Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Environment, Freedom, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: CO2 Is NOT a Pollutant, It's a Natural Fertilizer, More CO2 Would be Better
Here in the State of Washington, we have a carbon tax on the ballot. If passed, it would be the first carbon tax in the country. The greenies are simply quivering with excitement. It will do nothing at all to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor is that the aim. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Climate change is very low on the list of voters’ priorities, and for good reason. The most dangerous environmental pollutants have been cleaned up—carbon dioxide is not among them. U.S. emissions of particulates, metals and assorted gases—ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur have fallen almost 70% between 1970 and 2014. The illusion remains that the beneficial gas carbon dioxide is among hazardous pollutants. (The EPA keeps trying to impress this false idea on the gullible). The public’s biggest worry is corruption of politicians.
Unlike genuine pollutants, carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless gas. Every human being exhales about two pounds of CO2 a day, along with a similar amount of water vapor. CO2 is nontoxic to people and animals and is a vital nutrient to plants. It is also a greenhouse gas which helps maintain earth at a habitable temperature.
CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, and is helping to feed a hungry world. he amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ranges from around 390 to a little over 400 ppm. Greenhouses keep their atmosphere at around 1000 ppm to keep their plants growing nicely. It would be a good thing if we could raise the amount in the atmosphere to 1000 ppm, and it is possible and not all that expensive.
The climatistas or climate warriors or whatever you want to call them are not really interested in climate as such, they are interested in ending the vast pollution of Capitalism, and they believe that the war on climate is their best chance of getting to their goal. Carbon taxes are just one of the ways of getting there.
Dr. Roy Spencer is Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He is the source of the only truly global monitoring system of observed warming.
Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.
You have seen the pictures of New York City practically underwater, with the Statue of Liberty up to her nose in rising seawater.
Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years. If a major hurricane is approaching with a predicted storm surge of 10-14 feet, are you really going to worry about a sea level rise of 1 inch per decade? If Hillary would have fact-checked her example of sea level rise in Norfolk, Virginia, she would have found out that the experts already know this is mostly due to the land there sinking.
To the extent that the cost of weather disasters has risen over time, that is well known to be the result of modern society building more infrastructure in areas that are prone to damage from weather—which is almost everywhere.
Do read the whole thing, stop worrying, and if you live in Washington State, please vote against the carbon tax.
ADDENDUM: Dr.Roy Spencer has a website here, with both the latest climate news, and excellent short articles explaining global warming 101 for those of us who didn’t do much beyond high school biology, chemistry and physics.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Freedom, Junk Science, Liberalism, Politics, Progressives, Taxes | Tags: Fooling the Voters, SEIU, Washington State Ballot Issues
Washington State voters have just received their ballots and the Voter’s Guide. It tells you something when we have already made the national news. The above Venn Diagram comes from economist Mark Perry, writing at AEI.
Over at the Wall Street Journal, we got a full article on “The SEIU’s Ballot Fraud: The union tries to hoodwink voters into protecting its dues.”
That’s the story in Washington state, where the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is funding a ballot measure that advertises itself as the Seniors and Vulnerable Individuals’ Safety and Financial Crimes Prevention Act. What the ballot measure would really do is prevent home-care workers from being informed that they have the right to opt out of the union.
In Harris v. Quinn in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that home-care workers have a First Amendment right not to pay fees to a union they don’t wish to join. In Washington state the ruling was taken up by the Freedom Foundation, which sought to inform the members of two unions representing child-care and home health-care workers that they could opt out. …
Under the ballot measure, the Freedom Foundation or other outsiders would be blocked from obtaining the list of union members’ names. The unions know that when workers know they have a right not to pay union dues, they often don’t. According to the Freedom Foundation, of the roughly 7,000 unionized child-care providers notified by the Freedom Foundation, well over 60% have dropped their union membership.
National Review targeted the same ballot measure.
“In Washington State, Unions Advance a Ballot Measure to Keep Members in the Dark.” It is disguised as a measure to protect the elderly from abuse but is simply an aggressive effort to keep home care providers from knowing that they don’t have to belong to the union, nor do they have to pay union dues.
Also on the ballot, but unaddressed at the national level is a state attempt to invalidate the (much hated by the Left) Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, the aforementioned minimum wage issue, a gun bill that attempts to remove guns from the mentally ill or depressed in an ineffective suicide prevention idea. And to top it all off, there’s an attempt to pass a carbon tax that would accomplish nothing, nothing at all, except an increase in taxes.
The Wall Street Journal also points out that “State government revenues have swelled 30% in the last five years. That’s a bigger raise than most workers have received, but public unions and their friends are asking voters for more at the ballot box on November eighth.
So they are, and we should not give them a cent.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Science/Technology, Unemployment | Tags: 400 Coal Mines Shuttered, 83000 Jobs Lost, Electricity Prices Rise
Headline in The Daily Caller: “Obama Kept his Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost and 400 Mines Shuttered.” On Labor Day weekend, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 fewer coal mines than it did when Obama was elected in 2008. Following through on his promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry. That represents a lot of misery for communities and unemployed workers, which will accomplish nothing, nothing at all — except the misery.
