Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

ObamaCare Challenge Tossed

December 4, 2010

U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee, tossed out a challenge to ObamaCare in Virginia this week. This is the second victory for the Obama administration in a wave of lawsuits. Liberty University, the plaintiff in the case, has already decided to appeal in hopes of eclipsing Moon’s decision. “Congress does not have the authority to force every American to purchase a particular kind of health insurance product,” said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty’s School of Law and an attorney on the case. Liberty argued that the law abuses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in an attempt to provide the government strict control over the health care market. Their constitutional exegesis is completely sound, but Moon was blinded to that reality.

According to Moon, the law requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance falls legally under the Commerce Clause because the lack of the law would drive up costs, “precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.” To this we would ask, if the Commerce Clause can be melded to the whims of the backers of ObamaCare, what powers doesn’t Congress have to continue to shackle the American people?

Along the same lines…

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial calls it “the ultimate form of taxation without representation”: the continuing attempts by eco-fascists to force wealth redistribution upon the United States and other “rich” countries. This is all under the guise, of course, of saving the world from the scourge of global warming.

After its abysmal failure in wintry Copenhagen last year, the UN is holding another climate change conference in balmy Cancun, Mexico. There, surrounded by sun and sand, it will once again attempt to convince delegates from 193 countries that, a) the world is in peril and therefore we must drastically reduce emissions; and b) the U.S. and other developed nations must pay poor countries billions of dollars in retribution for the “damage” they caused in becoming, well, developed. The conference will feature the usual fanfare, including 250 presentations about the effects of climate change and proclamations that 2010 is tied for the hottest year since we began keeping records 131 years ago.

This is all smoke and mirrors. German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who also serves as the pretentiously titled Co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, has openly admitted that “climate change policy is redistributing the world’s wealth.” This would be accomplished in the U.S. with cap-n-trade policies being pushed by Obama and his “progressive” pals in Congress.

Despite the sunny weather, the climate at this conference probably won’t be any friendlier than it was in Denmark. Even before the Republican landslide in last month’s elections, many lawmakers were leery of saddling Americans with more taxes during the recession, especially given the fact that China — the world’s biggest polluter — refuses to make any binding promises about emissions. In addition, in the wake of the Climategate scandal, emerging studies have shot more holes in climate change “science” than in Swiss cheese. Only time will tell, but it looks as if leftists will have to find another way to siphon America’s wealth to other nations.

In related news, House Republicans are set to eliminate the climate change committee created by soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In Congress at least, the climate has changed.

And yet more commentary on epic fail obama’s choice of czar for BATFE

In another example of the “Chicago Way,” last week Barack Obama tabbed Andrew Traver, currently special agent in charge of the Chicago division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (better known by the ATF acronym), as the bureau’s permanent head. “You might as well put an arsonist in charge of the fire department,” quipped NRA spokesman Chris Cox.

While the gun grabbers at the Brady Center applaud the choice, Second Amendment advocates are predictably aghast. They criticize Traver because of his ties to the gun-control advocating Joyce Foundation and work during a 2007 conference on reducing gun violence sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, another fervently anti-gun organization. The IACP report includes a call for legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry. What Second Amendment?

Others question Traver’s lack of senior-level executive experience, but when has that ever stopped anyone in Washington? The Senate may get a chance to question and confirm Traver, who would take over an agency laboring under acting leaders since 2006, unless Obama decides to use him as yet another recess appointment. Certainly Traver would fit right in with the rest of Executive Branch Washington in an era where the president relies on regulation, as opposed to legislation, to enact his agenda.

SOURCE

More on man made Global Climate Change: yeah right…

May 9, 2010

Yvo de Boer, the UN’s lame-duck climate change bigwig, recently held a three-day conference in Koenigswinter, Germany. The meeting, loftily known as the “The Petersberg Dialogue” (which sounds like the title of a Robert Ludlum novel), was arranged to repair the breakdown in trust that occurred at Nopenhagen last December.

