20 Dec 2013

ThinkProgress Wants To Tax Your Meat to Save the Planet

By |December 20th, 2013|The Blog|2 Comments|

The left’s unrelenting dedication to the green movement isn’t because they want to save the planet.

It’s because they want to use it to dictate behavior.

You have to sacrifice to save the planet. Sacrifice for the collective.

That porterhouse? They want to tax it so much, people can’t afford to eat it:

Taxing meat as an attempt to discourage consumers to buy it could be an effective way to reduce methane emissions from livestock, according to a new study.

A sin tax. On meat.

Perfect.

The analysis, published in Nature Climate Change, used knowledge from previous studies on methane emissions and livestock to make the argument that meat consumption should be curbed if methane emissions are to be reduced. It’s consumer-driven change, the scientists say: if meat consumption goes down, the number of cows and other ruminants that expel methane will also decrease.

And if methane goes down, the planet is saved, or something.

One last quote:

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases” he said in 2009. “It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

gwocr_23_563115

25 Jun 2012

Science: Antarctic Ice Shelves Not Melting At All

By |June 25th, 2012|The Blog|0 Comments|

Rather than rely on computer models, a couple of scientists did some actual science and found that rather than melting at an incredible rate, there’s no melting at all.

None:

Hatterman and his colleagues, using 12 tons of hot-water drilling equipment, bored three holes more than 200m deep through the Fimbul Shelf, which spans an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The location of each hole was cunningly chosen so that the various pathways by which water moves beneath the ice shelf could be observed, and instruments were lowered down.

The boffins also supplemented their data craftily by harvesting info from a biology project, the Marine Mammal Exploration of the Oceans Pole to Pole (MEOP) effort, which had seen sensor packages attached to elephant seals.

“Nobody was expecting that the MEOP seals from Bouvetoya would swim straight to the Antarctic and stay along the Fimbul Ice Shelf for the entire winter,” Hattermann says. “But this behaviour certainly provided an impressive and unique data set.”

Normally, getting sea temperature readings along the shelf in winter would be dangerous if not impossible due to shifting pack ice – but the seals were perfectly at home among the grinding floes.

Overall, according to the team, their field data shows “steady state mass balance” on the eastern Antarctic coasts – ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research ispublished in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Meanwhile, we’re to believe we’re in danger of flooding on the west coast because of all the melting ice.

12 Apr 2012

49 Former NASA Scientists Hate Polar Bears, Reject AGW As “Settled Science”

By |April 12th, 2012|The Blog|0 Comments|

Forty-nine former NASA scientists signed a letter sent to the agency, which was still busy telling Muslims how awesome they are at science and stuff, which requested NASA do one thing: look at the evidence for global warming and base decisions on it, rather than a political agenda. The data, they say, doesn’t lead one to the conclusion that CO2 is causing global warming.

Here’s the letter:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

[pull]NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance[/pull]

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

27 Dec 2010

Four Years Ago: “winters are becoming warmer and less snowy.” — Today: Not so much…

By |December 27th, 2010|The Blog|1 Comment|

Tom Nelson linked to this post at hauntingthelibrary.

They noted the words of a collection of white coat wearing types who warn us that we are surely doomed to die a fiery death unless we change our ways.

Way back in 2006, they said the following:

Across the globe, and here in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming, an urgent phenomenon driven by heat-trapping emissions from human activities

Please note the bolded section, as it’s important to this next part.  You may have noticed the weather on the East Coast.  It’s anything but warmer and less snowy.  Neither is the weather across the globe.  Poland has lost 127 people to the cold this winter.

Great Britain is again being pounded by winter weather.

So what gives?

Well, it’s global warming.  Surprised you didn’t know that:

All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

The article goes on to explain how global warming now helps create brutal winter weather, despite the fact that “a collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of independent scientists from universities across the Northeast and the nation” told us in 2006 that winters were getting warmer and less snowy.

How is this even allowed in science?

Easy, this isn’t about science.  This is the redistribution of wealth, plain and simple:

No matter what the weather, it’s all due to warming. This isn’t science; it’s a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.

Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they’re so wrong? Maybe it’s because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them “mitigate” the adverse impacts of warming.

This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate.

No matter what happens, it’s global warming, and the only way to stop it is to take from one and give to another, by force of government.

But we’re just being anti-science, right?

20 Dec 2010

It’s a White Christmas…in AUSTRALIA!

By |December 20th, 2010|The Blog|0 Comments|

We had a pretty good winter storm here recently.  It didn’t leave a lot of snow, but it was freezing cold and windy.  It was the first time in a long time that I had to stop driving because I couldn’t see past the end of my hood.

But it was also December, and it’s not unusual. 

A white Christmas in Australia is:

Snow fell in Australia on Monday, as the usual hot and summery December weather was replaced in parts by icy gusts sweeping up from the Southern Ocean, giving the country a taste of a white Christmas.

Snow has fallen in parts of east coast states New South Wales and Victoria, leaving ski resorts — some of which are usually snow-free at this time of year — with dumps of up to 10 centimetres.

"It’s white, everything is white," Michelle Lovius, the general manager of the Kosciuszko Chalet Hotel at Charlotte Pass said.

"First thing this morning everything was just very still, very peaceful and every single thing was just blanketed in a thick cover of white."

