Ed Morrissey at Hot Air tells us about an article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which asks what happened to global warming?
Do you believe the hysteria that the world is getting warmer each year? Would you believe the highest recorded temperature wasn't even in this century? It was in 1998.
We are currently in a period of cooling. These periods last up to 40 years. What happens then? Who knows?
The Hot Air article can be found here.
The BBC article can be found here.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Paul Krugman Preemptively Strikes Climate Change Opponents
Paul Krugman from The New York Times weighs in already against the people opposed to climate change legislation. He starts off with:
So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Civility? Who was civil? Certainly not progressives like Paul Krugman. You can find documentation here about his hostility to anyone that disagrees with him.
Let's not get started on intellectual honesty in the health care debate. Look at any column I've written in this blog, for example, to see just how "intellectually honest" the progressives are about health care legislation. Here is another example of his intellectual honesty. He says we are in the worst "greatest financial crisis since the 1930s."
His first salvo in this article is to try to marginalize opponents of climate change legislation and remove them altogether from the conversation. He attempts to debunk claims that global warming is a myth and then continues:
"So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy."
We have already covered here about the costs of global warming legislation. The Treasury Department estimates cost of the legislation could reach $300 billion annually. You can see the PDF of their statement here.
Krugman's editorial can be found here.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill can be found here (PDF).
So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Civility? Who was civil? Certainly not progressives like Paul Krugman. You can find documentation here about his hostility to anyone that disagrees with him.
Let's not get started on intellectual honesty in the health care debate. Look at any column I've written in this blog, for example, to see just how "intellectually honest" the progressives are about health care legislation. Here is another example of his intellectual honesty. He says we are in the worst "greatest financial crisis since the 1930s."
His first salvo in this article is to try to marginalize opponents of climate change legislation and remove them altogether from the conversation. He attempts to debunk claims that global warming is a myth and then continues:
"So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy."
We have already covered here about the costs of global warming legislation. The Treasury Department estimates cost of the legislation could reach $300 billion annually. You can see the PDF of their statement here.
Krugman's editorial can be found here.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill can be found here (PDF).
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Hypocrisy in Global Warming
We all know, or at least we should know, that global warming is just a stick used by developing countries to beat up the developed world.
And to prove it, here's the World Bank.
It says that the world must reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but it is funding several giant coal-burning plants that will each emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide a year for the next 40 to 50 years.
Last year the bank and its partner, the Asian Development Bank, approved $85 million in loans to finance a coal-fired plant in Gujarat, western India.
The bank is also contributing $5 billion towards South Africa’s power generation expansion plan, which includes six coal plants.
You can find the article here.
And to prove it, here's the World Bank.
It says that the world must reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but it is funding several giant coal-burning plants that will each emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide a year for the next 40 to 50 years.
Last year the bank and its partner, the Asian Development Bank, approved $85 million in loans to finance a coal-fired plant in Gujarat, western India.
The bank is also contributing $5 billion towards South Africa’s power generation expansion plan, which includes six coal plants.
You can find the article here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Judicial Activism to Enforce Global Warming Measures
Al Gore and the 'climate change czar' Carol Browner are warning that if Congress doesn't pass climate change regulations, the courts will step in to do it.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
"The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
In other words, do it or we will sick the courts on you. We know what's best, not you.
The original article can be found here.
"All of the discussion has been about the president and the Congress," Gore told journalists at a U.N. press conference Tuesday. "We have a third branch of government: the courts."
"The courts are starting to take control of this issue. If they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards," Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. "Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants….Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it."
In other words, do it or we will sick the courts on you. We know what's best, not you.
The original article can be found here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Horrific Cost of Cap and Trade
Doctor Steven Chu, Obama's pick for Energy Secretary, said, "The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act." (1)
But the government has a fix for that -- education. They are targeting kids to teach them about "climate change", energy efficiency and pollution. The EPA has partnered with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and Parent Teacher Organizations Today (PTO Today) (2). Our tax dollars at work, folks.
