Can green entrepreneurs and corporations be successful without government handouts?
As this article discusses, Elon Musk is proving that having a 'green' business model is literally not sustainable without massive subsidies from the government.
"Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment...Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive...Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive."
As Musk and his ilk continue to line their pockets with "green" from average taxpayers, it is important to remember that it is the Democrat and Republican establishment types who have encouraged and allowed this to happen.
And, also remember it's the the mainstream media and the climate alarmist science community that created these green-crony hucksters sucksters - they too should be held accountable for what has happened. Simply, it is their constant hype of catastrophic alarmism that elected officials were able to hide behind as billions of taxpayer dollars were being sucked into non-viable commercial solutions instead of the basic research that is needed to pursue superior green technologies.
Personally, I'm planning on buying tickets for the Marc Morano's 'Climate Hustle' movie release in theaters tomorrow, Monday May 2. Those plans were happening regardless of Bill Nye.
But with his attempt at lefty censorship, it certainly may cause others to be curious enough about Morano's film that it pushes them to the point of attending. Or, it may incite others just to buy tickets to spite Nye and his green crony-welfare Democrat pro-censorship friends.
Of course, due to his own self-promotion at seeking the limelight, it's not a surprise Bill Nye provided the movie with some free PR. The man has certainly placed himself in the headlines quite a lot lately, which has been recorded quite frequently on our 'Headlines Only' page.
(Note: To find the 'Nye' headlines, use your Cntrl-F browser function and do a search for 'Nye' on this page.)
The #ExxonKnew propaganda tactics and legalized-actions being utilized by "green" Democrats, liberals, progressives, and other assorted leftists, is built on the belief that intimidation, suppression, coercion are effective, non-violent terroristic tools to be used to frighten individuals and groups, such as Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations.
The dozen recent articles below (click on each image for supporting article) accurately reflect an unprecedented, anti-American censorship and intimidation mindset that has come to possess the soul of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, this mindset should not come as a surprise. The book Liberal Fascism provides an understanding of how left of center philosophies almost always end up utilizing intimidation and bullying tactics to enforce a single viewpoint - aka, government-approved 'groupthink'.
And this book, The Wages of Destruction, provides the meticulous details how elected fascism was used during the 1930-40s to coerce corporations (both private and public) to the will of the big, all-knowing, socialistic government that had come to power, bringing with it an ilk of a Nazi-Orwellian politically correct religion.
And, it is well known that Democrats have long been associated with the awful affliction of political correctness. This affliction, as predicted by many, has now progressed to the obvious fascist-like, big, all-knowing government environment that many left-leaning American elites have fully embraced and pursued (as the above articles confirm).
Frankly, it has become an incredibly sad state of affairs for the American public. It's just more evidence that elections really do matter, as the Germans belatedly discovered after voting into power the aggressive National Socialist party.
A green extremist politician of the progressive Democrat camp, who has pushed for the Obama administration to investigate those who challenge the climate science orthodoxy dogma, is richly awarded in the game of life.
Of course, his own family's enrichments must be entirely due to the luck of life's game known as 'Bingo' - for sure!
And for sure, his RICO intimidation and threats have nothing to do with with money from green sources regularly flowing into the family coffers, right?
"A major donor is Annenberg Foundation, known for its support of radical leftist and environmentalist projects. In particular, it funded Chicago Annenberg Challenge, guided by Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist leader, widely quoted as saying: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”" Source
All amazingly good fate for him, but absolutely !true!, really. The Senator's good 'fortune' must be all about that bingo-luck, and just to repeat: there certainly is noooo correlation regarding the favorable personal green connections with his pushing for the prosecution of 'deniers' as he calls them, right?!
Oh, and by the way, color me stupidly skeptical on that idea too.
But let's cut him some slack - maybe the green Senator just does not realize he lives in the proverbial glass greenhouse and would be more believable if he wasn't smearing the windows of his own habitat.
It's been only several weeks of the ink drying on the Paris climate treaty agreement and serious t-r-o-u-b-l-e for its worldwide adoption has quickly emerged.
As this article indicates, the New York Times and others are wondering if the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision put the kabosh on the hopes of the fringe, extremist left/green radicals and their companions, the Democrat "progressive" conspiracy-addicts.
One can only hope, but unfortunately the climate change alarmists and doomsday cult will continue their wanton path of destruction regarding freedom of speech, open scientific debate and civil discourse about important policy issues.
The abhorrent fact that greens keep pushing for the criminalization of disagreement with their views suggests that legal barriers to their totalitarian impulses will not stop them.
