Remember it’s summer down there in the Antarctic…
Here’s The Spectator’s headline: “Global Warming’s Glorious Ship of Fools“.
Ockham’s Razor – Since October 2001 – by Scott Kirwin
Archive for the ‘Energy & Global Warming’ Category.
Remember it’s summer down there in the Antarctic…
Here’s The Spectator’s headline: “Global Warming’s Glorious Ship of Fools“.
I live on a small river that grows for hundreds of miles before turning into one of the largest rivers in the American southeast. It is home to numerous freshwater fish species, reptiles, birds – all types of flora and fauna. In the Summer people drift down it in kayaks and inner tubes and people fish it around the year. At times I can hear the rumble of the river through my open windows, at other times it is silenced. I have seen it flooded and I have seen it so low it seemingly struggles to wind its way past the boulders in its bed. It is nowhere near as grand as the Mississippi or Delaware rivers, but it is a noble river in its own way especially since it is thought to be one of the oldest rivers in North America. My love of rivers can be traced back to my hometown of St. Louis that sits at the confluence of two of them, so it’s perhaps no accident that I find myself living within a stone’s skip near one.
If you love rivers you are going to hate dams. You don’t have to be a tree-hugging hippy to see the damage dams cause. They drown habitats upstream from them and lay waste to those downstream making dams about as environmentally sound as strip mining. Since people tend to live near water they displace entire communities. China’s thirst for cheap power has led to its building monstrosities such as the Three Gorges Dam, perhaps the most obscene use of concrete since the Colosseum. It’s plans to develop dams throughout southeast Asia have alarmed its neighbors, and in Africa an Ethiopian project to dam the Nile is causing tense relations between it and countries downstream including the Sudan and Egypt, increasing the possibility of the world’s first war fought over water resources.
But in its zeal to promote renewable energy, New Scientist magazine has become a cheerleader for dams. On it’s July 6, 2013 cover it hails the “Age of Renewables: Green Electricity Poised to Overtake Gas.” “The Age of renewable energy is upon us. Within three years, the amount of electricity generated worldwide from wind, solar and hydro energy will exceed what is made using natural gas…” Of the renewables, hydroelectric is the heavy lifter according to a sidebar article “Top Of The Green Energy Charts” at 16% of global electricity generation in 2011, compared to only 4.2% for onshore wind, biofuels, geothermal and solar panels combined. So for this to be the age of renewables, dams will have to do the heavy lifting: “Room for development: in Africa only 8 per cent of the potential hydropower sources have been used.” Supposedly that includes the sources Ethiopia and Sudan are threatening war over.
For the first century of its existence the Army Corps of Engineers dammed nearly every free-flowing river in the country, and it was the environmentalists who fought the Corps in the courts, engineering a reversal whereby the Corps is now dismantling dams and helping to restore the habitats of land spoiled by them. Now environmentalists are changing their minds and advocating for their construction? Are they nuts?
Irrational global warming alarmism coupled with fear of nuclear power and fracking gas production have twisted the minds of environmentalists to where they are now advocating solutions they would have protested against as recently as a decade ago. “”There are now well-developed procedures for managing the sustainability of dams,” says (International Energy Agency spokesman Adam) Brown. A planned dam on the Congo river, for instance, will not flood any land: the river flows at such high volumes that a reservoir isn’t needed.” Dam sustainability makes as much sense as “clean coal”; both are oxymorons with no evidence backing them in contrast to the proven safety of nuclear power and fracking. Environmentalists attack natural gas production even though it has lowered American carbon emissions to levels not thought possible without gutting the American economy. Over 100,000 wells having been subjected to fracking, and the science regarding its safety is settled; but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the safety of fracking. Movies like Gasland and its sequel are about as scientifically honest and accurate as a poorly edited Creationist pamphlet left on a gasoline pump, yet Greens believe the lies and thereby undermine their own cause by supporting dams. My how times have changed.
At a time when European governments are cutting back their subsidies on renewable energy, a fact mentioned nowhere in the article nor considered a primary contributory to the supposed “age of renewables”, this article seems ill timed. But leaving that aside the advocating of building dams is as striking to me as saying “Go ahead and throw your garbage out of your car window while you’re driving.” Of course this is the same movement (and magazine) that supports wind turbines, ugly monstrosities that blight the landscapes and chew up birds. So perhaps it’s not just the love of dams that prove environmentalists are off their nut. After all rivers can run free and birds soar without being cut to pieces around a nuclear or gas fired power plant.
Because trees can’t lie:
The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models7, 8 indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes.
