Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Why couldn't we just keep it in the first place; i.e., lower taxes? Take home pay's a wonderful thing. Wouldn't that help the economy all the time?
Something's inconsistent in their reasoning. Wonder if it has anything to do with it being an election year.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The government will spend our money to enforce a cap-and-trade system, in which businesses buy and sell carbon credits. The cap-and-trade system will supposedly prevent global warming. The leading cap-and-trade bill, S. 2191 (sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner) will increase federal revenue by $1.2 TRILLION dollars over just the first 10 years according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Al Gore and others purchase carbon offsets -- sometimes from themselves -- to justify not changing their lifestyle, aka "carbon footprint." These carbon offsets supposedly will prevent global warming.
In all these instances, Americans will pay more for food, energy and other necessities, while at the same time having less take-home pay because of higher taxes (those extra taxes, of course, used to fight global warming.)
Here's the big secret:
Higher CO2 levels do not cause higher temperatures. Higher CO2 levels follow higher temperatures.
The best argument is here.
In Al Gore's movie, he carefully avoids saying that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming. He describes the relationship as "complex." With this fancy verbal footwork, it's likely that Gore knows the truth. He profits, of course, from the CO2 panic.Besides nailing every global warming alarmist you talk to -- and oh, how I wish I could have discussed the matter with the IPCC spokesperson that was in Lubbock a few months ago -- you may be wondering what you can do about this craziness.
First, we need to work hard to defeat the stupid Lieberman-Warner bill. Go here to let your Senators know that you do not want another boondoggle of a government program. Second, engage in every debate, every blog, every public forum you can. Popular sentiment must change before this is quashed completely.
Good policy based on good science is acceptable to me. Global warming regulations have neither.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Now Los Angeles Country transit officials, to fight global warming, want to add a new tax onto the fees and taxes that motorists already pay.
From the "Desert Dispatch" opinion piece: "Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions." The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat (surprise!) and author of Assembly Bill 2558.
Again, from the piece: "Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be."
Some points to take away from the story: 1) All the hubbub is over computer models. The supposed disasters have not been confirmed with real-world applications at all. I previously wrote about the failure of computer modeling here and here. Real world examples? Al Gore's photo of the "stranded" polar bears in his movie was deceptive at best, and the Arctic ice cap is pretty much normal.
2) What's the ideal temperature? At what temperature would the global warming alarmists stop their hysteria? It's the perfect Liberal problem: one without a solution.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
"Most of the problems of this country are not nearly as bad as the "solutions" -- especially the solutions that politicians come up with during election years. "
"What is more scary than any particular candidate or policy is the gullibility of the public and their willingness to be satisfied with talking points, rather than serious arguments."
"It is amazing to me that there are people who still take seriously claims by some candidates that they are against "special interests." All politicians are against their opponents' special interests and in favor of his own special interests. "
"The way to get people's votes is to say that all their problems are caused by other people, and that you will stop those other people from giving them trouble. But if you really want to help, then you can tell them the truth and risk losing their votes."
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Meanwhile, there is a disagreement as to which year was the warmest. NASA says it was 2005, while the UK's Hadley Centre says it was 1998.
A question comes to mind. If these two scientific agencies can't even agree on what the temperature was in a particular year within the last decade, how can they measure with any confidence the precise temperature of a year more than a century ago, when measuring instruments were crude and inaccurate? Especially when the declared increase is less than one degree?
Doubts, doubts. It's not unreasonable to have doubts about the claims.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Watch the video to see BigDog in action.