Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘environmentalism’

Dems feeling heat over energy bill

Posted by Richard on July 24, 2008

Judging by Harry Reid's hissy fit today, Democrats are beginning to buckle under the pressure to do something useful about oil and gas prices — like let us drill here and drill now. Have you helped apply that pressure by signing the petitions I posted about last week, or by contacting your senators and representative directly?

Here's another step you can take: for $15, Grassfire.org will fax your personal message to Harry Reid, key House and Senate leaders, and your senators and representative. For larger donations, they'll send your fax to additional senators who need to feel the heat.

Tell them you're not impressed by Democratic efforts to shift the blame to "speculators" when those "speculators" have just spent the last week bidding down the price of oil. Tell them you're not impressed by grandstanding about the two or three days' worth of oil in the strategic reserve, you want long-term solutions. 

Tell them to stop locking up our vast domestic oil supplies at the behest of environmental extremists. Tell them to pass the Gas Price Reduction Act (S.3202).

Tell them that you're mad about the Democratic convention committee getting cheap, tax-free gas for the last four months, and the least they can do is enact McCain's gas tax moratorium so that you get a bit of a price break, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Demand an end to the OCS drilling ban

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2008

After President Bush lifted his daddy's executive order banning off-shore drilling, the price of crude oil dropped three days in a row. On Thursday, it closed below $130, an 11% decline. Some people quickly suggested a causal connection, but I thought that was premature.

For one thing, Nigerian production went back up about the same time (or a day or two earlier). Nigeria is the #5 source of U.S. oil imports, and its output has been reduced significantly by attacks on pipelines and other infrastructure. So maybe the good news from Nigeria triggered the declines?

Well, it may have been a factor. But on Thursday, a new pipeline attack further disrupted Nigeria's output, and today the price only rose about 1%. 

I'm thinking that Bush's action, although theoretically only symbolic until Congress acts, really did affect traders' views of the long-term outlook. It — together with recent polls and other signs of increasing pressure on Congress — made future domestic supply increases much more likely, and that exerted downward pressure on the current price. 

Now is the time to increase pressure on Congress further and try to get a vote on drilling in the outer continental shelf before the August recess. Did you sign that Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition I wrote about last month? Did you donate $10 or more to get the bumper sticker? It's not too late. The first 1.3 million signatures have been delivered to Congress, but they're still collecting more. 

Don't stop there, though. Freedom's Watch has a petition to Congress, too. It'll take you only a few seconds to sign it here.

Then there's the Grassfire.org emergency petition to Congress, which lets you choose up to five calls to action to include (ANWR, oil shale, etc.).

Finally, on a different but related matter, GreenWatchAmerica is petitioning John McCain to reconsider his position on global warming.

Sign them all, please.

(Yeah, you'll get some email from the sponsoring organizations, but they're all pretty reputable, don't sell your address to spammers, and provide an unsubscribe link on their emails. So you can opt out of each as soon as you get the first email, if you want.) 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Climate change delusion

Posted by Richard on July 10, 2008

From Andrew Bolt at NEWS.com.au comes word of the first known hospitalization of a sufferer of "climate change delusion":

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Well, Barack Obama warned us a while back that "[w]e can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …" Being forced to pay more for food and energy seems positively moderate compared to being forced to eat less and turn off the furnace. (Although, to be fair, I don't think Obama has claimed that failure to adopt his statist agenda would lead to mass deaths. Not yet, at least.)

But this is actually a very sad story, because this 17-year-old is merely exhibiting an extreme version of apocalyptic beliefs that are rampant among young people in Western nations, who have undergone years and years of enviro-whacko indoctrination at the hands of their teachers. I suspect there will be many more cases of acute climate change delusion.

I remember a segment from one of John Stossel's special reports (I think it was Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?) in which he talked with a bunch of kids, maybe 9 or 10 years old, about the environment. All these kids were convinced of impending environmental catastrophes, and more or less resigned to inheriting a poisoned, inhospitable planet, a grim future in which they were likely to die young. As they talked about it, their shoulders slumped, their eyes were filled with sadness, and it seemed that every ounce of the joy of childhood had been drained out of them. It was very disturbing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems oppose increasing Iraq’s oil output, too

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2008

Democrats in Congress, who seem to believe they can wave a magic wand and convert the country to solar planes and trains and wind-powered cars and trucks, don't just oppose more domestic oil production. And they don't just want to micromanage and regulate every aspect of the U.S. energy industry. Democrats in Congress are now working to limit Iraq's oil output and dictate Iraq's energy policies! From Investor's Business Daily:

Baghdad has invited foreign oil firms to bid on contracts to increase production in eight lagging oil fields.