Before he headed overseas, President Barack Obama made a stop at Lake Tahoe to talk climate change, spending and environmental regulation, and exposed his lightweight understanding of all things climate along the way.
He asserted that climate change is “manmade” as a dogmatic fact. But climate has been changing for centuries. It has been far warmer in the past, and far colder as well. He insisted that “during the first half of this year, carbon pollution hit its lowest level in a quarter century.” Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant — it’s what we exhale every time we breathe. It is a natural fertilizer for plants and the very slight increase in carbon in the atmosphere has meant a greening world, and bumper wheat crops are helping to feed a hungry world, except Venezuela, of course.
Back in the 1960s Entomologist Paul Erlich declared that “the population bomb” would lead to mass starvation by the end of the 1970s. His close associate, John Holdren agreed, and here we are with famine and starvation becoming rarer and rarer, thanks to the slight increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. John Holdren, of course, is Obama’s science advisor.
Fracking did not cause the earthquake in Oklahoma. Oklahoma state regulators ordered 37 disposal wells used by frackers shut down because the Greens were out full force claiming that the technology that fueled America’s oil and natural gas boom naturally causes earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey seismologist William Ellsworth said he agrees with the research council that “hydraulic fracturing does not seem to pose much risk for earthquake activity.”
“The mixture used to fracture shale is a benign blend of 90% water, 9.5% sand and 0.5% of chemicals like sodium chloride (table salt) and the citric acid in orange juice. Drinking water aquifers are generally only a hundred feet deep. Shale formations in which fracking is employed are thousands of feet deep.”
Fracking itself is in fact saving the environment by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases the greenies hate. It does not slice and dice birds, including endangered species, en masse like wind turbines, nor does it fry them to a crisp like solar panel farms have done. And it does not cause major disastrous earthquakes.
The flood in Louisiana was not caused by global warming either.
Filed under: China, Democrat Corruption, Developing Nations, Environment, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, Junk Science, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States
Back at the beginning of his first term, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton announced a foreign policy “pivot” to Asia. The road of good intentions chose another direction, and the big events continued to happen in the Middle East. Civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS with accompanying terrorism and brutality, regime change in Egypt and Libya, and the continuing Iranian quest for nuclear weapons and regional dominance are the problems that have dominated the news and Obama’s response to those events has comprised his foreign policy record, and it is not a record that makes much of a legacy.
Obama dismissed ISIS as a “JV team,” was angered by the coup in Egypt, made a botch of Libya with the help of his Secretary of State who dismissed the whole thing with “We came, We saw, He died” and a round of laughter, when reporters told her he was dead. It is slowly becoming clear Obama has lied extensively to the American people about his “Iran Deal.”
The Mullahs in Iran really had no interest in a deal. They are interested in destroying Israel and in destroying America, and do not intend to be delayed or restrained. Obama believes that they care about their people and will use the funds returned to make life better for Iranian families. He believes he can turn the Middle East over to the Persians to run, and remove all American interference in that part of the world, which will mean peace. He apparently believes that all the problems in that part of the world are Bush’s fault for invading Iraq, and he has no interest in being disabused of his fanciful notions.
You can’t build a foreign policy legacy out of trying to avoid any confrontation at all. Obama’s playing his last hand and betting on the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, by pretending they are not treaties, but some kind of deal that does not require the consent of Congress. But that has been his operating plan for some time.
So far on this trip, Obama has insulted Teresa May, Britain’s new Prime Minister, telling her that Britain would have to go the the back of the line for any trade deals since they didn’t pay attention when he told them to vote BREXIT down. Face-conscious China insulted President Obama by failing to provide the red-carpet stairway provided to all heads of state, forcing him to descend from the belly of Air Force One, a clear snub. Irwin Stelzer reported in the Weekly Standard:
When Obama raised the issue of China’s militarization of the islands it has constructed in the South China Sea, President Xi Jinping told him China would “unswervingly safeguard” its claims in the area. When the American president raised the issue of human rights, Xi told him not to interfere in China’s internal affairs. Perhaps the unkindest cut of all came when Xi praised the Paris agreement to limit carbon emissions, the issue on which Obama had come to take a victory lap, “It was under Chinese leadership that much of this progress was made.”
Xi was wrong on both of these counts: the Paris accord will not limit emissions, and China was a reluctant signatory to the agreement forged in Paris, largely by Obama, and whereas America agreed to drastic cuts in emissions, China made no such promise. All it agreed to do, at some date in the distant future—perhaps 2030 if that proves convenient—is to begin slowing the rate of increase of its emissions relative to the growth in the country’s GDP. Not a word about ending China’s financing coal plants in other countries—92 in 27 countries is the current count of the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative, enough new coal-fired capacity to offset all the plant closures and emissions reductions planned in the United States for the next decade. No surprise that Xie Zhenhua, China’s senior climate change negotiator in Paris, says the deal struck there is “fair and just, comprehensive and balanced.”