"We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes." (3)
The government is doing all it can to push cap and trade when health care is not stealing the spotlight. Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback on cap and trade, Dr. Chu said, "I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate" that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters. Very little debate among the politicians, maybe, but not among the citizens once they get wind of how much this will cost.
Global warming cap and trade costs could hit $300 billion annually, the Treasury Department admitted in documents released recently (4). You can see the documents from the Treasury Department here (PDF).
But those are big numbers. Let's break it down to something we can all relate to. Ben Lieberman, in testifying before Congress, said:
"For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
"But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600." (5)
And that's not including impact to employment. He continues:
"We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey." (6)
You can find the Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, here (PDF).
======================
1. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
2. Jones, Enesta (2009, September 17). "EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money". The EPA.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from EPA
3. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
4. Hall, Christine (2009, September 18). "Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually". Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from CEI
5. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
6. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
But the government has a fix for that -- education. They are targeting kids to teach them about "climate change", energy efficiency and pollution. The EPA has partnered with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and Parent Teacher Organizations Today (PTO Today) (2). Our tax dollars at work, folks.
"We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes." (3)
The government is doing all it can to push cap and trade when health care is not stealing the spotlight. Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback on cap and trade, Dr. Chu said, "I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate" that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters. Very little debate among the politicians, maybe, but not among the citizens once they get wind of how much this will cost.
Global warming cap and trade costs could hit $300 billion annually, the Treasury Department admitted in documents released recently (4). You can see the documents from the Treasury Department here (PDF).
But those are big numbers. Let's break it down to something we can all relate to. Ben Lieberman, in testifying before Congress, said:
"For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
"But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600." (5)
And that's not including impact to employment. He continues:
"We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey." (6)
You can find the Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, here (PDF).
======================
1. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
2. Jones, Enesta (2009, September 17). "EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money". The EPA.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from EPA
3. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
4. Hall, Christine (2009, September 18). "Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually". Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from CEI
5. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
6. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Getting Rich Off Green Jobs
"Green jobs" are being touted as the wave of the future and are an integral part of the stimulus plan rammed through by Obama and the Democrats. But don't be fooled into thinking the average American is going to get rich off the green jobs push. The money is going to be collected by the unholy trinity on the left: environmental whackos, big labor and community organizers like ACORN.
The first group to get rich off the money is the Apollo Alliance. In late 2008 the Apollo Alliance -- with Obama's 'Green Jobs' Czar Van Jones then serving on its board of directors -- seized on the financial crisis as an opportunity to repackage the ideas it had long been promoting as a stimulus bill. Many of those ideas would be incorporated into the enacted legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February of 2009. The PDF of the legislation can be found here.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them." (1)
Although this legislation is supposed to generate a lot of "high tech" jobs, it just takes away white collar jobs and replaces some of them with blue collar jobs. Spain tried a green jobs program that President Obama and his allies have held up as a model for cap-and-trade. According to researchers at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, the results have been disastrous -- every "green job" created by government intervention destroys 2.2 real jobs in the private economy. Since 2000, Spain has spent $753,778 on each "green job," while their greenhouse gas emissions have increased nearly 50 percent (2).
This brings us to the second group -- the unions. All of the jobs created here are union jobs. And who do the unions support? Democrats. It's not just payback. It is now the law (3).
And probably the most hideous of the three is ACORN and groups like it. It is now eligible to apply for as much as $4.19 billion of stimulus funding under the so-called "Neighborhood Stabilization Program" and are likely eligible for other stimulus programs as well. A vote was taken to try to prohibit this from happening but it was defeated. (As a side note, I am happy to see that the senators for Nebraska, one Republican and one Democrat, both voted to keep the money out of the groups' grubby little hands.)