Thanks to our liberation of that country, which cost the U.S. and Iraq so much in lives and resources, Baghdad is now able to begin to make full use of its oil reserves of as much as 112.5 billion barrels — after Saudi Arabia, the largest petroleum deposit in the world.

But Iraq needs private companies because they have the kind of know-how and resources the country needs to rebuild its energy infrastructure and revive oil production after suffering under Saddam Hussein for so long. Baghdad's goal is to improve output from the current 2.5 million barrels a day to 4.5 million barrels by 2013.

Last week, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling on her to get the Iraqi government "to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies" because Iraq "currently does not have in place a revenue sharing law" to divide the proceeds between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

According to the three Senate Democrats, allowing the Iraqi government to enlist foreign help to maximize its oil production "would simply add more fuel to Iraq's civil war."

Of course, there is no civil war in Iraq today because President Bush refused to listen to the likes of Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill, who wanted the U.S. to resign itself to what some called "defeat with dignity."

The three also complained of it being uncertain that oil revenue-funded "reconstruction efforts would be targeted equitably to all the major ethnic groups in Iraq." What do these liberal Democrats want, an Iraqi version of their own failed affirmative action laws?

How wondrous to behold: High-ranking Democratic senators, who on so many occasions have condemned the president for interfering in Iraq, now insisting that Washington dictate to a freely elected government what its policy will be regarding its people's most valuable domestic resource. Apparently, Democrats aren't satisfied trying to wreck the U.S. energy industry; they want to wreck Iraq's, too.

Most senators and representatives are spending this Independence Day week in their home states and districts, meeting constituents, attending parades, etc. If you get the chance to meet your Congresscritter, ask him or her to support increased oil production in both the U.S. and Iraq (signing Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's pledge would be a good start). Or call their local office and convey the "Drill Here, Drill Now" message to the staff there. 

And speaking of "Drill Here, Drill Now," over 1.2 million people have signed the petition. Have you? Sign up at AmericanSolutions.com, and contribute $10 or more to get this cool bumper sticker: 

 Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

Resolve to do something this holiday weekend to push for a more rational energy policy that will allow additional supplies to be brought to market. To help you get motivated, here's Newt Gingrich's 3½-minute YouTube video, "3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices," which over 1.4 million people have already watched:

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

George Carlin on saving the planet

Posted by Richard on June 25, 2008

Here's a belated bit of a tribute to George Carlin, America's funniest foul-mouthed curmudgeon for many years. Like many of his fellow leftist/counterculture types, he anthropomorphized Planet Earth, but his take was somewhat different.

Today, James Hansen is back in the news calling for energy company execs to be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" and declaring "We're toast" if we don't stop global warming (but in 1971, Hansen was part of the "fossil fuels could trigger an ice age" crowd). So it seems appropriate to remember Carlin's entertaining take on such dire predictions.

Here's a taste of what's in the video below:

"The planet has been through a lot worse than us … been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, … bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, … cosmic rays, recurring ice ages — and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?"

7½ very funny minutes, ending with his embrace of The Big Electron. Need I warn you about the language? R.I.P, George.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

McCain rethinks offshore drilling

Posted by Richard on June 18, 2008

Sen. John McCain has kinda, sorta, maybe decided that drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS) just might be OK:

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

Let's be clear about what we're talking about. The "vast stretches" of "coastline" in question are the OCS areas 50 to 200 miles off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Florida Gulf coasts — well beyond the horizon, so no one on a beach anywhere will have the slightest inkling that there are drilling rigs out there.

Oil spills? There were exactly none among the many platforms off Louisiana and Texas that were destroyed during the devastating 2005 hurricane season. The risk of spills from tankers bringing foreign oil to our ports is far higher than the risk from offshore drilling.

And the untapped reserves in the OCS are probably more than five times what McCain stated.

