Via holycoast.com, this is an awesome post from Wheel of Fortune star Pat Sajak. Now I don’t think a celebrity’s opinion is any more important than anybody else’s, particularly mine , but in this case Mr. Sajak isn’t talking about the details of the science, just commenting on the situation overall and making a logical suggestion.
And I think he just plain nails it. And I extend his suggestion to all those who attack everytime I post on the man made global warming debate (follow the link to read the rest – it’s not long but it’s worth it):
Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image. [NOTE: Mr. Sajak may be stealing from my old posts with this paragraph]
The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap.
Now, if . . . → Read More: Pat Sajak: Alright … maybe sometimes celebrities are worth listening to
The Obama administration is fighting for a 6 month moratorium on all Gulf oil well development after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, knowing full well that even if he has to allow oil well development to resume in a few months it will be much diminished. Rather than sit idle many rigs will move away/have moved away already, and will not come back. And of course the extremist “environmentalists” are claiming the disaster proves we need to end oil production in the gulf (which they’ve been trying to do anyway), but that’s both ridiculous and irresponsible; ridiculous because we have to have oil, irresponsible because our demand will not decrease, and other countries that don’t give a dang about the environment will rush to drill wells to fill that demand. We’re just pushing the risk into the back yards of other countries who are less responsible than we are, and on a global scale ensuring more and worse disasters.
When it comes to drilling more domestic oil, onshore or off, the environmentalists always fight it, screaming that there’s not enough to be worthwhile and that we just need to “conserve more” and buy from over seas until all those viable “alternative . . . → Read More: Drill baby drill! Some perspective on the Deepwater Horizon well disaster
Of the entire Obama Agenda, the item I was most worried about was a carbon tax (aka Cap and Trade). I’m all for greener energy, but unless you’re a believer in global warming green energy is going to develop on its own and forcing the issue with a carbon tax and massive government investment is going to accomplish little, except to push us into inefficient technologies not ready for prime time. And of course it will funnel American wealth to poorer nations, which I still believe is a goal of many who are promoting it
If it’s true that this is dead … *whew.* Elections have consequences, and the last one has had a lot … but at least this job killing/middle class budget-busting idea is finished. Obamacare is bad, but we’ll either deal with it as is or fix it up, and in any case all the money spent on it is at least staying in this country. And there are those who’s lives will be easier because they won’t have to look out for themselves anymore, and while that’s probably not worth stagnating our economy it is something.
And at least Mr. Obama never took up gun control . . . → Read More: If Cap and Trade or a carbon tax is truly off the table … at least we accomplished something
This news story was too good to not pass on. Paul McCartney is joining the environmentally/politically-correct by comparing those who don’t believe that global warming is man-caused to those who deny that the Holocaust happened. Here is an awesome response:
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of two books on environmental policy, blasted McCartney’s comments.
“Was Posh Spice unavailable? I’ve seen quite a few reasons to look elsewhere than actors and crooners for deep thoughts on weighty policy matters,” Horner wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com. “And this is certainly one of them.”
Horner’s message continued: “They’ve got computer model projections, Leonardo [DiCaprio] and the Cute Beatle. In the other corner are observations proving the models wrong, ClimateGate, NASA-Gate and the host of IPCC-Gates.
“I’m comfortable with the balance of authorities here.”
They do have one more thing, of course; they have the IPCC report on Global Warming, which has at it’s root some very bad science and research.
And, like our fearless leader President Obama, he is claiming that the gulf spill proves the point. The Gulf spill is an awful thing, don’t get me wrong, but it has nothing to do with . . . → Read More: Paul McCartney on Global Warming
Interesting statitistic here. Even though windpower is in its infancy, it has a relatively high death rate for workers. And it doesn’t include accidents from transporting the components long distances in many, many semi tractor trailer loads or the long distances individual workers travel to these remote sites. Does this mean we should stop adding wind power? Of course not. But right now the just-go-live-in-grass-huts environmental fanatics are pointing to the recent coal mine disaster and the exploding gulf oil rig as reasons why coal mining and drilling in the gulf are too dangerous to continue, and it’s important to note that every technology has its risks.
There have been at least 40 fatalities due to construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, including both workers and members of the public, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle.
Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe’s estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.
By comparison, hydroelectric power was found to have . . . → Read More: Of all the energy industries — coal, oil (off shore particularly) — is wind the most deadly?
So the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is once again proven to be highly flawed — to say the least. In fact, 5,600 of the 18,500 sources were not peer reviewed. But of course … this won’t matter to the AGW cultists; they quit caring about the science a long time ago. And as for the rest of IPCC study:
According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “gray literature,” she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.’s claims about the study’s sources.
Interesting. When a scientist who’s ever worked for a subsidiary of the petroleum industry or bought gasoline says something negative about AGW, they are declared to be “deniers” and/or industry stooges. But when some wingnut from a radical “environmental” group says something positive about AGW, that’s something they have to review.
Odd, though, that they pointedly avoided talking with any of the legitimate scientists who didn’t agree with AGW. Isn’t it?
It’s ridiculous. I’m still working on . . . → Read More: More bad news for the global warming cultists (AGW believers)
In this article, we see that a global warming paper in Nature Geoscience had to be withdrawn because it was based on false data (Wow! What a surprise! but in any case, take a look at the paper’s conclusion and the graphic included. The conclusion is that there will be 2.7 FEET (far less than 1 meter) of Sea Level Rise by the end of 2100 even with their tainted data. But the graphic, which is what most people will look at, of course, shows the effect of 9 METERS of sea level, over 9x the what the tained paper projects over 90 years.
So for this we’re suppose to switch away from an oil based economy and not explore/drill more oil in the interim? However much oil you think we have, in 90 years we will probably at least be past “peak” production and those “green energy” initiatives that are fantasy now will be reaility. Not because of UN agreements or economy crushing legislation, but because they just plain make sense and everyone wants them.
It’s debatable that global warming is human caused at all. But whether it is or isn’t, the only logical outlook is:
1. Human caused global warming . . . → Read More: Just one more little illumination of the Global Warming Faithful’s dishonest campaign
Found this great article on the religion of Global Warming by George Will on one of my favorite general blogs, Holy Coast. I’ll let Mr. Will say the important points (from his closing paragraphs) but it’s ALL worth a read:
Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035. [BLOG NOTE: there's no indications the Himilayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 or anytime in the forseeable future]
Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today’s, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today’s supposedly unprecedented temperatures. [BLOG NOTE: Written human history and archaelogical findings prove that the climate was warmer during this period, even if the climate change faithful refuse to . . . → Read More: Global Warming has gone from legitimate scientific theory to nothing but political hot air
This doesn’t actually affect the base science, as it’s an attack on the final analysis and not the research (by a UN researcher on the IPCC panel, no less) … but it is yet another illumination of how the politics of human caused climate change theory have become more important than the limited science to support it.
Anything you want … find a way to blame it on human caused global warming. Now that the world’s politicians have seized on it as a tool for change (in this case transferring wealth from America to other nation’s) the science is moot.
The U.N.’s controversial climate report is coming under fire — again — this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can’t find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.
The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.
But this weekend, a key author of the team behind that report told The Sunday Times that he could find no evidence to support his own group’s . . . → Read More: Huh. Yet another problem for human caused climate change/global warming advocates
Dr. Garris posted this on FB, but I’m sure a lot of other’s have seen it as well. I will be the first to admit there is good science on BOTH sides of the debate … but when you see one side self righteously claiming the “debate is over” and the “concensus” is absolute … and then you see they’ve been promoting politicized pseudo science crap like this … it makes you wonder why, if their science is clear.
Global Warming/climate change has become the Politically Correct cause hard core environmentalists and the far left are using to slow down industrialized economies AND redistribute wealth. Whether or not it’s actually true or not no longer matters for either of these groups, as the end justifies the means. Whether or not they ever truly believed in it also comes into question … but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, as like I said, their side is NOT without some valid science.
It’s just so intermixed with bad science someone needs to hit the reset button and look into it in a real way to determine both where we should go and where we can afford to go.
These glaciers provide . . . → Read More: The great global warming collapse