That’s global cooling baby. Better burn some carbon to fight it!
So Ryuichi Sakamoto and Kraftwerk headline an anti-nuclear power concert in Japan. Both Sakamoto and Kraftwerk are considered pioneers in the electronic music frontier, and as an avid electronic music fan myself I appreciate the music of both.
Kraftwerk Lobbies for Fossil Fuels
The interesting fact about electronic music is that by definition it requires electrons, and lots of them. One cannot play electronic music without them the way a folk musician can pick up an acoustic guitar and play folk music. Although I believe it would be intriguing to have a full acoustic orchestra play techno music, electronic music simply cannot be done without electricity, and that requires generation from fossil fuels, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear sources. Japan is only 16% energy self-sufficient, and nuclear power provides 13% of its energy needs down from about a 24% prior to the disaster. But it hasn’t replaced nuclear power with renewables such as wind or solar. Even if it wanted to do so Japan lacks the space for solar and wind farms, so it has substituted coal, natural gas and oil.
Having an electronic music concert at night when solar power is not available to power the instruments, computers, sound boards, amplifiers, speakers, lighting effects, communications gear, air conditioning, and transportation to and from the venue to protest a form of power that such events require allows a connoisseur of irony to indulge in one of modern life’s increasingly common pleasures.
In my view the backlash against nuclear power since the Fukushima disaster is misguided. All Fukushima reactors survived one of the largest earthquakes in modern history and operated as designed. The failure was one of imagination: siting all backup power where a tsunami could destroy it. Backup systems should have been redundant and sited in several locations immune to all possible waves. The disaster presents an opportunity to learn from mistakes and make nuclear power even safer than it is today just as flight went from being one of the most dangerous ways to travel to the safest in less than a century. More people die in coal mining and solar panel manufacturing and installation every year than have died during the entire history of nuclear power generation. I’ve always believed that people fear nuclear power because of the images of the atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus the awe-inspiring power of images of above ground atomic bomb blasts and the fact that we cannot see, taste, smell or touch radiation. The irrational fear of nuclear power makes otherwise intelligent people act stupid, and the anti-nuke movement is filled with scientists, engineers and others who should know better.
Concerts like No Nukes 2012 are more of an emotional reaction than a rational one. For environmentalists concerned about global warming, nuclear power presents unlimited carbon-free power. To avoid using nuclear power, fossil fuels must be substituted, meaning increased carbon emissions. These are not a problem for those of us who are not global warming alarmists, but it must be a terrible dilemma for those who are. Conservation can only do so much in a modern world increasingly reliant on technology, and besides, isn’t an electronic music concert held at night for thousands by European musicians flying from the other side of a planet to perform a luxury that a warming world can’t afford? It would have been much more effective to have had the concert completely online, with Kraftwerk performing from Europe during the day, using solar panels to power their instruments while Sakamoto used hydroelectric to power his portion of the broadcast – unless of course Kraftwerk, Sakamoto and the organizers of No Nukes 2012 really aren’t concerned with their carbon footprints, but they still aren’t off the hook: they should perform benefit concerts for those who die in the fossil fuel extraction business, plus the untold numbers killed by radiation, mercury, dioxins and other poisons released when fossil fuels are burned and solar panels are manufactured.
I’m currently reading The Story of Earth by Robert Hazen chronicling the origins of the Earth from the remnants of generations of stars that exploded since the Big Bang, through its formation in the solar nebula, its near destruction after being hit by a planetoid that formed the moon, on to the present day. It’s an easy read for anyone curious about the process of how the Earth formed from interstellar dust. Hazen covers the physics and chemistry that lead to our planet without boring the reader or patronizing him or her, so I highly recommend it.
I mention Hazen’s book because I’m reading it at a time when heat waves are setting records throughout the country and the Spanish word derecho has entered the popular lexicon. For climate scientists and global warming alarmists it is a time for “I told you so’s” and an example of “what global warming looks like,” as the faithful cave in to the temptation to equate weather with climate against their better judgement. When Colorado burns and the Midwest mirrors the desert Southwest, the siren song is irresistible, and resistance is futile when reporters are begging for quotes and interviews are to be had by scientists who, let’s face it, weren’t the popular kids in school, so I suppose it’s okay to let them enjoy their moment in the spotlight.