Nonetheless, McCain wants to leave it up to the states. I thought he was really fond of international law. The states have no jurisdiction beyond the 12-mile territorial limit. Under the international law of the sea, the federal government can control this kind of development out to the 200 mile "economic zone" limit. The only reason the states are involved in the OCS issue at all is because Congress chose to give them this power.  

Oh, well, at least McCain's taken a step in the right direction. What could have precipitated his change of heart? Maybe it was polls like this one (emphasis added):

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey-conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue–finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose). [46-37 is evenly divided? – Ed.]

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.

Let's see — two-thirds of all voters favor off-shore drilling (and I suspect that's without the pollsters explaining how far off-shore such drilling would actually be), and fewer than one in five are opposed. Republicans, conservatives, and moderates all strongly support drilling. A clear majority of Democrats and African-Americans are in favor. Even a plurality of self-described liberals support the idea!

McCain isn't exactly taking a big risk by changing his stance. In fact, I have to wonder what Obama and the leading Democrats are thinking when they continue toeing the enviro-whacko line on this issue. 

Clearly, most Americans agree with the nearly 900,000 who've signed Newt Gingrich's petition to drill here, drill now, pay less. Have you signed? Have you contributed $10 or more so that you'll get a bumper sticker?

What about your Congresscritter? Has he or she signed Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's pledge to support more land-based drilling, more offshore drilling, and more refineries? The list of signers is here. If your representative isn't on it, call or email their office and ask them to sign. If your representative is on the list, extend your thanks.

 Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Celebrate Carbon Belch Day!

Posted by Richard on June 12, 2008

Today is Carbon Belch Day. Did you register, like I suggested on Monday? As I noted then, increasing your carbon footprint could help protect our forests.

Using the Carbon Belch Calculator, I determined that my one-day carbon belch will emit about 129 pounds of CO2 (the average American's daily output is 41 pounds). Why not calculate your carbon belch? Then, be sure to register your belch by taking the Carbon Belch Day Pledge. Pledgers have already registered over 110 million pounds of CO2 to be released this day! 

Finally, if you can afford it, buy some carbon debits:

Perhaps the most absurd aspect of the entire Climate Alarmist agenda is the burgeoning "carbon credit" industry. To offset our green guilt, we are told to "buy" carbon credits to supposedly neutralize our CO2 footprint. Somehow, this bogus idea of environmental indulgences has become accepted as a real and valid way to deal with our Carbon Guilt.

That's why we've "created" Carbon Belch Debits (CBDs) — a meaningless term that will have just as much impact on Al Gore's "planetary emergency" as the carbon credits.

To increase my carbon belch, I'll be taking a longer lunch so I can run some errands (in an SUV! by myself!), and I'll eat beef. When I get home, I'll mow the lawn. It could wait until the weekend, but what the heck — it's for a good cause. Then I'll spend the evening doing about what I did on March 29 in protest of Earth Hour: maximizing my home energy consumption. (Now that I think about it, that 129 pound calculation is probably an underestimate because the Carbon Belch Calculator has no place to enter all the extra energy consumption I plan.)

As I said back in March, "My ancestors didn't survive the Black Plague and Dark Ages, create the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and bring about the past two hundred years of astonishing scientific and technological progress so that we could huddle in the dark."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Posted by Richard on June 11, 2008

Democrats claim to be concerned about the high price of gasoline. And it looks like they realize there's a supply problem — after all, they stopped the diversion of crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and they tried to pressure Saudi Arabia into increasing its output.

But those measures were mere posturing. In reality, the Democrats like high prices and short supplies. They want to force us to abandon our cars and shiver in the dark in order to "save the planet."

Since 1994, they've blocked access to at least 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on environmental grounds. The ANWR contains almost 20,000,000 acres — bigger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware combined. The "footprint" of the proposed drilling operation would be 2,000 acres — one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. And this 0.1% of ANWR that would be impacted is on the barren coastal plain, not in the scenic mountains and wilderness area they're always showing you pictures of.

Last month, Senate Democrats killed a bill to suspend Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) moratorium blocking oil shale development on federal lands. According to Sen. Orrin Hatch, the oil shale deposits in just Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming contain as much oil as the rest of the world combined.

Last week, Senate Democrats tried to pass the Warner-Lieberman-Boxer "cap and trade" bill, AKA "ration and tax and spend" — which would raise prices of all energy supplies significantly. And then they tried to enact a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies — which we know from the bitter experience of the Carter years will lead to both shortages and higher prices. Thank goodness (and Mitch McConnell) they failed in both those attempts.

Today, House Democrats rejected a proposal by Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) to permit drilling in deep off-shore waters:

A House subcommittee has rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

The U.S. imports about 10 million barrels of oil a day. The outer continental shelf, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, has at least 86 billion barrels. That, plus the 10+ billion barrels in ANWR, would replace half our current annual oil imports for more than 50 years.

And that's not even considering the 20 billion or so barrels of conventional on-shore oil that are off-limits, the increasingly promising Bakken Formation, which may contain more oil than Saudi Arabia, and the vast quantities of shale oil.

The opponents to "drilling our way out of the problem" argue that (a) it would be years before new supplies were available, and (b) they wouldn't "solve" the problem for good. That's like arguing against going grocery shopping because (a) it won't immediately satisfy your hunger, and (b) eventually you'll get hungry again anyway. 

We should have started developing these oil resources years ago, but the same people who say now is too late prevented it then. Starting now is better than starting later — or never. And you think it won't impact today's price? Let shale oil development restart, and watch how soon OPEC pushes the price of oil down low enough to make shale oil uneconomical again.

If you're sick of the skyrocketing gas price, if you're sick of the sanctimonious demands that we suck it up and make do with less, if you're sick of human needs being subordinated to every insect, rodent, and fish on the planet, it's time to let Washington know.

Newt Gingrich's American Solutions movement has already gathered well over half a million signatures on a petition to Congress to authorize access to domestic energy reserves. They hope to deliver 3 million signatures to both major parties at their national conventions. Sign the petition, donate a few bucks, and get the bumper sticker:

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Then tell your friends to do the same. Before we all end up freezing in the dark. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bonfires and inanities

Posted by Richard on June 10, 2008

For the second time in four years, Seattle Parks and Recreation tried last week to ban beach bonfires (they’re already restricted to a handful of fire rings and require a permit). Why? To save the planet, of course:

According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, “The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon … emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming.”

Apparently, they’ve again backed down — at least for now. But this is yet another illustration of how immune to reason, logic, and reality the AGW true believers are. Banning bonfires to prevent global warming is only slightly less inane and absurd than banning pictures of guns on T-shirts to prevent plane hijackings.

Meanwhile in California, development is grinding to a halt and the Governator has declared an official statewide drought because of a water supply crisis. What caused this crisis? The New York Times story doesn’t mention the precipitating event until paragraph 18 (emphasis added):

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a curtailment in pumping from the California Delta — where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million Californians — to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the state’s water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a consortium of state water boards.

So 25 million of California’s 38 million residents have their water supply threatened in order to prevent a two-inch fish from meeting its demise in a water pump instead of in the mouth of a larger fish. Unbelievable.

These Gaia-worshipping eco-nuts are at base profoundly anti-human. When a lightning-caused wildfire consumes thousands of acres of forest, they say it should be allowed to burn because that’s “nature’s way.” But when humans harvest trees, they say that’s raping the land — and an infinitesimally smaller bonfire on a beach threatens the planet. When beavers dam a creek and flood a mountain valley, they say it’s natural and beautiful. But when humans do the same thing, they call it despoliation. No one gives a moment’s thought to the farts of bears, bison, or wildebeest. But the farts of our livestock are a cause for grave concern.

To the environmentalist true believers, every species of plant, animal, fungus, and microbe on Earth is entitled to live in the manner to which it’s suited — except human beings. They look upon their own species as alien interlopers who threaten the pristine perfection that would exist if we all just went away. It’s the Bambi and Peaceable Kingdom myths commingled with a deep-seated self-loathing, and it’s disgusting.

(HT: Skeptics Global Warming)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Earth is greener. Do SUVs deserve the credit?

Posted by Richard on June 10, 2008

It should be obvious to anyone who compares, say, the north coast of Alaska (top picture) to a tropical rainforest (bottom picture) that living things struggle when it's cold and thrive when it's warm. 

