Eco-$ucker

Make Mine Plastic

2008-07-31T13:53:00.000-07:00

Plastic bags, long demonized by the Greenie Left. Sure they want to save the seals, birds and turtles. But who gives a f**k if 4000 people eventually lose their jobs? Extinct is forever as they say.

Well guess what, Attorney Stephen Joseph is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore!

Save The Plastic Bag

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.

Denier Quote of the Day...

2008-07-25T14:20:00.000-07:00

"As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up."

-James A. Peden
Former Atmospheric Physicist
Space Research and Coordination Center
July 14, 2008

Denial Down Under

2008-07-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

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...

No Smoking Hot Spot

Dr. Evans, the self-proclaimed "rocket-scientist" was in charge of developing and implmementing the Australian Governments FullCAM carbon emissions accounting program which measured the country's Kyoto Protocol compliance efforts. When he initially began the job in 1999, Dr. Evans, like most of his collegaues truly belived that there was a very strong link between human-borne CO2 emissions and increases in global tempreatures despite the fact there was virtually no emprical evidence to prove so...

"When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects."

But hey, why be so critical when you're on the government gravy train?

"The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet."

Little did Dr. Evans know however, that over the next few years he would invaribly come to the conclusion that the empircal evidence on which any reprutable scientist relies, still had not surfaced...

"...since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming."

And so unlike many of his other colleagues, Dr. Evans has made the decision to publicly announce his dissent from the so-called consensus on human-borne climate change. A move often rife with ridicule and character assasination. And for all the political hyperbole about saving the planet and it's inhabitants. Dr. Evans brings to light something very, very sobering...

"The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory."

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...

Denier Quote of the Day...

2008-07-21T14:24:00.000-07:00

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

-Dr. Fred W. Decker

Professor of Meteorology

Oregon State University

June 23, 2008

It's Over?

2008-07-11T13:27:00.000-07:00

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...

Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun

No before you start poo-pooing this book by it's cover, I strongly suggest looking into the prepared statement becuase to be honest, the guy does sound like he's got a pretty firm grip on his evidence.

"According to Mr. Casey, who spoke to print and TV media representatives today, this next cold era is coming about as a result of the reversal of the 206 year cycle of the sun which he independently discovered and announced in May of 2007."

Again with the Sun!? BTW, who the hell are these guys?

Ah debate! But isn't this what science is all about? (I mean real science, not Al-Gore, Hollywood special-effects kind of science). And from what I've read so far, it looks like these guys are spoiling for a fight. According to Casey and his network of internanational colleagues, we'd better get ready for the big chill. I mean, really ready...

“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.

And check this out, Casey really goes after the decades of flip-flopping by science and media regarding the subject of climate change. It's enough to give you whiplash...

"In the one hour presentation, Casey detailed the solar activity cycles that have been driving the Earth’s climate for the past 1,200 years. He condemned the climate change confusion and alarmism which has accompanied seven separate periods over the past 100 years, where scientists and the media flip-flopped on reporting that the Earth was either entering a new ‘ice age’ or headed for a global meltdown where melting glacial ice would swamp the planet’s coastal cities. "

So unlike what you may have heard before, a raging debate continues and we're all along for the ride.

Lizards Aren't Cute Like Polar Bears

2008-06-09T10:49:00.000-07:00

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...

New Fossils Suggest Ancient Cat-sized Reptiles in Antarctica

According to research, the now frozen tundras of Antarctica were once home to reptiles "the size of cats" Really...

"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.

It Slices, It Dices.

2008-06-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

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...

Machine to clean up greenhouse gas is breakthrough in war on global warming, say scientists

That's right folks, free enterprise and the spirit of innovation strike again.

According to the article however, this kind of non-oppressive approach to a potential problem has many environmentalists on the climate-change-vegan-gravy-train in a bit of an uproar...

"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.

Now how much would you pay? Don't answer just yet. Order in the next 10 minutes and we'll send you a second unit absolutely free!

