Al Gore... Repent!

A stern message from the folks at the First Baptist Church...

Consider yourself warned...

The word is: "Backfire"

This morning's post is warmly dedicated to all those do-gooders and their knee-jerk-spring-into-action-we've-got-to-do-something narcissism. I don't know how many times we need to go over this but I guess it bears repeating...

The rush to expand the use of so-called bio-fuels in order to save the environment, help our poor (tax-payer subsidized) farmers and allow us to top-off our tanks guilt-free also seems to be having a negative effect on the World's food prices. Did you get that?

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...

EU defends biofuel goals amid food crises

That's right. Amidst all of the hysteria, people are now starting to see evidence that one our first forays into pro-active environmental protection ain't turning out the results we had hoped for. Who's idea was this anyway? I think the opening line of this story says it all...

"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.

So, if you're one of those proud Greenies driving around in your new Flex-Fuel vehicle, don't be surprised if you suddenly get the finger from a fellow commuter for no apparent reason. These kinds of stories are growing legs...

But wait, there's more. Andrew Martin over at the NYT discusses the bio-fuel conundrum even further, pointing out that the production of Bio-fuel may actually be quite detrimental to our environment...

Food Crises and Finger-Pointing

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!

Stiki Wiki

Over at IceCap, Lawrence Solomon has come across something rather fishy happening at Wikipedia...

Wikipedia’s Zealots - Caught Falsifying Information to Support Alarmist Position

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I admit, sometimes when I'm bored, I head over to Wikipedia to read about things like The Largest Ball of Twine on Earth or how the term "Jumping the Shark" came into existence. It's a great place for some trivial entertainment, but like most people with an IQ over 60, I avoid it like the plague when it comes to gathering information on controversial topics such as Climate Change.

Pander Mode: ON

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.

Bush to shift on climate change

Shift? From what to what? Not really sure. As any good politician would do, the President and his cabinet have recently developed a "comprehensive plan" to combat increased green-house gas emissions and at the same time keep us from destroying our economy. Talk about a high-wire act...

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?

All hope does not appear lost however, as Bush still may have some wits about him with regards to possible solutions to this apparent global crisis...

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.

Seems like a lot of people resort to really strange behavior when they're not as popular as they used to be. No wonder he has lost so much favor with those who consider themselves limited- government Conservatives.

Beware! The Light Bulb Police.

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.)

Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act: Thank You Michele Bachmann

Unfortunately, this is no joke folks. We are at a point in our collective history where we need to actually fight for the right to choose what kind of light bulbs we have in our homes and businesses. Like the folks at Copius Dissent, I also urge you to contact your congressional representative and ask that they lend their full support to this bill.

Let the Games Begin!

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.

The Olympic Torch = Menace to the Climate

I'm not sure if this some sort of new revelation for Mr. Bidinotto, but so many of us have been dealing with this kind of crap for years. I think it might be easier to absorb these kinds of things if you just take a moment and repeat quietly to yourself, the mantra of our societal elites...

Do as I say... Not as I do.

See how easy that was?

Always Follow the Money...

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...

Global warming profiteers are wrong

Monckton who has for years, publicly challenged the likes of Al Gore to an open debate on Global Warming (challenges which Gore has apparently never responded to) highlights some very interesting tidbits regarding this cottage industry...

"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.

Although somewhat rudimentary, Monckton also likes to point out a few apparent discrepancies with Global Warming alarmists and their iconic depiction of our polar caps melting away leaving nowhere for the poor polar bears to sleep...

"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.

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."

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?

The one question we need to really ask is who is making more money amidst all of this... climate change alarmists or the so-called deniers? Tough question, but I think you know the answer.

Only 47% Flawed

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.

Climate panel on the hot seat

In his commentary, Burnett summarizes some of the criticism now surrounding the IPCC's basic scientific techniques that originally led them to conclude such dire consequences for the planet as a result of global warming...

"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.

Specifically regarding the IPCC 2001 climate report, Burnett also notes...

"..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?

Another study analyzing the methods employed by the IPCC 2001 study went even further...

"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.