The next major UN climate change conference is set for December of this year in Cancun, Mexico, which, unlike frozen Copenhagen, shouldn’t suffer snow or bring record cold temperatures. While Copenhagen was hyped in the media for months beforehand, de Boar isn’t holding out any hopes for a binding treaty in Cancun. Instead, he hopes it will lead to a “functioning architecture,” which is liberalese for establishing a platform of wealth redistribution on an international scale.

De Boer is confident that a treaty will be signed before 2012, but he was careful to state that “even that will not be the definitive answer to the climate change challenge.” Of course, the only definitive answer, according to envirofascists, would involve bankrupting economies and limiting each couple to one child because, by the very fact of our existence, humans are endangering the planet.

In the meantime, the Leftmedia continues to wage its scare campaign on the rest of us. This week, the Leftmedia headlined “Melting Icebergs Cause Sea Level Rise,” which was taken from a press release issued by the University of Leeds. The article continues with the usual fear-inspiring “facts,” giving just enough data to sway some of those on the fence. Of course, as blogger Anthony Watts pointed out, at the rate the scientists claim the ice is melting, a dubious guess in and of itself, we can expect the sea level to rise one inch every 526 years.

SOURCE

Climate Change This Week: Gore Comes Out of Winter Hibernation

March 5, 2010

In the wake of the recent irrefutable counterattack on climate change “science,” one would think that those who have forecasted the end of civilization would be running for the hills, or — at the very least — quietly dropping their phony claims and stepping aside in light of, well, the inconvenient truth. But leave it to Al Gore to make even more excuses for years of incompetence and dishonesty, and leave it to the New York Times to provide him a platform from which to pontificate.

And pontificate he did, in a weekend op-ed worthy of Michael Moore in terms of pure, unadulterated horse pucky. The former vice president once again wailed that we will face an “unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.” He should just come clean and tell us what he really means: redistributing the wealth, from our pockets to his.

Gore also valiantly defended those of his brethren exposed in the Climategate scandal, referring to the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mails as “stolen.” (As if that somehow justifies the corrupt content therein.) He further claimed the abused scientists involved had succumbed to the pressure of climate skeptics, blatantly ignoring that for years other scientists who questioned climate change found themselves either silenced or blacklisted.

He even went so far as to blame the U.S. Senate, by way of stalling the Obama administration’s cap-n-tax scheme, for other world leaders’ lack of commitment at the Copenhagen Summit. China, Gore confides conspiratorially, was really gung-ho about limiting its carbon emissions until the big, bad U.S. decided to take the low road.

The government Gore and others like him envision is a danger to our Essential Liberty. Preserving a government that encourages both a free market and free thinkers can mean not only the difference between prosperity and ruin, but literally between life and death. We need only to compare the recent earthquakes in Chile and Haiti to tell us this. The earthquake in Chile registered 8.8 on the Richter Scale, which was hundreds of times more powerful than the one that struck Haiti, but due in part to Chile’s superior infrastructure and wealth, only 708 people were killed, as opposed to more than 220,000 in the third-world Caribbean nation. Thankfully, more people are starting to realize that we cannot take our prosperity and our way of life for granted, and that includes vigorously confronting opportunistic charlatans like Al Gore.

In related news, the University of Tennessee is giving Gore an honorary doctoral degree because, gushed Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek, “his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better.” Both the publisher and managing editor of The Patriot Post hold advanced degrees from the University of Tennessee and, accordingly, have submitted protests. (Our editors did actual research for their degrees.)

SOURCE

Climate Change This Week: Blizzard Disrupts Bureaucracy

February 13, 2010

Granted, in Wyoming, we call it winter…

The Obama administration announced this week that it will unveil yet another bureaucratic brainchild: another new agency to study and disperse information about climate change to both the public and policy makers. Interestingly enough, the press conference announcing the agency was disrupted by the blizzard in Washington, DC, and had to be conducted via telephone.