Billions With a "B"

2008-05-27T09:23:00.000-07:00

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?

Well, from the folks that brought you the scantly publicized, yet highly lucrative Oil-For-Food scandal comes a new story of greed, deception and lust (ok, maybe not lust- that's a different UN story)

Billions wasted on UN climate programme

Now for those of you who know a thing or two about the UN, this story may not come as much of a surprise, after all the UN has been criticized numerous times in the past for their propensity towards feebleness in many situations where true leadership was needed. Well this is no doubt, just another textbook example. According to the article, here's just some of the charges being leveled against the UN in their latest folly to save the planet from too much carbon emissions...

"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.

Reminds me of when my Mom used to sell Xango.

Just Remember...

2008-05-26T09:05:00.001-07:00

Memorial Day 2008

Propaganda Film Watch

2008-05-23T10:54:00.000-07:00

Although it was originally aired in late 2005, Doomsday Called Off still packs quite a punch in terms of questioning whether the science and causes of climate change are truly settled. This documentary, produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) features a number of prominent scientists who do a fairly good job of keeping the whole idea of scientific debate alive and well.

If you're a fan of the infamous "hockey-stick" temperature data often cited by the UN IPCC as a guide to their policy development, you will throughly enjoy this contrasting take on what all this evidence really means. I consider Doomsday Called Off required viewing for all Global Warming deniers...

Don't Ass-u-me.

2008-05-21T14:36:00.000-07:00

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?
As with all things... Buyer beware.

So like many globally-conscious people out there, maybe you are now leaning towards purchasing more "green" products. I would argue of course that this has more to do with the emotional boost (however short-lived) that comes from purchasing products that supposedly are easy on the environment, versus any real net effect that they may (or may not) have. Remember, most people buy more based on emotion than logic.

Be honest, have you ever really thought about whether the so-called "green"products you buy are actually (read: scientifically) better for the planet? Or do you just take the manufacturers word for it? If you take the manufacturers word for it... there's a good chance that you may be an Eco-$ucker

On that note, here's a new story from the UK regarding a recent study performed by the staff of Auto Express magazine. In a recent test, these brave men and women dared to ask... Are hybrid cars which are touted as better for the environment, really better for the environment? You decide...

Eco-friendly claims for ‘hybrid’ cars dismissed as gimmickry

That's right. According to the team at Auto Express, what we once assumed was true about hybrid vehicles, may not be true at all...

Know someone who drives a Honda Civic Hybrid? The Auto Express team didn't have many good things to say about that particular ride...

The Honda Civic hybrid, regarded widely as one of the lowest emitting cars, performed the worst in the tests.
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”.

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.

In the auto sales business, they often use the term "buyers remorse." I suspect that a few more cases of such an affliction will be recorded by years end. BTW, anyone know a good lemon lawyer?

Narcissists of the World Unite!

2008-05-20T14:44:00.000-07:00

Comedian George Carlin takes a moment to discuss the tendency of humans to feel like we are somehow the center of the universe... especially when it comes to the things like the environment. I don't often catch much of his material, but I found this segment especially humorous and quite relevant. Carlin uses some R-Rated language for dramatic effect, so it's probably safe to say that this one isn't safe for work. I do urge you to sit back when you do have time and have a good laugh. After all, you've earned it!

Heretics on Parade

2008-05-19T13:22:00.000-07:00

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...

Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

The reason behind the petition? Very simple...

"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.

Denier Quote of the Day...

2008-05-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

“Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing. All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist
University of Wisconsin
Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
UN Global 500 Roll of Honor
February 2007

Rules are Rules

2008-05-13T15:35:00.000-07:00

When are you people going to realize that no one shall be exempt from the established rules regarding recycling? No, not even 96-year-old WWII veterans will receive any mercy from the High-Court of Environmentalism. You will save the Earth and you will like it! Now, back in line...