The problem with this is that according to their own beliefs, global warming will lead to extremes in both directions – hot as well as cold – and that while the central US parches other parts of the world may be enjoying unprecedented rainfall such as Australia which itself suffered from devastating droughts just a few years ago. Like most faiths, Anthropogenic Global Warming covers all bases: flooding? Blame global warming. Drought? Blame global warming. Evidently the only weather one can’t blame on global warming are gentle tropical breezes and rains or the boring weather you’ve experienced over the period of your lifetime.
Much has been made in the Midwest of the record breaking heat. Records have been kept for almost 120 years. The age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. That’s less than 3 millionths of 1 percent (.0000026% to be exact) of its history. To help put that in perspective, if we imagine the entire 4.567 billion year history of Earth as a single year, the time spent record keeping would be less than a second (830 ms). During most of that time Earth’s climate seesawed between hellish heat and frigid, ocean-freezing cold. Although records are being broken by a degree or two this Summer one shouldn’t don sack cloth and ashes just yet. It’s just as likely that Mother Nature is simply being her own, unpredictable self, at least to us, while following heating and cooling patterns and trends that last millions of years.
Just as ancestors were thousands of years ago, we are being told to that we must change our evil ways to please the natural forces at work in our world. While we are clearly technologically superior to our long-forgotten ancestors who cowered in fear at the sight of a solar eclipse or danced to please the gods to make it rain, we aren’t all that different from them. We still have high priests that claim to know Secret Knowledge about the workings of complex systems of the world, and they still demand that we do something, anything to exert our control over nature. Back then it was burning condemned prisoners to guarantee the harvest; today it’s cutting our carbon footprint. Both have about the same chances of impacting the natural forces at work in the world that remind us daily just how puny and insignificant we are on this planet.
But if you are a global warming alarmist, there is still much to be happy about: the US continues to cut its carbon emissions:
(T)he US is on track to cut its CO2 emissions 17 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 — and to keep cutting our emissions levels beyond that.
Its secret? Fracking. The US is going to frack its way to a greener world, and something tells me its going to drag global warming alarmists kicking and screaming as it does so. All the sack cloth and ashes (carbon free of course) demanded by wealthy Greenies like Al Gore won’t get us there, but the Evil Fossil Fuel companies (hiss!) will. It’s almost as if Sauron appeared to Frodo and Sam, handed them the ring and provided a security detail for their trip to Mount Doom. To greens it doesn’t make sense, and they refuse to accept it, but yet the US continues towards a carbon neutral path, heedless of their disbelief.
Update: Record floods in the UK. Rain ‘Til September threatens the Olympics. Global Warming to blame? Sure why not. Like every religious person knows there’s nothing like believing in something impossible to disprove.
From the British publication New Scientist:
Global Warming alarmists have been trying to tie themselves to established theories such as evolution and relativity for years, and have pilloried those who question their theories as religious zealots who don’t understand the scientific method. The dogma of the Green Religion demands absolute fealty, and a common attack on those of us who dare question it are that we don’t understand science.
Too bad the facts show that we do, we just don’t reach the conclusions based on the evidence that the global warming alarmists leap to. That makes us apostates in their eyes which is fine by me; I view Science as a refuge from dogma and doctrine not a substitute for them.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” – James Lovelock, environmental heretic. Wonder how long before he is burned at the stake, with his “excommunication” covered by carbon credits issued by one of Al Gore’s trading firms.
I subscribe to New Scientist, a British weekly science publication because of a life long interest in the natural sciences. Unfortunately to enjoy stories on the Theory of Everything or excited baryons I have to put up with the magazine’s neo-Socialist bias. The publication regularly pillories anyone who questions the “settled science” of anthropogenic causes of global warming as “deniers” while attacking hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of rock deep in the earth’s crust to release oil and natural gas, even though there is little evidence that the process is environmentally harmful. The editors must feel that such unscientific and irrational attacks on fossil fuels are what their readership demands judging by the letters they publish.
From the May 9, 2012 issue, letters section.
The real danger from fracking is not the small earthquakes it can cause or even the disposal of the chemicals used in the process (28 January, p 8). It is that we may discover a glut of gas that will drive down the price of all fossil fuels. Natural gas will not replace coal, but will simply increase our use of what will have become a cheap energy source.
One of the problems I have with many people who claim to be “environmentalists” is their ignorance of basic market economics. A “glut” of natural gas will not “drive down the price of all fossil fuels;” an abundance of natural gas will force the price of natural gas down. It will not necessarily cause the prices of other fossil fuels to fall. A comparison of the historical prices of natural gas, coal and oil finds that there is some correlation in prices between oil and natural gas and oil and coal (correlation coefficients of .81 for oil and coal, .85 for oil and natural gas), but not between coal and natural gas (correlation coefficient of .46). For comparison, the correlation between the price of crude oil and the year was .79 reflecting the fact that prices generally go up over time.