'Climate Depot' recently highlighted a ludicrous NY Daily News editorial that is the typical fear-mongering pushed by establishment elites, eargerly published by the mainstream press in regards to global warming and climate change...the editorial's commentary of "while the planet is burning" is an opinion held by a bunch of spoiled, wealthy cronies who have served their country dishonorably by ruining the American dream for future generations and, btw, continue to propose self-serving polices that will make themselves even richer...hmmm..., or instead, maybe they really are just a bunch of scientific illiterate elites who can't be bothered with those inconvenient facts, no?.....
(click on images to enlarge)
As the above paragraph suggests, it's easy to throw out rhetorical bombast in response to over-the-top CAGW doomsday B.S. - especially if the bombast is directed at wealthy elites' galactically-sized hypocrisy and crony-capitalist climate change endeavors.
By now, per the recent polling of Americans (here and here), you'd guess that the GWNs would finally forsake the rhetorical excesses as being a spectacular failed public relations campaign, but apparently not, if the NY Daily News is any indication.
Putting the bombast aside, let's continue with the analysis of those inconvenient global warming and climate change facts.
Recently, 'C3' published a few articles about the actual temperature change experienced across the globe. The key word is 'change.'
When specific temperature 'change' is examined, does it exhibit characteristics deserving of the establishment elites' commonly used fear-mongering qualifiers? Those are qualifiers meant to scare purposefully, such as: accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable, incontrovertible and etc. Or, as in the case of the wordy wordsmith elites at the NY Daily News, "while the planet burns."
The above chart on the left (Fig. A) is from this 'C3' article, which examines the 6-month absolute temperature changes derived from the state-of-the-art satellite measurement technology. Clearly, the empirical 6-month temperature changes since 1979 do not exhibit characteristics equal to the fear-monger qualifiers, let alone the hysterical, anti-science bullshît of "planet burning."
But wait.....what if the planet really was burning, per the elites' propaganda? What would accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal temperature change look like?
Well, that would be the fabricated 6-month change chart on the right (Fig. B). Using the same time period since 1979, the temperature changes plotted represent the simulated monthly temperature anomalies increasing every single month by just a tiny amount. As a result, the 6-month temperature change curve becomes a fevered-planet exponential.
That's the face of frightening global warming - an exponential precursor to the figurative "burning planet." But the real world intrudes as Fig. A is not that precursor - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
(Tip: If the actual climate temperatures ever produced a similar exponential 6-month, or a 36-month, a 60-month, a 120-month or a 180-month temperature change chart as Fig. B, then it's time for all good skeptics to move their petro-dollar funded haciendas to tropical Antarctica.)
Now, obviously, the two above charts look entirely different. And if the climate is producing accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible global warming (i.e. "planet burning") then the 6-month change chart on the right would be reality.
But the chart on the right is not reality - the chart on the left is, which presents a fairly constant up/down of temperature change, essentially negating opposing extremes. That's how the natural climate works in regards to both short-term and long-term temperature changes.
BTW, speaking of lack of extremes...to reinforce what climate reality truly is, depending on your preferred temperature dataset, there has been a non-extreme, slight global cooling trend, from a minimum of 9+ years to 17+ years . This is not some hidden science artifact that only the climate guru-clerics know about. This has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed journals and blogs for the last few years.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, the establishment's elites and mainstream media continue to publish "burning planet" falsehoods. Being completely divorced from the known climate science facts has (thank goodness) seriously undercut their credibility and trustworthiness.
Conclusions: One, the world is not "burning," with all the empirical science pointing to a globe that is experiencing a very, very modest warmingcoolingwarming cooling. Two, "liar, liar, pants on fire" doesn't quite describe the anti-science, the anti-empirical denialism, the overall dishonesty and crony-malfeasance the elites and wealthy pursue to enrich themselves by impoverishing the rest of the world.
Then Google adds a huge dose of hypocrisy (and evil, some would say) by spewing ginormous amounts of CO2 emissions for personal pleasure on their fleet of huge private jets.
And by taking advantage of an extremely close arrangement with the Feds, Google avoids paying local taxes on its aviation fleet, unlike other corporations.
To top off their unrepentant, "elite" behavior, the billionaires who own and run Google for some reason need to have average U.S. taxpayers fund their obscene luxury with gigantic subsidies for aviation fuel.
Hmmm....time to break up Google and sever its cozy U.S. government arrangements?