The agency, which will be headquartered in DC, will have six directors throughout the country and will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA head Jane Lubchenco claims that its creation is crucial to making informed decisions regarding wind power, fishing industries and coastal community planning. But NOAA is known to be in the tank for envirofascists, and there is little reason to believe that this information will be accurate.

There is humor to be found in almost any situation, however, and Republican Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) certainly found it in the snow-covered streets of Washington. He and his family used some of the 32 inches of snow that fell on the city to make an igloo. The structure, placed strategically near the Capitol, was then fitted with a sign reading “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works is running out of places to put the snow, settling on an empty parking lot at the edge of town where they’re building a “snow mountain.” How appropriate — things have been piling higher and deeper in the Swamp for some time now.

Naturally, warmists such as those at Time magazine are blaming global warming for the snow, though they correctly point out that “Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries.” But then, curiously, the mag admits that “while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate.” And here we thought it was settled science.

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto concludes, “It’s true that cold weather, while providing an occasion to mock global warming, does not disprove it. But the mocking would be far less effective had global warmists not spent the past quarter-century making a mockery of the scientific method.”

SOURCE

Financial windfal: You too can cash in on faux science!

January 9, 2010

Ah yes, in these hard times any of us can make a bundle, a really big bundle. How so you ask? Well, it’s simple really, listen closely now. ( Step away from me boy, ya bother me…) In this bottle we have the answer to all man’s ills, and woman’s as well. Our “scientific” formula will surely line your pockets…

Snake Oil is snake oil no matter the day or age.

After a year of hype, the “Copenhagen Accord” didn’t live up to its billing. December’s UN summit on climate change quickly disintegrated into a battle of competing national interests, culminating with the 200 participating nations leaving without a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, there is no current plan to reach such an agreement, just a vague reference to the next major UN climate change conference, scheduled to take place late this year in Mexico, where it should be warmer than Copenhagen in December turned out to be.

The Accord was hurriedly hammered out in the eleventh hour after infighting had threatened to scuttle negotiations and thereby rain on the parade of the late-arriving Barack Obama. In the end, the main players were Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, leaving many other nations feeling as though they had been shut out of the process altogether. While that may be the case, it is all but irrelevant, given that the final document does not obligate anyone to do anything. In essence, the agreement calls for both wealthy and developing nations to make a list of common goals (which is unlikely, given the fact that they could not agree at the conference), with some means for an international bureaucracy to oversee “progress.” Wealthy nations also pledged to give $30 billion to help developing nations deal with climate change, with an eye to giving $100 billion annually by 2020. Leaders, however, were vague (not surprising in this economic climate) about the sources for this money.

Finally, the pièce de résistance: a “vow” to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over estimated pre-industrial levels. Of course, if we could control that, the summit would have been completely unnecessary.

This is a big blow to those hoping for a financial windfall. Climate change has become big business (as Al Gore’s growing bank account will attest), and those with money to invest in lower-carbon technologies are not going to be so quick to put their hands in their pockets for a pact that isn’t legally binding.

About That Carbon Dioxide…

The e-mail scandal at the University of East Anglia; Al Gore’s misstatements of fact in Copenhagen; the coldest winter since little Algore pulled on his first pair of ‘jammies — the myth of man-made climate change is falling apart piece by piece, and the latest blow is a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.

Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol’s Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth’s absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) has remained unchanged. In fact, Knorr’s study found that only 45 percent of carbon emissions caused by man’s progression (including industrialization) remains in the atmosphere as opposed to the 100 percent that the warmers are claiming.

Warming “science” is based largely on the supposition that the Earth can take only so much CO2, and that once its limit has been reached, we’re cooked. But more and more dissenters, who had been silenced for several years by the media and ostracized by colleagues, are now stepping forward. Their position is that the Earth’s ecosystems are much more complex and robust than we understand, and that computer systems used by scientists crying climate change are limited in their comprehension — better known by people with common sense as garbage in, garbage out.