[UPDATE: Sorry, Internet Explorer 6 users — I just discovered you couldn't see the right-aligned pictures. I have no idea why and lack the patience to investigate. This seems to fix things.] 

ANWR coastal plain

Rainforest

If you remember your high school biology lesson on photosynthesis, you also know that CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, which remove the life-giving carbon and release the O2.

So there's really nothing all that unexpected about the NASA data on the Earth's biomass. Scientists analyzing the satellite measurements of plant matter on land were nonetheless surprised. Lawrence Solomon, a long-time environmentalist and recovering Anthropogenic Global Warming True Believer, explains (emphasis added):

The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Screw Al Gore and the doomsayers — that sounds good to me. Unfortunately, it may be coming to an end, and all those "save the planet, reduce your carbon footprint" efforts may be horribly misguided (emphasis added):

This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed — CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool — will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed.

All the Gaia-worshippers' finger wagging aside, I don't believe that air conditioning and SUVs have played much of a role in 20th-century warming and CO2-level increases. Nonetheless, I think we all ought to do what we can to preserve the Earth's biomass by countering the misguided efforts of Al Gore's disciples. I'm going to help protect our forests by increasing my carbon footprint. I encourage you to join me — pledge to participate in Carbon Belch Day on June 12.

(HT: Watts Up With That?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Congress says don’t drill, sue

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Just a week ago (for the umpteenth time in the last 25 years), Democrats thwarted efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production by blocking access to vast supplies in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We can't "drill our way to lower prices," Sen. Durbin said.

This week, Democrats passed (with the support of countless craven Republicans) an alternative solution cleverly entitled the "Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act." It says that instead of producing more oil, we should just sue OPEC and force them to produce more for us. (Robert Bryce suggested we also sue the Dutch to make them produce more Heineken.)

And today (also for the umpteenth time), Democrats are lambasting oil company executives. Besides the usual demagoguery against "obscene" profits, senators criticized the oil firms for not investing enough in exploration and refineries.

But wait! I thought burning more oil was evil — that we had to give up our "addiction to oil" in order to save the polar bears and prevent the seas from boiling. I thought we all had to accept the fact that, as Sen. Obama chided us, "[w]e can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …"

So why do our brilliant Congressional leaders want to force the OPEC countries and oil companies to produce more oil?

Maybe it's so that they and their Hollywood friends can continue to jet off to "save the planet" events around the globe in their private Gulfstreams. (And then condemn wealth and profits, of course.)

Or maybe it's all just posturing and pandering and jockeying for more power. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Polar bear numbers

Posted by Richard on May 15, 2008

Estimated number of polar bears in 1970: 8,000 – 10,000

Estimated number of polar bears today: 20,000 – 40,000 

Estimated increase in Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island polar bear populations in the last 20 years: 160% 

Percentage of relevant scientific forecasting principles applied by Dept. of Interior research studies predicting polar bear decline due to global warming: 10 – 15% 

Number of reputable peer-reviewed studies published since last October (by NASA and the journal Nature) showing that the melting of Arctic sea ice in recent years is not caused by global warming: 2

Degree of confidence that the models and predictions and projections about Arctic sea ice and polar bear populations will prove to be accurate: Zip, zero, zilch, nada 

Number of lawsuits environmentalist will file to stop human activities that generate CO2, now that the Interior Dept. has listed polar bears as a threatened species anyway: Countless

Thanks, Bush administration.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Celebrate technology tonight

Posted by Richard on March 29, 2008

Tonight, the people who hang on Al Gore's every word and love feeling smugly self-righteous about their environmental consciousness are participating in another one of those stupid, meaningless gestures that's just one step above World Jump Day. It's called Earth Hour:

On March 29, 2008 at 8 p.m., join millions of people around the world in making a statement about climate change by turning off your lights for Earth Hour, an event created by the World Wildlife Fund.

Earth Hour was created by WWF in Sydney, Australia in 2007, and in one year has grown from an event in one city to a global movement. In 2008, millions of people, businesses, governments and civic organizations in nearly 200 cities around the globe will turn out for Earth Hour. …

We invite everyone throughout North America and around the world to turn off the lights for an hour starting at 8 p.m. (your own local time)–whether at home or at work, with friends and family or solo, in a big city or a small town.