It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: Insurance companies love charging higher premiums - to justify those higher premiums, Big Insurance needs the IPCC to increase the hysteria about extreme weather events
The insurance industry stands to make billions, if not trillions, on achieving higher policy premiums by pushing the exaggerated fears and hysteria of extreme climate change. For one to understand what is going on, just simply connect the dots...to accomplish this pursuit of greed, Munich Re has realized that it's easier to do so if one buys a seat at the IPCC's "climate science" table.
"You’ve got to wonder when scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf work hand in hand with the reinsurance industry, writing doomsday reports that help fatten the bottom line. Hartmut Grassl, a climate alarmist, is also connected to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer...points out how the Munich Re has at least two more agents at the IPCC. Working Group II AR5 Writing Teams, Chapter 10 — Key economic sectors and services, Eberhard Faust, Munich Reinsurance Company and an excerpt from a report from Dr Sandra Schuster, meteorologist with Munich Re, Sydney, who has just been appointed as a Lead Author (WG2) for IPCC AR5...It’s a real scam when the insurance industry buys up science and pays the science institutes and scientists to spread fear among its customers..."
Connect the dots climate change - big insurance is strictly motivated by greed and their official involvement simply corrupts any "findings" the next IPCC report promulgates regarding climate change impacts.
Previous postings on corruption of science by corporate concerns.
It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: The ever self-righteous green organizations, such as the WWF, are being paid by 'Big Wind' companies for less than charitable reasons - obviously, what's best for the environment is no longer the primary mission for most greens
Read here. If true, it's another confirmation that big green is on the payroll of special interest groups that happen to spoil nature, harm the environment and cause climate change.
As more and more local communities do battle with the wind firms in order to save their environment, they are being back stabbed by the paragons of "green," all in the name of a greener green - the money in their coffers.
And it's not just the WWF.
"It has apparently also been revealed that Friends of the Earth Scotland are supported by Scottish Power Renewables, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland is also in the pay of big wind."
Connect the dots climate change has more importantly become the sleazeball issue of 'follow the money' - not the talked about issue of global warming or climate change (severe weather) events. Green groups, such as the WWF, are compromised by greed and not to be trusted to protect either nature or the environment
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Enron alumni Jim Rogers is another "green" cap and trade lover who seems committed to destroying local environments for the sake of making a profit. If companies like Duke, and wealthy investors like Gore and Soros have their way, the world will be a barren wasteland because of the deranged profit incentive of anti-CO2 policies.
"Last year Duke sought permission from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to classify two of its coal-fired power plants as renewable facilities, because the company wants to burn a combination of wood chips and coal at the plants. NCUC determined the renewables statute allowed that “wood derived from whole trees in primary harvest is a ‘biomass resource’ and thus a ‘renewable energy resource,’” and therefore approved Duke’s application. Environmental Defense Fund and the NC Sustainable Energy Association – with Southern Environmental Law Center providing legal help – challenged the ruling, and the Court of Appeals sided with NCUC and Duke"
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Most 'cool dudes' (aka skeptics) have long held the opinion that 'cap & trade' CO2 emission mechanisms are worthless, with the sole exception being for those wealthy individuals and crony capitalists who stand to hugely enrich themselves (Gore, Soros, GE, Duke Energy, Exelon, etc.). Almost all green groups and climate alarmists sided with the self-interested as the 'cap & trade' legislation was being fought out in Congress. Not any more, though.
Since Federal 'cap & trade' legislation is going nowhere soon, some states, like California, are pursuing their own moronic 'cap & trade' policies. But now the California environmentalists are fighting that state's 'cap & trade' implementation using the same arguments that the skeptics (and one single anti-CO2 fanatic named Hansen) were using during the fight over the Federal legislation.
“The fraudulence of … ‘goals’ for emission reductions, ‘offsets’ that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.” - James Hansen, “Never-Give-Up Fighting Spirit,” November 30, 2009
“The truth is, the climate course set by [the] Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade bill] is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….” -James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.
Read here. At least the Nissan Leaf is doing a little better (931 sold) but it's rather obvious the demand for electric cars is close to non-existent.
The Volt is sooo pathetic that GE even offered to buy 50,000 of these turkeys - crony capitalist Jeff Imelt has his head stuck so far up Obama's subsidy kiester he no longer can think like a rational business executive.
Read here. (h/t: SPPI) This newest article lists multiple dangerous incidents involving CFL bulbs that should cause everyone to question whether they really want these items in their home - these light bulbs seem to be potential bombs waiting to wreak havoc. In addition, our earlier 'C3' posting linked to a German investigation that CFL bulbs emit toxic fumes that may be carcinogenic. The anecdotal evidence is mounting up against the CFL bulbs.