Meanwhile, with winter hardly a month old, just as in March 2009, when a snowstorm buried the “civil disobedience” climate change protest in Washington, DC, Mother Nature is weighing in now with record cold temperatures and snowfall around the nation. In fact, Joe Bastardi of Accuweather.com is predicting that the winter of 2010 will be the most severe in 25 years. Gore had better schedule the next protest during the summer.

Source

Cap and Trade, a failure on all counts

June 30, 2009

The nefarious forces that are beholden to political correctness and pseudo-science this week scored a victory for the hate America first group in an overt attempt to destroy what is left of the economy. Apparently, real science, as presented by a premier wordpress blog, Wattsupwiththat, mean nothing.

“The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, has produced a stellar paper on [the cap and trade bill]… Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes ‘that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.’ But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill ‘would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. …[It] would reduce the earth’s future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.’ The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are ‘polluting’ at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here’s the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated ‘net’ job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out.” –columnist David Limbaugh

All Gore brings “change”

April 26, 2009

One things for sure, the Gore is on the “change” bandwagon and it certainly appears that the current administration likes this form of change…

Climate Week Comes to Washington

A series of highly publicized hearings and testimonials were held surrounding Earth Day this week to draw as much attention as possible to the liberal sham that is climate legislation. Even Al Gore showed up on Friday, though, oddly enough, it didn’t snow.

The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Transportation Department and the Energy Department testified on climate change legislation — a bill that is 648 pages in draft form — before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to The New York Times, “The House measure, the most far-reaching piece of energy and environmental legislation to come before Congress in years, would require large changes in the way the United States generates electricity, manufactures products, heats and lights its homes and offices, and moves people and goods.”

Political grandstanding was the main order of the week, but passing the cap and trade bill will top the agenda over the coming weeks — with the hope that it will clear the full House before Memorial Day. Some more radical elements, though, would include stricter measures that limit emissions and heavily fine those deemed to be polluters. Either way, the economy will suffer the consequences for actions taken based on dubious theories. As Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) put it, “The debate is not about whether cap-and-trade legislation will raise energy costs; the only dispute is by how much. With a cap-and-trade scheme like that proposed by Chairmen Waxman and Markey, households can expect energy cost increases up to $3,128 per year. Your electricity bill will increase by 77 to 129 percent. Filling up your gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 to 144 percent more. The cost of home heating oil and natural gas will nearly double.” So much for Barack Obama’s oft repeated pledge to “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families.”

In related news, Obama burned about 9,000 gallons of jet fuel on Earth Day to make his speech in Iowa about saving the planet.

SOURCE

The Sky Is Falling On Gore Again

July 22, 2008

I found this piece, and love it!

By Henry Lamb
July 22, 2008

Al Gore has certainly secured his place in history. His Academy-Award-Pulitzer-Prize-winning prediction that climate change will raise sea levels by 20 feet will be studied by future history students, along with the predictions of Malthus and Paul Ehrlich.

With Gore-like zeal, in the 19th century, Malthus predicted that the world’s population would soon outstrip the world’s food supply. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich predicted that, “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”

He also predicted that by 1980, life expectancy in the United States would drop to 42, and that the U.S. population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999.

The grand prize for idiotic predictions in the 21st century has already been claimed by Al Gore. His insistence that the earth will fry, that the seas will rise, and that life as we know it must undergo a “wrenching transformation” will be studied by his grandchildren with the same appreciation that his, and Ehrlich’s ridiculous predictions deserve.

Is it possible that Ehrlich and Gore really think their predictions are valid? Or, are they just following the instructions of Dr. Steven Schneider, who tells fellow scientists:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” (Discover magazine, Oct. 1989)

Students of Malthus generally agree that he was sincere in his predictions, actively engaging his detractors in debate, and revising his conclusions accordingly. Malthus was sincerely wrong. The same cannot be said about Ehrlich, or Gore. Ehrlich jumped on the environmental band wagon early. His book “Population Bomb” was published in 1968, and was an instant best-seller. He rode the wave of book sales and popularity for a decade, making speeches and writing articles offering excuses for failed predictions and promising even worse consequences for what he called environmental abuse.