Join people all around the world in showing that you care about our planet and want to play a part in helping to fight climate change. Don’t forget to sign up and let us know you want to join Earth Hour.

I plan to do my part to fight this nonsense. I'm going to celebrate technology tonight. From 8 to 9, I'll turn on every light in the house and both TVs, crank up the sound system, and open the front and back doors.

My ancestors didn't survive the Black Plague and Dark Ages, create the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and bring about the past two hundred years of astonishing scientific and technological progress so that we could huddle in the dark.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Climate news, good and bad

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2008

There is both good news and bad news regarding global warming (which are bad news and good news, respectively, if your goal is to move us toward a command-and-control economy in which we're all poorer). First, the bad news: According to a Princeton study reported by National "Progressive" Radio, biofuels such as ethanol release huge amounts of greenhouse gases (emphasis added):

"The simplest explanation is that when we divert our corn or soybeans to fuel, if people around the world are going to continue to eat the same amount that they're already eating, you have to replace that food somewhere else," Searchinger says.

Searchinger and his colleagues looked globally to figure out where the new cropland is coming from, as American farmers produce fuel crops where they used to grow food. The answer is that biofuel production here is driving agriculture to expand in other parts of the world.

"That's done in a significant part by burning down forests, plowing up grasslands. That releases a great deal of carbon dioxide," Searchinger says.

In fact, Searchinger's group's study, published online by Science magazine, shows those actions end up releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The study finds that over a 30-year span, biofuels end up contributing twice as much carbon dioxide to the air as that amount of gasoline would, when you add in the global effects.

"Right now there's little doubt that ethanol is making global warming worse," Searchinger says.

But the good news is it may not matter much, climate-change-wise, because the world's oceans haven't warmed at all in the last five years and have actually cooled slightly, according to another NPR report (emphasis added):

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

Oh, dear — I thought the science was "settled."

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

Describing slight cooling as "less rapid warming" is even more dishonest than referring to a recession as "a period of negative growth." 

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

Gee, I guess that means those fancy computer models that "prove" anthropogenic global warming is taking place can't be accurately modeling the role that clouds are playing, can they?

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

So the science is settled, and we should all get used to the fact that we have to reduce our standard of living. But the planet seems to have stopped warming, the scientists have no idea why, they admit there are many significant aspects of global climate that they aren't able to measure and don't understand, and there may even be "features of the planet" that they don't know about at all. 

Yeah, it's an exciting time for these scientists all right. More grants! More research! Just don't question their conclusions and policy prescriptions, because those have already been "settled." 

Meanwhile, more and more ethanol is being burned instead of poured over ice. A tragedy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Global cooling

Posted by Richard on February 28, 2008

In several previous posts about the global warming issue, I've pointed out that we're due for an ice age and that maybe we should intensify our efforts to warm the globe in order to offset this impending catastrophe. See, for instance, this post (and the wonderful dialog I had with Fred Bortz in the comments) and especially this post, where I pointed to evidence that the cooling may come rapidly:

I knew that the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and that we're about due for another. But I didn't know about the correlation between ice ages and CO2 levels:

As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time — without exception.

I also didn't know that the current interglacial warm period might end quite suddenly:

In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a pollen specialist in France, concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago, took "less than 20 years."  …

As I noted in a comment to the first post linked above, "A hundred years from now, as the ice sheets begin edging southward, people living north of the Mason-Dixon line may wish we'd cranked out more carbon dioxide." Now, there is preliminary evidence that we may not even have to wait a hundred years.

The Earth actually stopped warming around the turn of the century. And now, the people tracking global temperatures all agree that the Earth has cooled dramatically in the past year (emphasis added):

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Check out the fine commentary by Mike at Monkey Tennis Centre and by Doug Ross, who offered a slightly snarky speculation:

And I wonder how long Al Gore's carbon-offset bunko scam is going to last when penguins start freezing to death.

BTW, speaking of anecdotal evidence: Those of you inclined toward skiing and snowboarding might want to know that the anecdotal evidence in Colorado is pretty interesting, too. Most of the major ski resorts are at or near record snowfall levels, ranging from 25 to 41 feet. Don't miss it, book your spring ski trip now — just in case I'm wrong, the new data's wrong, Gore's right, and it never happens again. 😉

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »