irreverent wit of Penn & Teller kicks off this series that focuses on one of the holy sacraments of of the Environmental movement... Recycling.

In this episode (taken from their HBO series affectionately titled "Bulls**t") P&T do a great job of illustrating the many concepts, myths and perceptions surrounding the practice of recycling. More importantly however, P&T end up shrewdly dissecting probably the most underpinning premise of why so many of us end up becoming Eco-$uckers in the first place; that most people are driven more by emotion than logic whenever they evaluate a situation and formulate a perception. Whether it's what car to buy or what TV show to watch (or what candidate to vote for), we are creatures that are driven into action by what we desire rather than what makes sense. It's like going to the dentist, your head says "yes" but your heart screams "No!"

* Due to Penn's over-productive potty-mouth, this video is probably not appropriate for work.

Denier Quote of the Day...

Meteorologist/Rebel...

"It is the greatest scam in History. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a scam."

- John Coleman

Meteorologist
Founder of the Weather Channel

*Obligatory Disclaimer: The views and opinions of Weather Channel employees does not necessarily represent those of the Weather Channel or it's advertisers (especially when big chunks of money are involved)

Mouse? Elephant? No difference.

From the "Now I've Seen Everything" File...

Mayor Compares Threat of Global Warming to Terrorism

That's right. The mayor of one of the largest cities on the planet is basically proclaiming that the end result of alleged global warming is pretty much equivalent to what many of us have witnessed over the past few years. You know... assassinations, thousands of dead and injured laying strewn about. Religious zealots who strap explosives to mentally reatarded people and send them into a crowded marketplace. Yeah, that's about the same. Hey, and the next time someone has to ship an elephant across the country they can argue for a much lower rate since an elephant and a mouse are about the same too. I mean, they are both four-legged mammals after all.

From the get-go, this article seems to (as they say in New York) "stink from the neck down..."

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?

And what about this?

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.)

War against climate change? Does that mean that the U.S. can now consider places like China a "terrorist supporting country or regime?" Does this mean that military action against the likes of China and India could be feasible? Fictional newsfeed: Today the U.S. military conducted several missile strikes against strategic targets in China. Several of these targets were locations considered hi-value in terms of greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions.

What's most troubling is the guy saying it. I mean it might be different if it was the mayor of Los Angeles or Chicago, but New York? Thousands of New Yorkers witnessed first-hand the end-result of terrorist activity back in 2001. Would any of then agree with their Mayor's premise?

Repeat. Now I've seen everything.

Here Comes the Sun (Not!)

Those crazy Canucks are at it again folks. Never ones to go along with the status quo I guess.

While everyone else is losing sleep over the supposed catastrophic effects of global warming, these scientists are genuinely worried about the next ice age...Really. Check this out:

The Sun Also Sets

Although I have a feeling they might have quite a bit trouble getting funding for this study, since everyone knows that the big money is in pushing the whole meltdown scenario. Perhaps they never got their new copy of Time magazine or Newsweek (Guys, the new tag line is "warming" not "cooling." Did you not get the memo?). And here's just a sample of their heresy...

"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!

No seriously. Who would have guessed... that little ball of fire in the sky has a lot to do with the weather and climate and just everything else on our planet.

And what about this...

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.

Too good to be true?

Found this in an article last summer....

'Green' Energy Source a Major Polluter

"Ethanol has been dramatically oversold as a green energy source"

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.

Surprisingly the story received very little coverage from mainstream media sources. Go figure.

A Shocking Revelation

More eco-car follies abound...

ZAP! (which apparently stands for 'Zero Air Pollution') A new electric car company based in Santa Rosa, CA (where else) has begun promoting it's line of electric "zero-emissions" vehicles. Wouldn't it be great to get one of these instead of driving around in your awful fossil fuel powered polluter? Think about how great you'll feel about yourself! How everyone will adore you because you're such a wonderful person who obviously cares about the environment!

Now after that feeling has passed, you may want to have a look at this...

Sources of Electricity Generation in the U.S. (2005)

Question: Where did the electricity that you used to charge your new Zap come from? Did the place it came from produce any carbon emissions while generating that electricity?

Now, I'm not sure how accurate this graph is (after all it is 2005), but from what I see just about half of the electricity in the U.S. in 2005 was generated using coal (52.3% if you include petroleum). I'm no expert, but if I remember, the only way to extract energy to generate electricity from coal is to burn it. And if I'm not mistaken when you burn coal it emits bad stuff into the air. Now, if everyone in the U.S. suddenly switched over to driving an electric car, what would that do for overall electricity demand? That's right, demand would skyrocket and the only way to meet this increased demand quickly and in a cost-effective way would be to build more coal-fired generation plants. And just for starters, building these new plants requires huge amounts of energy. How is all of that required energy produced and do those sources pollute?

And don't forget, your car is polluting only when it's running, a coal-fired generator is most likely on 24/7.

I think the real question boils down to this: what is more "polluting," a modern gasoline engine or a modern coal-fired generating station? I'm not really sure, but here's the moral of this story: You're really not as wonderful as you originally thought. It's true, you may genuinely have the greatest intentions by picking up one of these high-voltage beauties, but you know what they say about the road to Hell... in the end, no one will give a rat's ass about what kind of car you were driving.

So, can we please refrain from promoting this absurd emotionally-laced idea that if there's no smoke coming out of your tail-pipe you're somehow not polluting? If you truly believe that to be the case however, please do me a favor and enroll in the next physics class at your local high-school.

Pimps (Heart) the Planet

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.

What I really want to know is whether the decision by GM to build and market a hybrid vehicle that's bigger than a breadbox was driven more by consumer demand or by government regulation. That answer in my humble opinion, is the most revealing yet...