Al Gore saw an opportunity to re-claim the political spotlight when he chaired the June 28, 1988 Senate hearing that called Jim Hansen to testify that the current heat wave was caused by global warming. Gore, having been defeated in the 1988 presidential primary by Jesse Jackson in the South, and by Michael Dukakis in the North, turned his attention to the environment, and to global warming in particular.

It was Hansen’s testimony at Al Gore’s hearings that propelled the United Nations’ efforts to get into the global warming business. Before the end of 1988, the U.N. Environment Program, and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take charge of global research and action.

Gore’s selection as Vice President in 1992 provided the perfect stage for what was until then, his most influential performance. He publicly ridiculed then-President George H.W. Bush into attending the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro where the U.N. Convention on Climate Change was adopted.

Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was “Mr. Environment.” He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the President to not accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate’s resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be “more flexible” in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.

Al’s crushing defeat in 2000 left him rudderless for a few years, but he re-emerged with his “An Inconvenient Truth.” This spectacular movie won an Academy Award. Gore received the Pulitzer Prize. Once again, Prince Albert ascended to the global warming throne, despite the fact that the film’s assertions were not supported by science, according to more than 31,000 scientists.

Ignoring his critics, and refusing to confront and debate the scientists who clearly refute his hyperbolic hallucinations, Al is now seeking to reclaim the global spotlight. He denigrates those who reject his unfounded predictions, and calls instead for massive national commitment to abandon fossil fuel, and launch a “go-to-the-moon” type campaign to convert all electricity generation to wind, solar, other “alternative” sources in the next ten years.

Gore has been spouting his predictions of climate disaster for more than a decade, while in reality, the global climate has actually been cooling.

The media, and uninformed politicians, gobble up Gore’s gloomy forecasts, just as they embraced Paul Ehrlich’s forecasts of people dying in the streets. History has proven Malthus to be sincerely wrong. History has proven Paul Ehrlich to be ridiculously wrong. History is proving Al Gore to be wrong as well.

But Gore must continue to peddle his predictions. His financial future is tied to his salesmanship. The more he cries “the sky is falling,” when the science says it is not, the more Al looks like a midway barker making whatever claims he thinks will separate the public from its money.

Henry Lamb is the Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO).

source:

I have been listening to world disaster pundits since I was a child. It really is getting old in my not so humble opinion.

Faux Science and Polar bears

May 16, 2008

In the Executive Branch: The Department of the Interior decided this week to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, despite the fact that the number of polar bears has doubled in the last 40 years. Furthermore, the animal is already protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, “Although the population of bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, our scientists advise me that computer modeling projects a significant population decline by the year 2050. This, in my judgment, makes the polar bear a threatened species—one likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.” Are those the same “computer models” Al Gore used to predict that sea levels will rise 20 feet in the near future?

The Bush administration is capitulating completely to environmentalists with this listing, which will likely have no effect on polar bears but could have a very detrimental effect on our economy. For example, Persuading Congress to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been difficult enough without adding a false alarm about polar bears to existing roadblocks. Besides, global warming may or may not be happening, and the same may be true of a decline in the population of polar bears, but $200 a barrel for oil may be the price we pay for rash decisions. Meanwhile, look for the Australian jellyfish to be the Gulf of Mexico’s “endangered” animal to stop drilling there too.

source: Patriot Post

Roll over and kiss the behind of those that are politically yet correct again. There are more Polar Bears than at any time in recorded history, the polar caps are in reality expanding, and the earth is cooling not warming.

Open Letter To Environmentalists « Bob’s Bites

May 4, 2008

Open Letter To Environmentalists « Bob’s Bites

Bob found another good story here. Click the link, and read all about it!


%d bloggers like this: