Denier Quote of the Day...

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

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)

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...?

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!

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

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)

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?

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.