Bill Powers, writing for Financial Sense, details the price relationship between natural gas, oil and coal. Historically natural gas traded at the “10-1 rule” against oil, meaning that the price of a million BTU of natural gas should be roughly 1/10th that of a barrel of oil. When looked at in terms of energy content, that relationship is “6-1”, or 1/6th the price of oil. Stephen Brown and Mine Yucel, two researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, have determined that during rising oil prices, the 6-1 relationship is more accurate while the 10-1 relationship is the norm when oil prices are falling. In terms of coal, Powers notes “With the price of Central Appalachian (CAPP) coal currently trading at $73 per ton, up from $60 per ton for much of last year, a recent study by Credit Suisse (CS) indicates that natural gas prices would need to rise to approximately $6.30 per mcf before coal and natural gas trade at parity for electricity generation.”
Today’s natural gas price is $2.25. With oil at $83 a barrel, natural gas is now trading against oil at a 36-1 ratio. Most utilities in the US have the capability to switch off coal fired generators and switch on natural gas powered generators, or vice versa, to use the cheapest fuel source available on the market. And they have switched. Coal is now responsible for 34% of US electrical generation, the lowest level since 1973 when statistics began and roughly on par with natural gas generation.
By the writer’s logic falling natural gas prices will somehow manage to lower the prices of fossil fuels, but why wouldn’t falling natural gas prices impact renewables like wind and solar? In fact in an oversimplified view of supply and demand, that’s exactly what would happen. Natural gas demand would dry up the demand for other fuels, both fossil and alternative, causing the supply of these sources to become more abundant. The abundance in turn would cause the price to fall to match the decreased demand, making these sources attractive alternatives to natural gas. Eventually supply and demand across all sources would reach equilibrium, just as predators and prey in a wilderness will eventually achieve a stable balance.
But this simplified state ignores the reality that coal will not be produced at a loss so it will not be mined. Since oil and gas occur naturally together its possible that a a glut of oil will coexist with an abundance of natural gas. In the past natural gas was simply burned off as a byproduct of an oil well, but oil cannot be disposed of as easily. Wind and solar are threatened by cheap natural gas, and have yet to come up with an economic energy storage medium. Natural gas can be liquified and stored. Oil can sit for years in a tank field, and coal in a pile ready to release their energy immediately upon need. Neither wind nor solar are capable of that. The electricity they create must be used immediately which is fine during a sunny day or when the wind is blowing, but on a still night it’s either do without energy or use a fossil fuel or nuclear backup.
We will be left with much further to fall when the gas runs out. That is because the cheap energy will have prevented the introduction of renewable-energy infrastructure, so we won’t even have that to fall back on.
Like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and Obama’s humility, peak (fill in the blank here) is a myth. Peak oil remains a controversial topic among environmentalists and gold bugs for a reason: there’s no proof it exists. From an oil perspective the world can be broken into the following areas: places with cheap oil, that is places like Saudi Arabia and Russia where oil is easy and cheap to pull out of the ground; places with not-so-cheap oil such as Venezuela, Mexico, the United States and Canada; places that may or may not contain not-so-cheap oil; and places that don’t have oil at all. What we are finding is that the last area in the list, places that don’t have oil, are gradually getting smaller and smaller as it turns out they have oil and join the places with not so cheap oil area due to improved techniques for finding oil where none was expected. New engineering methods such as fracking have lowered the cost to recover oil that was once thought unrecoverable, making the oil cheaper to pull out of the ground. The higher the price of oil, the more incentive there is to find and refine the last drop of oil, and the higher the price becomes due to demand, the more likely new supplies will be found and those with known reserves thought uneconomic to exploit begin to produce. Similar arguments can apply to natural gas and coal, both much more abundant than oil. There may in fact be peaks for these fossil fuels, but they are hundreds of years if not a thousand years away.
In the meantime, we will be testing the theory of climate change with abandon.