The Senate will not ratify the treaty. Even if all the nations who have signed actually implemented their plans, it would reduce the growth of emissions only about half as much as the claimed 3.6º Fahrenheit which some scientists claim would reduce drought, floods, and other catastrophes which are not caused by increases in temperature. The Coalition of the Least Developed Nations agreed to go along because the rich nations agreed to give them at least $100 billion, but no one has started raising any money yet anyway. The panic about climate occurs only in the computer programs of the climate scientists who depend on climate panic for their jobs, their grants, and their reputations.
Obama apparently insulted the new Philippine president who then called President Obama the ‘son of a whore,’ so in general the big G-7 meeting didn’t go too well. Obama is off to Laos as the first U.S. President to visit that country.
ADDENDUM: Reports in from Laos, and snippets of President Obama’s speech, suggest that he’s up to his old tricks of apologizing for his country with little understanding of what actually went on in Laos, which was not as he suggests indiscriminate bombing. He actually said:
Over nine years — from 1964 to 1973 — the United States dropped more than two million tons of bombs here in Laos — more than we dropped on Germany and Japan combined during all of World War II. It made Laos, per person, the most heavily bombed country in history. As one Laotian said, the “bombs fell like rain.” Villages and entire valleys were obliterated. The ancient Plain of Jars was devastated. Countless civilians were killed. And that conflict was another reminder that, whatever the cause, whatever our intentions, war inflicts a terrible toll, especially on innocent men, women and children.
Our planes were bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail to prevent supplies coming down that trail to kill American troops from reaching Vietnam. It was a purposeful effort to save American lives, not indiscriminate and trying very hard not to kill civilians. Ask anyone who was there.
Filed under: Blogging, Domestic Policy, Education, Environment, Intelligence, Junk Science, Progressivism | Tags: Gender Idiocy, Searching for Meaning, Unimportant Research
There are some pieces that pop up in the country’s leftist media that simply leave you shaking your head. This one hits all the necessary notes — feminism, climate concern, gender , research, health, the professoriate, vegetarianism, Dietary Guidelines, and a smidgen of male bashing. The essay, by one Danielle Paquette, (she should be ashamed of herself ) appeared in The Washington Post’s wonkblog under the title “Your manliness could be hurting the planet.” It begins:
James Wilkie, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame, wanted to understand what drives this gender eco-friendliness gap. After years of exploring psychological bias, he and his colleagues developed a theory.
“Men’s resistance may stem in part from a prevalent association between the concepts of greenness and femininity and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green consumers are feminine,” they assert this month in the Journal of Consumer Research. “As a result of this stereotype, men may be motivated to avoid or even oppose green behaviors in order to safeguard their gender identity.”
If you are eager to learn more about the thinking of the Left, or if you totally agree that environmentalism is a feminine concern and men are all blockheads, you may enjoy the article. If you actually read it to the end, you will find more articles from Wonkblog linked, which all sound equally — nevermind.
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Progressivism, Science/Technology | Tags: James Delingpole, Junk Science, Ocean Acidification
James Delingpole, British writer, rants regularly at Breitbart about the utter goofiness of the world’s climate true believers. He wrote today about a climate “science” scam that keeps on rearing its ugly head, in spite of being debunked thoroughly over and over.
Aside from the need to debunk once more, it’s a classic example of the workings of climate science. In this case, one of Delingpole’s articles was supposedly debunked in The Marine Biologist (the magazine of the marine biologist community). He wrote:
There was a time when I would have just ignored it: the guy who wrote it – one Phil Williamson – is the embodiment of Upton Sinclair’s dictum that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Not only is Williamson based at the “University” of East Anglia – aka Climate Alarmism Central, heavily featured in the Climategate scandal – but since 2010 he has been paid as Science Coordinator of the UK Ocean Acidification research programme. This project has received around £12.5 million of UK government funding, most is provided by the Natural Environment Research Council (for which conveniently Williamson also works).
Dr. Robert (Bob) Carter, the late Australian Marine Geologist, laughed once and said “As long as there are rocks in the ocean, it will never be acid.” (that may not be an exact quote, but close), the sensible message stuck with me.
Many climate scientists who are based at one university or another find the drive do battle with “global warming” has financed a new and important department, the needed equipment, and the advocacy keeps drawing taxpayer funding to support it. It’s all a very incestuous scheme that should be considered scandalous, were they not so serious about it all.
Climate Change, says Delingpole “represents a global industry worth around $1.5 trillion — all of this predicated on the notion that man-made carbon dioxide is a problem because it causes catastrophic global warming. Now clearly if — as seems to be increasingly likely — CO2 turns out to be just a harmless trace gas whose influence on climate is marginal, than an awful lot of vested interests are going to be heavily out of pocket. Hence the appeal to the vast climate alarmist conspiracy of Ocean Acidification; the handy theory which ensures that even if global warming doesn’t happen, there will still be plenty of snout-space at the trough for all those rent-seekers, crooks, green-heads, scamsters and shills involved in the “decarbonisation” industry.”
Do read Mr. Delingpole’s whole piece. They are always great fun, but full of good information as well. I think he really relishes the role of “debunker.”