Lovius said such an amount of snow was unusual for early December, normally the peak of the wildflower season in the New South Wales mountain region.

"We’re hoping that it (the cold) stays in for five days and we get a white Christmas," she said.

17 Aug 2009

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Will Electric Cars Crash The Grid?

By |August 17th, 2009|The Blog|4 Comments|

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Will Electric Cars Crash The Grid?.

As Victor puts it, “If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets (especially in urban centers), you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty unregulated pollution and carbon into the air we breathe — possibly more pollution than would be offset by putting the Volts on the road.”

Since most U.S. electricity generation is not carbon-free, the Congressional Research Service agrees. The “widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles through 2030 may have only a small effect on, and might actually increase, carbon emissions,” it observes.

Seems a lot like some more ‘unintended consequences to me!  Once again the left hand is not talking to the right hand…

12 Aug 2009

Global Warming Fear Mongers Give Us Four Months, Then Game Over

By |August 12th, 2009|The Blog|4 Comments|

It’s time to start thinking moonbase, folks. If we, as in the whole world population, don’t come together and make a deal in Copenhagen in four months, we have sealed the fate of the entire Earth. So says Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General. And you know he doesn’t have any ulterior motives:

Climate change, as all previous speakers have already stated, is the fundamental threat to humankind.

It exacerbates all of the problems we face: poverty, disease, hunger and insecurity. It impedes progress toward the Millennium Development Goals. It deepens the food and energy crises.

That is the harsh reality.

But there is an upside: if we combat climate change with a sustainable, low-emissions approach, just like we see around us in Songdo, we can change the way countries develop.

We can foster a green economy and green growth.

We can fight hunger and poverty while protecting the environment.

The downside is equally dramatic.

If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters.

Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable.

We have the power to change course. But we must do it now.

As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I’m glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won’t charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

How long did Bruce Willis have to train those misfits in “Armageddon?” If Harry Stamper can get those guys ready, surely NASA can get a moonbase team ready and start building within the next four months. After all, that’s about as likely as a deal in Copenhagen changing the climate on a global scare.

That wasn’t the only ridiculous statement made in the speech. This one caught my eye as well:

The world is looking to Korea for leadership.

Wha…? Who? Who is looking to Korea for leadership?

I know sailors who are looking to Korea for cheap leather. But who is looking to them for leadership? Is America looking to them? The United Kingdom? China? Russia? France?

7 Aug 2009

Questions to ask at town hall meetings

By |August 7th, 2009|The Blog|6 Comments|

By Paul Driessen

Demand answers from your senators and congressman during their August recess

Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system – 17% of our economy – with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation could affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.

They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy – the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do – to prevent hypothetical manmade catastrophic climate change.

20 Jul 2009

Locke: U.S. Should Pay for China’s Carbon Emissions

By |July 20th, 2009|The Blog|2 Comments|

As I already noted today, countries are refusing to buy into the cap and trade scheme because they know it will stunt their economic growth. Gary Toasts Hu.jpg

But the Obama administration not only buys into it, they are promoting that America should pay for other country’s, meaning China’s, carbon footprint also.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said that if America is going to benefit from China’s cheap manufacturing, then we ought to be paying for the carbon footprint created in the manufacturing process:

    “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

The idea that rich-country consumers should pick up the tab for some of China’s industrial emissions has been gaining currency lately—but not from within the Obama administration. The argument is that many of China’s factories churn out cheap stuff for the West, not for domestic consumption, so those consumers are actually responsible for the emissions. China, of course, loves the idea.

I’ll bet they do. Gateway Pundit wonders if we should be paying for global healthcare too.

Just in the countries we “exploit” for cheap goods. Or owe a pile of money to.

20 Jul 2009

Hillary Apologizes for America’s Carbon Emissions, India Refuses to Buy Into Cap and Trade Scheme

By |July 20th, 2009|The Blog|2 Comments|

Hillary Clinton, not wanting to be marginalized by President Obama, has starting apologizing for America now. While she was in India, she apologized for global warming. No, really:




“We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”

So, India is leading by example by not having the telephone infrastructure America has, but having 500 million cell phones. Let’s look at that a different way. According to the latest estimates, India has over 1.1 billion people. That means, that more than half of the people in India have not way of communicating via telephone, because India is progressive enough to “leap frog” over home phone lines.

Brilliant.

I don’t know which is more repugnant, the apology tour continuing or that climate change is now what I’m supposed to feel guilty about.

India, though, isn’t buying it:

At a photo op to highlight green building technology that could reduce energy consumption, India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh said his country would never agree to cap its carbon emissions. The United States wants such a move from the world’s largest developing economies in order to curb global warming, but India and others argue it would stunt their economic growth.

“India’s position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets,” Ramesh said.

So while our administration is taking action that will stunt our economic growth, countries like India are refusing to buy into the same plans. This should end will for us.

For the record, the temperature still hasn’t risen above 0 in the Arctic. It wasn’t too long ago that the eco-Marxists were using the melting sea ice to ush their environmental agenda. Remember, all the polar bears were going to drown. In 2007, there was a 9 percent increase in ice. This year it’s likely to be greater.

Here’s a graph showing the increase in CO2 globally in relation to global temperatures:

Global Temperature vs CO2.jpg
Is it any wonder India is balking at the idea of capping CO2 emissions?