War veteran, 96, has rubbish uncollected for two weeks for 'crime' of putting two jars in wrong bin

From War Veteran to Eco-Criminal

And the Norwich City Council's only response... ""rules have to be obeyed"

See, I told you.

She's a .10

2008-05-09T10:31:00.001-07:00

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...

According to the latest from the NOAA Satellite and Information Service website, most of us here in LA-LA Land can rest assured that our notice of the cooler weather is more than just subjective...

"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.

Al Gore... Repent!

2008-04-30T14:25:00.001-07:00

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

Consider yourself warned...

The word is: "Backfire"

2008-04-18T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-16T12:17:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-04-11T13:18:00.001-07:00

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!

2008-04-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-04-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-03T14:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Corny

2008-03-27T14:12:00.000-07:00

A reader recently sent me the following cartoon. Seems appropriate to post, considering all of my recent alternative-fuels rants. Thanx Ric! Enjoy...

Artist Credit: Michael Ramirez

John Stossel Slaps Back

2008-03-26T15:17:00.000-07:00

I've got to admit that the only time I remember seeing John Stossel was when he got b**ch-slapped by pro wrestler "Dr. D." during the early days of his career. (Man, that's good TV!) As the years wore on however, Mr. Stossel has not only recovered, but flourished in a niche career as an investigative journalist. Although most of the key points he addresses in this segment on Global Warming have already been dissected many times over, I find some of the information he reveals well worth the time. Plus, you can't miss the footage of John interviewing a bunch of elementary kids on the subject of Global Warming. It's fairly creepy to watch them respond to his questions like programmed robots...

Too good to be true Two?

2008-03-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

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...

Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel

That's right. Further evidence from the EU that even the best intentions... (well, you know the rest)

Professor Bob Watson urges us to do something rare amidst all of this eco-chic, global warming hysteria... think carefully:

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!

And don't forget about what some of us have heard about the effect bio-fuel mania will have on the World's food prices. Most Bio-fuel is made from basic food staples like corn and potatoes. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Johh Beddington, the [UK] government's current chief scientific adviser had to say about it...

John Beddington, the government's current chief scientific adviser, has already expressed scepticism about biofuels. At a speech in Westminster this month he said demand for biofuels from the US had delivered a "major shock" to world agriculture, which was raising food prices globally. "There are real problems with the unsustainability of biofuels," he said, adding that cutting down rainforest to grow the crops was "profoundly stupid".

"Profoundly stupid?" Yeah, I'd agree with that John...

The Planet has a Cold

2008-03-17T10:11:00.000-07:00

New information regarding recent winter temperature data has just been released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I'm not going to draw any conclusions on what I've read so far, but these seem to be the kinds of things that make it difficult for global warming doom-sayers to get any kind of traction these days...

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

If you look at the graphic provided by NOAA (below), you can see that much of the Western U.S. experienced mostly below average temps this past winter (by the way, it still feels like winter here in Southern California- Brrrr!)

You will also see that that parts of the South and Eastern U.S. experienced above normal temps. So what does this all mean?

Again, I'm not going to try and draw an conclusions from this, but "it is what it is." As I discussed in a previous post (The Final Nail?) I think we should all be more concerned about cooling temperatures rather than warming temperatures. It's a fact, the former is much more detrimental to life as we know it.

One other thing. The report also discussed recent precipitation data from this past winter and notes...

"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.

What I do know, is that a nice hot bowl of soup would really hit the sport right about now...

I agree. But do it anyway...

2008-03-14T13:09:00.000-07:00

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...

Scientists trash plastic bag ban

You see, when we have what appears to be a legitimate scientific source negating many of the "so-called" facts regarding the environmental impact of plastic shopping bags, the person is immediately labeled a kook, or at the very least on the payroll of the Plastic Bag Industry (anyone have proof of that?). By the way, how much coverage do you think this particular story is going to get?

On the other hand, when "legitimate" scientific sources tell us that the Earth is going to melt in 10 years unless everyone gives up their SUVs, we're supposed to swallow it like gospel. Without question. This is the kind of thing that makes me reach for the Advil.

As far as the bags are concerned, the story points out some flaws in the original pretense that I'm sure will be conveniently glossed over...

"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."

Why don't you guys give me a wake up call when you've reached a final answer.

Also included in the story is a quote from Lord Taverne (I know, cool name) who heads up a non-profit think-tank known as Sense About Science. This guy wins the quote of the day award and possibly of the year...

"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.

Deep Thoughts at the UN

2008-03-07T15:18:00.000-08:00

The geniuses at the UN have recently admitted to having a shocking revelation regarding climate change...

No way to fix climate without private sector: UNDP

That's right. They've come to the conclusion that a large bloated global bureaucracy cannot solve all of the ills of this World. Imagine that. While I don't agree in any way that their misguided premise (i.e. the need to fight "climate change") they do admit that they can't really save the planet alone. Maybe they've figured out that the best way to foster a truly innovative atmosphere is to just leave people alone and let them figure it out for themselves, instead of regulating and legislating them into submission. But I won't hold my breath.

By the way, do we really need to fix the climate? I didn't know it was ever broken.

This nice, short article is pure comedy from the get-go. Check out this profound statement by Kemal Dervis, head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)..

"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.

How about this guys... let consumers figure our what they want to do about this issue and what they expect the companies they buy products from to do if they want to stay in business.

Dear UN Team, ...If evil dictator warlords thumb their noses at the UN, what makes you think corporations will not do the same? They fear the consumer... not you.

Violence is the Answer

2008-03-03T15:48:00.001-08:00

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.

Suspicious Fire Burns Luxury Homes in Seattle Suburb; Explosives Found and ELF Suspected

And while, members of ELF are still only suspects in the particular case, their violent history in the name of environmental causes has been well documented over the years. Not that I'd ever advocate stooping to such levels, but wouldn't it be hilarious if someone found out where these losers lived and burned down their houses? Hey, I'm just an Anti-Eco-Terrorist-Terrorist.

Eco-Terrorist. Always seemed like an oxy-moron to me. Or perhaps it was just the "moron" part that stood out.

Funny Headlines

2008-03-01T08:38:00.000-08:00

I know it's purely anecdotal, but headlines like this always make me laugh. Courtesy of Drudge...

NH winter carnival activities canceled -- due to too much winter!

Looks like the Cardboard Box Sled Derby will be postponed until Friday. That sucks. I'm sure the good folks in New Hampshire are wondering what happened to all that Global Warming (er, I mean Climate Change) they ordered...

We'll make it up in Volume!

2008-02-27T09:05:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-26T15:42:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-22T12:59:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-02-20T16:14:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-20T10:21:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-02-14T10:02:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-02-13T15:12:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-02-12T14:06:00.000-08:00

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!)

2008-02-08T15:16:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-07T10:11:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-05T12:09:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-04T08:20:00.000-08:00

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...

Denier Quote of the Day...

2008-01-24T12:30:00.000-08:00

For whom the (Kyoto) bell tolls...

“If, back in the mid- 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

-An open letter from 60 climate scientists to
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Financial Post, Thursday, April 06, 2006

Burn It Like Beckham

2008-01-24T09:24:00.000-08:00

There's a new form of character assassination...

Beckham leaves massive global 'footprint'

And size does matter. Apparently we're moving into an era where you will also be judged by the size of your carbon footprint (whatever the hell that is).

Question(s): How will Becks and his lovely wife Victoria be treated when this news reaches all of their Hollywood-Earth-Loving-
Where's-the-next-charity-event-so-I-can-smooze- and-get-my-picture-taken friends? Will they be ostracized for this ghastly infraction or will the whole thing be conveniently overlooked during the cocktail hour?

Oh wait I forgot, these are the Elite. These types of mortal conventions don't apply to them. When they get on TV and urge us to use less electricity or to start recycling more they don't mean them, they of course mean you and me. Do as I say, not as I do.

Perhaps we should also extrapolate this concept and apply it to all of the current presidential candidates running around out there. List each one along with their current carbon footprints. This should make selecting a president much easier. Forget about their economics and their ideas regarding national security, I want a president with the smallest footprint.

I'm sorry Mr. Fisher, your loan could not be approved. Unfortunately your carbon score is just way too high... Next!

Be Happy! (That's an order)

2008-01-23T12:29:00.000-08:00

Paper or Plastic? That question may soon be irrelevant in Los Angeles county.

County Board Votes To Reduce Plastic Bag Use

Why? Because some small group of elites has already decided that the rest of us do not have the mental capacity to make this decision on our own. That you are not intelligent enough to take in information that is relevant to you and your world and make up your own mind about what action you will take. After all, people cannot be trusted to do good on their own accord, they must be forced to be good (or pay the consequences).

Here's a particualrly disturbing passage...

"The board also voted to pursue state legislation that would allow the county and other jurisdictions to impose a fee on every plastic bag used by shoppers."

Question: Why do people like these hate those with low-incomes so much? Who does a fee like this penalize? Rich guys like me who light our Cohibas with $100 bills or those who need to make every penny count?

Is it any wonder that California has earned the nickname "The Nanny State?"

Rock you like a...?

2008-01-23T09:04:00.000-08:00

Fresh off of the wires...

Study: Warming May Cut US Hurricane Hits

See, and you thought that Global Warming was all bad....

"Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research. The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made global warming may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes."

I thought that the increased occurrence and destructive force of hurricanes due to global warming was a major fear-factor/selling-point? This leaves me very confused...

Clashing research? Contradictory data? Why say it ain't so! Sounds like a little thing called science and debate going on folks. You may want to have the kids leave the room...

It's not Used... It's Pre-Owned!

2008-01-22T13:05:00.001-08:00

This is why people who understand the fine art of marketing now use the term Climate Change versus Global Warming

Arctic chill stretches coast to coast

When record high temps are being reported, it's due to global warming.
When record low temps are being reported, it's due to global warming, er... climate change.

I think Time Magazine got it right the first time in 1974...

"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."

Question: If scientific research evolves and later contradicts previously held positions on a particular subject, would we be aware of it? Will there be some big announcement? Or is it like the whole "tree in the forest thing?" In other words, if they don't widely report contradicting evidence does it mean it's only because it's not true?

To be honest, I'd prefer a warming trend over a cooling trend. I'm from California, we can't take much...

The Ice Bowl Cometh

2008-01-22T10:00:00.000-08:00

Global Warming didn't seem to be much of a factor in this weekends NFC Championship game...

Giants, NFC Fans Freezing but Having Fun

"At kickoff, the temperature was 1 below zero with a wind chill of 23 below. The temperature dropped slightly over the course of the evening in the second-coldest home game in Packers' history behind the Ice Bowl at 13 below and the third-coldest game after the 1981 AFC championship game in Cincinnati, where it was 9 below zero."

I guess that's one less excuse for you Packers fans.

Pretty much the same for the AFC Championship as well...

Cold weather at the AFC Championship

"The thermometer never ventured outside the 20's during the AFC Championship game at Gillette Stadium."

I'm sure there were a number of Chargers fans who were secretly praying for even a little global warming action this past Sunday. Every bit helps right?

Blasphemous Rumor Watch (#1)

2008-01-17T13:16:00.000-08:00

There's a new, long and somewhat boring (unless you're a scientist of course) study that was released in the December 2007 edition of the International Journal of Climatology...

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

You'll need to register to read the whole thing, but here's a somewhat digestible bit...

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 "Climate of the 20th Century" model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

When I translate this into English, it would seem that what these two climatology researchers are really saying is that the increased temperatures that were predicted by previous (and sacred) computer models are off by quite a bit. Unless this report is total crap, I'm not sure if it's such a good idea to continue making all kinds of dramatic changes based on what looks like some fairly shaky data. Do you?

So my only question is... What should be done with these heretics folks? Obviously on the payroll of Big Oil...

Trans-Fat & Global Warming?

2008-01-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

Have you noticed that you can't turn on the TV, radio or browse the internet lately without some company trying to make you believe that they are doing their best to be "green?" From soy milk made using wind-power to cars that run off of strawberry jam, companies are falling all over themselves in an effort to make you believe that they genuinely care about the alleged state of the Earth's eco-system. Do they really care? If you answered "yes" to that question, perhaps you may want to check yourself into the local mental health center (at least for a few days). Sure the people who work for these companies may genuinely care in some varying degrees about the alleged state of our planet, but that's not really the point . Remember, most companies and corporations are considered independent entities. How they function and what they do is the result of an ongoing conglomeration of ideas, perceptions and opinions rather than the result of a agenda-driven ideology concocted by a single individual. The activities of a company are not always reflective of the people who work there. The bottom line here is that as a whole, most companies couldn't give rat's ass about any of this eco-nonsense other than the fact that it has a proven and noticeable impact on potential revenue. That's it. And that's the key.

I can still remember the CEO of a company I recently worked for, during one of his recent all-hands meetings address this new green phenomena. He said almost laughingly... "Now, I'm not going to stand here and try and convince you all that things like [man-made] global warming are real. Whether any one of you believes in this or not, isn't really pertinent. What is pertinent, is that the perception is already out there amongst our customers and potential customers." Wow.

Now for some of my new readers who think that I'm about to launch into some anti-capitalist, evil corporation, Che Guevara induced rant, I urge you to continue on. I am nothing if not pro-capitalist. I believe that the best solution to most of the world's ills lies in the free-market and the empowerment of all people through sound economics. And the current "eco-mania" craze that has recently infested most corporations of the world, is a perfect example of why capitalism and free-markets are much better at developing solutions (with less negative side-effects) to alleged issues such as global warming. Why...?

Historically, which entity do you suppose has responded to and fulfilled the needs and desires of the masses faster... the free market or bureaucratic legislators?

For example, if tomorrow, it is concluded through vast amounts of research, that the majority of Americans really, really like pictures of parakeets wearing hats, well then guess what, in less than a week you'd see... that's right, pictures of parakeets in hats adorning almost every piece of packaging and advertising that crossed your path (in reality TV, this is known as the "American Idol effect"). Now, while that is somewhat silly example, think about stuff like "trans-fat." Somewhere not long ago, some study said that's it's a good idea to reduce our trans-fat intake. For whatever reason, that particular study received quite a bit of media attention. And from that attention a consumer perception quickly evolved (i.e. trans fat = bad) The next morning we all woke up and found that everything in the supermarket was suddenly emblazoned with the words "No trans-fat." What is trans-fat anyway? I don't know except that I've been told that's it's bad for me. And since the perception is that it's bad, all of the companies that produce the food I eat (or will potentially buy) want me to know right away that their product ain't got none of that bad stuff. Why? Well unlike some big government bureaucracy, the simple truth is that most companies won't survive if they don't quickly cater to consumer perceptions... whether it's trans-fat, global warming or yes, even strawberry jam. As consumers, I think we often forget that we hold the upper-hand, even amongst these large, evil multinationals.

So, do companies really need to be strong-armed by some bloated government agency into doing something if the consumer already needs or desires it? The answer: No. See, this is the beauty of capitalism.. the ongoing birth of opportunities. Corporations spend billions of dollars every year trying to get inside our heads to find out what really pleases us. Do you think the current clamor of alternative fuel vehicle development was all due to the government? You'd better think twice. Researchers have long noted that the ongoing perception among consumers is that gas prices are just getting way too high. Automobile manufacturers realized that they better do something and quickly. They didn't need some bureaucrat to tell them that. Buying gas is a direct operational cost of owning a car right? If the operational cost of driving a car gets too high what do you think that does to car sales? Do you think Ford, GM or Toyota are just going to sit around twittling their thumbs while this happens? Think again.