Econmatters writing for Seeking Alpha states, “Although the amount of emission generated from natural gas is still under hot debate, depending on if you take the ‘life-cycle calculation’ approach, natural gas is generally considered cleaner burning than coal and petroleum. A Congressional Research Service’s 2010 report concludes if natural-gas combined cycle plants utilization were to be doubled from 42% capacity factor to 85%, then the amount of power generated would displace 19% of the CO2 emissions attributed to coal-fired electricity generation.” General Electric which makes both fossil fuel and wind turbines finds switching from coal fired to natural gas plants could save 150 million tons of CO2 by 2020. Environmentalists might argue that life-cycle calculations show natural gas emits more CO2 than other fossil fuels, but such calculations are never applied to alternatives methods of power generation such as wind and solar. They can’t be, since natural gas is itself a storage medium for energy. There are as of yet no large scale storage methods for electricity generated by wind turbines or solar cells, and if there were their manufacture, transport and storage would have to be included in such life-cycle calculations.
I am unconvinced that global warming is occurring and that humans are behind it, but the US has the ability to lower its carbon footprint thanks to cheap natural gas. But this isn’t good enough for environmentalists like the letter writer in New Scientist. Instead of viewing natural gas as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions today, he despairs over its impact on methods of power generation that are impractical, expensive and polluting (ask the Chinese about the damage to the environment manufacturing solar panels cause.)
The author of the letter to New Scientist represents a type of reactionary that I’ve watched take over the conservation movement during the last 20 years. They arrogantly believe they completely understand the world in all its complexities. They know fully its fossil fuel reserves, even as new deposits are discovered on a daily basis. Their rigid thinking ignores the resilience of markets, the creativity of scientists, engineers and inventors, and the progress of science and industry. Their dogma sees humanity as a blight on the world, an Eden bespoiled by the breath of every child or the touch of every human hand, forever preaching that doom shall befall us unless we return to the old ways, whether it’s leaving the village to return to the forest, the city to the farm, or as today forsaking the modern world to return to our barbarous “natural” state of subsistence living and high mortality. Luckily these people have been for the most part ignored throughout history and instead of stopping progress have been run over by it. But they never quit since they are sustained by their faith. They simply dust themselves off to try again to inflict their dystopian vision of the future and idyllic view of the past upon the rest of us.
I have become used to finding such religious arguments in science magazines, but it doesn’t mean that I agree with them or even enjoy them. But I suppose they remind us that even the brightest, most atheistic scientists are not immune to irrational beliefs.
After 3 years spent strangling the American fossil fuels industries, the Obama Administration has exactly what it wants: soaring energy prices. The Wall Street Journal quotes the future Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in a December 12, 2008 interview, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time a gallon of gas sold for $1.61 a gallon. Today the average price is $2 more, a 123% increase. Mission accomplished.
Killing the Keystone XL pipeline was just the latest in a long list of administration efforts to raise the prices of oil, natural gas and coal. Immediately after taking office in 2009 President Obama cancelled 31 oil and gas offshore leases. His administration has cancelled lease sales in Ohio to placate opponents of fracking and a lease sale off the Virginia coast. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf the administration placed a moratorium on oil and gas exploration, even though the courts ruled it illegal, forcing thousands out of work and losing the Treasury $30 billion in lease royalties. The Obama administration’s draft plan for 2012-2017 bars oil and gas exploration in the majority of the Outer Continental Shelf. As Federal Affairs Manager of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Chris Pandoni points out, that hasn’t stopped other nations from drilling offshore of the United States. Canada drills off the coast of Maine, Russia off the coast of Alaska, and Cuba, with Chinese help, off the coast of Florida. The administration has also forced Shell to halt operations in Alaska on a project set to produce 1.4 million barrels a day. An article in the Houston Chronicle reports the oil industry’s frustration with the administration. “These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I’ve ever seen in my career,” said Bruce Vincent, president of Houston-based oil and natural gas producer Swift Energy. “They’ve done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.”
“The Obama administration, unfortunately, has threatened this industry at every turn.”
The administration, facing skyrocketing energy prices during an election year, is in complete denial. White House spokesman Jay Carney parrots the line that it takes years to develop these resources, then takes credit for rising domestic production, the result of political decisions by the Bush administration. Much of this production has come from private land, with production on government land collapsing. Even the production of private land is threatened by opponents of fracking who run to the courts claiming that the practice causes earthquakes and pollutes groundwater even though there is no proof that it does either. The administration then talks about the cyclical nature of gas prices, rising in the spring and falling in the autumn. This of course ignores the fact that today’s prices are breaking seasonal records, putting the nation on track to having the most expensive gas prices in history this summer.
The basic problem is that these prices are exactly what this administration wants. As Steven Chu himself has pointed out, rising gas prices force people to drive less. It compels them to buy more fuel efficient cars and to move to cities where public transportation is readily available. By driving less the carbon footprint of Americans shrinks, the glaciers in the Himalayas and polar bears in the Arctic are saved, and the political power of democratic machines in large cities like Chicago, New York (Bloomberg is technically not a Democrat but he governs like one), Boston, Philadelphia and Washington DC is enhanced.
Of course the problem is that the glaciers in the Himalayas are not disappearing, the polar bears aren’t drowning in the Arctic, and none of America’s largest cities are undergoing an influx of suburbanites prepared to give up their 3,000 sq. ft homes in safe neighborhoods for 1,200 sq. ft. townhouses in de facto urban war zones. What is happening is that the Obama administration is forcing Americans to continue indebting ourselves to regimes like Hugo Chavez’s in Venezuela and the sheiks in the Middle East instead of becoming self reliant using domestic sources and guaranteed imports from Canada, one of our most trusted and steadfast allies. But this also has a silver lining because high prices make alternative energy competitive, allowing the administration to justify investments in green companies with ties to the administration like Solyndra.
Which brings me to another point. For eight years liberals railed about Dick Cheney and his ties to Halleburton, as well as the close ties between other members of the administration to the defense and energy industries. Yet illegality was never proven. Fast forward to this administration which is shoveling out stimulus funds and grants to supporters in “green industries” like Solyndra. Not a peep from liberals even though the allegations of corruption are much more serious and come backed by evidence. Meanwhile Al Gore has seen his wealth skyrocket from $2 million in 2001 to over $100 million today thanks to his investments in green energy companies, many backed with taxpayer funds, as well as in carbon trading schemes. As a believer in the adage that “money corrupts” I am suspicious of anyone who is well-connected benefiting from taxpayer largess regardless of their party affiliation. Yet Gore and other prominent Democrats reap windfall after windfall from the Obama administration’s policies and anyone who raises the topic is attacked for being a crazy right winger.
Liberals aren’t immune to corruption. It is a human foible not a Republican one. Thanks to a cooperative mainstream media little is made publicly of the benefits Gore and those like him reap from higher gas prices and an administration that is raiding the treasury to hand out money to companies using the word “sustainable” in their prospectus and with well-heeled liberals on their boards. Could Al Gore or billionaire Solyndra investor George Kaiser tell you within a quarter what a gallon cost at his neighborhood filling station? Ask any American and he or she could probably quote you the prices down to the penny (unless they’ve gone up a dime in 2 minutes).
And from the Obama administration’s view, this is how it should be. It is merely rewarding its friends just like the Bush Administration did, even though the facts don’t bear that out. Men like Gore, Kaiser, and billionaire LightSquared investor Philip Falcone are creating green jobs, even though those jobs are for the most part in China. America is becoming a more “normal” country, with “normal” meaning in-line with Europe in terms of dependency on a central government and energy prices. The only problem is timing: the price of gasoline won’t peak until July which is uncomfortably close to the November election. Still, with a GOP party in disarray, the deep pockets of George Soros, Warren Buffet, Falcone and Kaiser financing the re-election campaign, and a friendly media protecting it the administration should be able to ride out the energy prices and win in November. Once that happens, nothing will stand in the way from completing the makeover of the United States into France or Greece (Germany is out of the question because Germans don’t run astronomical deficits.)
Then it will be Mission Accomplished.
James Delingpole lays out the case against anthropogenic global warming hysteria and other environmentalist dogma’s in his book, “Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Children’s Future.” He writes about his experience in this article in The Daily Mail.
“As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.
The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.”
Rachel Carson and her ilk have blood on their hands. Millions of Africans and south Asians died because of their fear-mongering in the West. It’s a dirty secret that isn’t discussed by the mainstream environmental movement. In fact it’s a shame but it seems those who care about the environment aren’t associated with environmental groups anymore because even the Sierra Club and other so-called moderate organizations have been hijacked by zealots.
The politicization of science is inevitable, but it sucks when scientists delude themselves into thinking they can remain open minded in the process. A new trove of documents has been released that continues to shake the foundation of climate science. It’s a shame considering how physicists have remained open minded yet properly skeptical over the faster-than-light neutrinos.
Had the physicists fudged and biased the data to support their preconceived notions, the faster-than-light neutrinos would not have been discovered. Yet this is exactly what the climate scientists have done over the past years as they attempted to feed the demands of environmentalists and leftist politicians desperate for 100% incontrovertible proof to justify the bankruptcy of Western economies in the pursuit of a zero carbon future. Such perfection is anathema to science, which is why physicists are intrigued by the faster-than-light neutrino result. While it is very likely that this result will be overturned through the discovery of a flaw in the experimental apparatus, physicists have at least investigated the anomaly knowing that they will either make their experimental methods more bulletproof or make a discovery that overturns current theory. Either way they win.
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” muses one scientist. “They’ll kill us probably.”
No, we don’t have to. We just give you enough to rope to hang yourselves with. The scandal is proof that not all science is equal, and how the efforts to compare climate psuedo-science to hard sciences like physics and biology are doomed to failure.
UPDATE: Here is a timeline of the climategate story with regular updates.
New Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate. Not exactly Rock the Casbah, but given Joe Strummer’s libertarian edge, he might approve.
Here’s an idea.
Warren Buffett thinks he makes too much money – and I agree. He is a big supporter of Obama, and Barry has a big drag on his brand courtesy of a little green outfit called Solyndra. Solyndra took a half billion from taxpayers and promptly went belly-up. It’s CEO had visited the Obama White House 16 times, and was a big “bundler” of donations for the ‘08 Obama campaign yet the administration is pulling a Sargent Schultz.
So here’s Uncle Warren’s opportunity: Cut a check for half a billion pay to the order of the US Treasury. That way he can assuage his guilt for being a corporate rapist, Obama can continue to promote green jobs without choking on his arugula, and my taxes can go to worthwhile things – like smart bombs that send jihadis to virgin-land.
I just finished calculating my taxes, and normally I don’t think too much about it. But this year is different. As a self-described patriot who supports the Global War on Terrorism, I have to accept that such a war needs someone to pay for it and as an American that someone has to be me. I imagine that the money the Wife earns doing paperwork or tending to a Medicaid patient or that I earn sitting in a meeting taking notes about some esoteric IT topic that few outside the room would understand or think important goes to buy body armor for US Army soldiers, bullets for Marine corps snipers or fuel for UAVs that send jihadis to their beloved 72 virgins. I also imagine the money we earn going to protect National and State Parks, or to pay for search and rescue training by the Coast Guard. Although I am viewed as an anti-government extremist by many on the Left, there is much that the federal government does that I have no problem paying for.
But this year is very different. Last year was the first full tax year spent living in North Carolina. North Carolina is a state with an above median state income tax along with a 7.75%/2.0% sales. The taxes that I just completed do not include this sales tax – which is a substantial hit on our household finances given that at this stage our family consumes almost as much as it takes in thanks to outgrown sneakers, a mortgage payment on a farm, and 35 lb bags of dog food for our mutt-ly crew.
The cost of gasoline hits us especially hard. While my wife and I drive economical cars living in a rural area requires a lot of driving. The Wife also makes house calls; she isn’t reimbursed for her time or for gas but she believes that it is part of her job regardless. I’d estimate that our fuel costs have gone up $1,500 or so over the past year and notice that gas at the local pumps jumped a dime again this morning. Rising transportation costs have been hidden in our grocery bill. I’ve found that many of the staple products that I buy like pasta, cereal and peanut butter now come in smaller containers, no doubt thanks to the rising cost of diesel fuel. It seemed to me that during the Bush administration, whenever a gallon of gas rose a nickel there was a New York Times article on the cozy relationship between the Bush family and the oil companies. Under the Obama administration the price of a gallon of gasoline has risen 67% and the mainstream media has uttered not a peep.
Even though I have a political science degree under my belt I’m not a complete idiot. I recognize that this isn’t Venezuela: Obama can’t order gas prices down the way Hugo Chavez can. However his policies of limiting drilling and more importantly, running huge deficits that can only be handled by printing money forces investors into commodities like oil – driving the prices up. The price of oil is calculated in dollars, and as the dollar weakens thanks to the feds spending more than it takes in, the price of oil and other commodities like gold, wheat, and copper – rise. And that’s exactly what has been happening and why Obama doesn’t get the same pass that President Bush got in 2006 (or that this article gives Obama).
It’s also tough to cut the check for the difference between the amount withheld from our paychecks and the amount we owe because of the sense of entitlement held by public servants. The recent fight in Wisconsin over the restrictions to collectively bargain that limited the practice to inflation rate wage increases is fresh in my mind. The behavior of the teachers especially was appalling and embarrassing to a former TESL teacher like me. Without getting into specifics (this is the Internet after all) let’s just say that our total tax bill this year could pay an entire year’s salary for a low-level public servant. Not a teacher (we don’t pay that much in taxes) but say, for one of those cheery people that meet you at the DMV.
Meanwhile I drive a 11 year old Honda with 150,000 miles, my family has catastrophic medical insurance that still runs me $4k/year and covers nothing, we are hundreds of thousands of (taxable) dollars in debt thanks to medical school, and I have avoided the dentist since the Wife left residency because we don’t have dental and about the only thing I inherited from the Irish side of my family besides alcoholism is bad teeth.
Speaking of teeth, the fact that my family (2010 income: $—-) paid tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes than General Electric (2010 income: $10.8 billion) is a big roundhouse kick in them. I’m still waiting for my invitation from the Obama administration to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, since I funded government operations more than GE CEO Jeff Immelt did, but so far nothing. Maybe the email has been marked as spam in the Yahoo! mail account that I haven’t used since the 90’s.
Immelt might say “Scott, GE employed hundreds of thousands of workers so it shouldn’t pay taxes.” And I would reply, “Jeffrey, under your ‘leadership’ GE cut 30,000 jobs in the United States. Under my ‘leadership’ my family helped create jobs in one of the poorest counties in North Carolina by hiring local carpenters, an electrician and a plumber to fix up our house. Which is better for America?” And not only did that, but bought fuel for planes to bomb Libyans and hired public servants who are overpaid and hate their jobs.
Wait a minute…
Which brings me to our support of the “freedom fighters” in Libya. If ever there was such a thing as a politically correct military operation, the US/NATO operation in Libya is it. Only the likes of “the rather crazed Susan Rice” and Samantha “Israel is guilty of war crimes” Power could think up an operation that would send military support and arms to the same folks in Africa we were hunting down and killing in Asia. So the hours the Wife and I spend working will buy surface to air missiles that Obama’s Valkyries will hand to wide-eyed fanatics who will use them to shoot down American or Israeli civilian jet liners.
Perhaps Ms’ Rice, Power and Clinton should read the Koran to understand why we shouldn’t give weapons to Muslims (as if arming the mujahadin in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s weren’t good enough lessons). “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” (Koran, 5:51) Since the Koran is the word of God, God is making it clear in no uncertain terms that Muslims cannot befriend non-Muslims without leaving their faith. Oh, and by the way, for the “Islam is just like any other religion” crowd: the punishment for leaving Islam is death. When I left the Catholic Church, I didn’t have to worry about being kidnapped by a Knights of Columbus member and having my head chopped off.
In fact the only circumstance it is allowed is when such friendship is used for deceit, as in the case where Muhammed orders Muhammad bin Maslama to kill a Jewish poet who wrote insulting verses about Muslim women. “Then allow me to say a (false) thing so that I may deceive him,” bin Maslama asked Muhammed. “You may say it.” (Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Shih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, vol 5, book 64, no. 4037). If that isn’t clear to the Harvard Kennedy School professor, perhaps Muhammad’s statement that “War is deceit,” (Hadith, 4:269) will bring some clarity to the matter of Libya.
I have handed a terrific sum of money to my government. It is the result of months of hard work done by my wife and I at the pinnacle of our earning power. It’s the most it will ever get; it’s all downhill from here. She’s taken a lower-paying job and I’ll probably be unemployed by the Fall. I don’t resent the taxes themselves, but in 2011 I do begrudge a government that in its attitude and endeavors clearly doesn’t appreciate our sacrifice.
I like getting more bang for my buck so CFLs should be perfect for me. The same lumens of a 100w incandescent for 26w of energy should also be a no brainer. So I switched out my incandescents over the past two years; now I’m switching back and beginning to hoard bulbs. Why? Because I can’t stand the color of the light.
As a lifelong amateur photographer I have developed an eye for the color of light and how it illuminates subjects, and I have yet to find a CFL that can bring out warm skin tones the way an incandescent bulb can. Incandescents also bring out the warm tones of wood and even interior walls painted in off white or light browns. They help make a house feel warm and cozy – especially at night.
CFLs on the other hand inevitably give off a light green that makes most people look sick. The light clashes with warm colored rugs, walls and woods giving them what I can best describe as a plastic appearance. It gives any home that uses them a cold, sterile feel – not homey or cozy at all.
If CFLs matched the light color of incandescents 100% I wouldn’t mind them. But they don’t, and it doesn’t help that I feel pressured by the government and enviro-nuts to use them.
If I can’t feel comfortable in my own home, where can I?
Education bubble And climate change. An end of the year two-fer!
We are appropriately on guard when the head of research at a tobacco company tells us that studies of the dangers of smoking are unreliable; or the researchers at an oil company minimize the dangers of offshore drilling. But when advocates of global warming enunciate their views, many people, including many in the academic community, put their sensitivity to conflicts of interest on hold.