With what is now known, should American retailers ban the sale of these light bulbs until they can be absolutely proven to be safe?
""GE Helical 13 Watt light bulb. After only 6 months of use. This bulb started making funny noises and flickering... Finally, exploded on my kitchen table."..."My GE 20W Helical bulb in my 1/2 bathroom caught on fire on 5/3/10. The bulb snapped and glowed very brightly then caught on fire....The bulb was suppose to last 5 years but it was only about a year or so old. I tried replacing it with a GE 26W bulb and the same thing happened immediately."..."My 80 year old mother turned on her reading lamp and the bulb exploded and the lamp shade caught fire. She unpluged the lamp from the wall and the fire went out thank God."..."I had a desk lamp CFL burn up right in front of me. Switched it on and tiny sparks were emanating like a Van de Graaff generator. Quickly switched it off; the plastic around the ballast was cracked and smoking"...On February 23, 2011, TV NewsChannel 5 in Tennessee covered "a newly-released investigators' report that blames a February 12 fatal fire in Gallatin on one of those CFL bulbs.""
General Electric (GE) who intensely lobbied for Americans to be forced to use CFLs instead of traditional, health-safe incandescent needs to be held responsible for this consumer disaster, either by the Federal government or by tort lawyers. GE shareholders need to account for the damages done and potential future harm that is known to be likely coming from GE CFLs.
For those who subscribe to the concept of the precautionary principle, it would make the utmost sense for GE to announce a nationwide recall of these little, polluting light-bombs.
Read here and here. Obama's favorite corporate contribution source and massive tax-evader is a major producer of Chinese manufactured CFL light bulbs. CFL news out of Germany is that all CFL bulbs tested revealed they emit highly toxic, cancer-causing fumes.
GE lobbiedhard to have traditional, health-safe incandescent bulbs effectively banned in the U.S., which removed a major competitor of their non-U.S. manufactured CFL bulbs. Sooooo....the company that gave America the toxic Hudson River environmental disaster has now brought potentiallytoxic lighting to all American households. I guess we now know why GE dropped the "We bring good things to life" slogan.
Class action suit anyone? Stripes for GE executives and board members?
Note: I have literally carried out my own personal boycott of all things manufactured by GE, which has not been terribly difficult to do. GE is the epitome of disgraceful crony-capitalism, which represents self-serving, special interests at its worst. GE's cronyism tactics constantly tarnishes the reputations of both private capitalism and the concept of free markets. If you feel GE is harming America, free markets, competition and representative democracy, just boycott their products - it's not hard to accomplish.
Read here. Chalk up even more inconvenient environmental disasters from politicians and those wealthy investors (Soros, Gore, Brin, Page and etc.) pursuing greater profits cloaked in the mantle of green. Because Cuisinart wind farms have a voracious appetite for flying creatures, some North American bat species face potential extinction due to an idiotic green power policy and dollars.
New research by Boyles et al. in the Science journal paints a bleak picture for the flying mammal and agriculture:
"At the same time, bats of several migratory tree-dwelling species are being killed in unprecedented numbers at wind turbines across the continent......Because of these combined threats, sudden and simultaneous population declines are being witnessed in assemblages of temperate-zone insectivorous bats on a scale rivaled by few recorded events affecting mammals.....“Populations of at least one species (little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus) have declined so precipitously that regional extirpation and extinction are expected,".....The authors calculated new estimates to the entire United States to gauge how much the disappearance of bats could cost the agricultural industry. “We estimate the value of bats to the agricultural industry is roughly $22.9 billion/year,” they state, with high end estimates as large as $53 billion/year."....“Bats are among the most overlooked, yet economically important, nondomesticated animals in North America, and their conservation is important for the integrity of ecosystems and in the best interest of both national and international economies,”" [Justin G. Boyles, Paul M. Cryan,Gary F. McCracken and Thomas H. Kunz 2011: Science]
In reality though, they favor tax-payer subsidized investments that actually make the world worse in terms of the environment, besides potentially endangering the entire globe.
The latest example of the latter is the lame-brain, geo-engineering idea to make the clouds whiter in hopes of cooling the world "somewhere" at "sometime" for some unknown span of time. We say "hopes" because no one knows for sure the outcome of these "I-want-to-play-god" ego-maniac experiments.