But this doesn't end the money hunt for these groups. They are now looking to get more money from the cap and trade bill. Blue-Green's executive director, David Foster, said, "It is an economic restructuring bill for the global economy. We should not pretend that it isn't. Instead, we should do it right." (4)
The original article from Phil Kerpen can be found here.
===================================
1. Schneider, Keith (2009, February 17). "Recovery Bill is Breakthrough on Clean Energy, Good Jobs". The Apollo News Service.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from Apollo News Service
2. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 2). "Obama's 'Green' Groups Eye Lots of Greenbacks". Fox News.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from Fox News
3. "DOL Issues Guidance on Davis-Bacon Requirements for Stimulus-Funded Projects". (2009, June 12). AGC of America.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from AGC of America
4. Geman, Ben (2009, August 28). "Can Push for Climate Bill Forge a Lasting Labor-Enviro Alliance?". The New York Times.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from The New York Times
The first group to get rich off the money is the Apollo Alliance. In late 2008 the Apollo Alliance -- with Obama's 'Green Jobs' Czar Van Jones then serving on its board of directors -- seized on the financial crisis as an opportunity to repackage the ideas it had long been promoting as a stimulus bill. Many of those ideas would be incorporated into the enacted legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February of 2009. The PDF of the legislation can be found here.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them." (1)
Although this legislation is supposed to generate a lot of "high tech" jobs, it just takes away white collar jobs and replaces some of them with blue collar jobs. Spain tried a green jobs program that President Obama and his allies have held up as a model for cap-and-trade. According to researchers at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, the results have been disastrous -- every "green job" created by government intervention destroys 2.2 real jobs in the private economy. Since 2000, Spain has spent $753,778 on each "green job," while their greenhouse gas emissions have increased nearly 50 percent (2).
This brings us to the second group -- the unions. All of the jobs created here are union jobs. And who do the unions support? Democrats. It's not just payback. It is now the law (3).
And probably the most hideous of the three is ACORN and groups like it. It is now eligible to apply for as much as $4.19 billion of stimulus funding under the so-called "Neighborhood Stabilization Program" and are likely eligible for other stimulus programs as well. A vote was taken to try to prohibit this from happening but it was defeated. (As a side note, I am happy to see that the senators for Nebraska, one Republican and one Democrat, both voted to keep the money out of the groups' grubby little hands.)
But this doesn't end the money hunt for these groups. They are now looking to get more money from the cap and trade bill. Blue-Green's executive director, David Foster, said, "It is an economic restructuring bill for the global economy. We should not pretend that it isn't. Instead, we should do it right." (4)
The original article from Phil Kerpen can be found here.
===================================
1. Schneider, Keith (2009, February 17). "Recovery Bill is Breakthrough on Clean Energy, Good Jobs". The Apollo News Service.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from Apollo News Service
2. Kerpen, Phil (2009, September 2). "Obama's 'Green' Groups Eye Lots of Greenbacks". Fox News.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from Fox News
3. "DOL Issues Guidance on Davis-Bacon Requirements for Stimulus-Funded Projects". (2009, June 12). AGC of America.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from AGC of America
4. Geman, Ben (2009, August 28). "Can Push for Climate Bill Forge a Lasting Labor-Enviro Alliance?". The New York Times.
Retrieved September 2, 2009, from The New York Times
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Greenpeace Admits Arctic Ice Melting Exagreration
Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, admits in an interview with a BBC reporter that the group's forecast of an ice-free Arctic by 2030 is wrong. He admits the information was misleading when they released it.
He went on to say that economic development in the United States and elsewhere needs to stop and says, "the lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model." Who, exactly, is the rich? Anyone not living in a hut?
The original (misleading) press release can be found here.
The original article can be found here. It also includes a link near the bottom to the video of the interview.
He went on to say that economic development in the United States and elsewhere needs to stop and says, "the lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model." Who, exactly, is the rich? Anyone not living in a hut?
The original (misleading) press release can be found here.
The original article can be found here. It also includes a link near the bottom to the video of the interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)