Now comes confirmation from scientists that these cloud experiments are likely to do the opposite of what was originally thought (warming instead of cooling) - definitely the law of unintended consequences is in play when performing in a pretentious god-like manner. If these type of billionaires' experiments go awry, hopefully it would lead to massive global class-action lawsuits that will finally impoverish the dumb ass billionaire class once and for all.
"“Whitening clouds by spraying them with seawater, proposed as a “technical fix” for climate change, could do more harm than good, according to research.’...Whiter clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, cooling the Earth... But a study presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting found that using water droplets of the wrong size would lead to warming, not cooling.”.....This article further underscores how little we know about the climate system. To deliberately alter the system by geoengineering is, therefore, quite a risky approach. The reason it is even being considered is that there remains the assumption that added CO2 is the dominate climate forcing that can “disrupt” the climate system from its current equilibrium....Such a static view of the climate is not supported by observations yet this simplistic view persists as illustrated by the 2007 IPCC..."
Read here. Who can forget Googlegate, (likely prompted by Google board member, Al Gore) during the Climategate e-mail scandal of pro-AGW scientists? Now, Google the business has decided to take sides on the science debate of global warming and Al Gore is still a Google board member - coincidence?
In an open letter to Google by Willis Eschenbach, Al Gore's billionaire Google friends are shredded by Willis regarding their partisan hack attempt to sway public opinion. As Willis succinctly points out, this is extreme Googlian stupidity.
"Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do.....So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?.....Supporting either side in the debate involves Google in a high-stakes, multi-billion dollar, long-festering, dog-ugly political/scientific battle, with passions running high on both sides, accusations thrown, reputations attacked … and putting your head in this buzz-saw, jumping into this decades-old scientific Balkan war, this is a good idea for Google exactly how?...Truly, are you off your collective meds or something?"
The fact that Google has decided to piss off some 50% of the American populace is a true revelation of how lame the pathetic UN/IPCC AGW science actually is.
Read here and here. Nuclear engineers actually resigned from General Electric some 35 years ago regarding the Japanese nuclear plant designs. Apparently GE did not take these concerns seriously, and now it's literally blowing up in the faces of current GE executives who think polluting the world's environment with mercury-laden is an exceptional, "imagination" idea. Karma, anyone?
Is it time to short Obama's GE? Will Obama and Democrats finally turn on GE, despite its largesse towards left/liberal/Democrat causes? Will GE still be the poster child of Democrat corrupt crony-capiltalism a year from now?
Read here. GE, the company that the Obama administration and Democrats love to provide special regulatory and income tax breaks to, appears to be now producing and marketing inferior products to the American public. Namely, Chinese-made CFL, mercury-laden light bulbs that may die well under their 8,000 hour life expectancy, in addition to being more costly than the former U.S. made GE incandescent bulbs.
Of course, General Electric fully supported and championed the idea of closing its American light bulb factories and moving the production to the Chinese environmental hellhole. If Americans were producing these GE CFL light bulbs instead of the Chinese, would GE potentially be facing a product recall and class action lawsuit? Probably not. Good news concerning GE, though: they don't sell Chinese dog food or milk to Americans.
"The bulb claims an 8000 hour life.....Well, here it is, all of at most 2 months later, and the bulb did the old “ON fine… wait a bit… OFF… 1/2 hour later ON… then off… 2 hours later ON… then off… and stay off for 2 days…” all the time with the power left turned on.....Why should GE be any different.....They are just another Chinese Curly Bulb remarketer hawking product.....But I’d not bother buying GE CFL bulbs if you can get other folks stuff. It’s all cheap Made In China anyway, so don’t bother to “pay up for the name” as the “Name” is not buying you anything in my experience. At least with GE."
Want to buy a GM Volt or Nissan Leaf? Wait a few months and you'll get one really, really cheap on eBay. Of course, if Obama gets gas prices up to his desired level of Europe's gas prices, then eBay Volt/Leaf values may go from "really, really" to just "really."
"...how many Chevy Volts were sold [for February 2011]. The number – a very modest 281.....Nissan doesn't have anything to brag about here, either (and it avoided any mention of the Leaf sales in its press release). Why? Well, back in January, the company sold 87 Leafs. In February? Just 67.....Well, here's the big scorecard for all U.S. sales of these vehicles thus far: Volt: 928, Leaf: 173"
"None the less, the federal government keeps trying. DOE provided Nissan Motors with a $1.4 billion loan to help with the cost of manufacturing the Leaf. If Nissan is convinced that the Leaf is a next generation vehicle, it should be willing to use investor money to demonstrate that, not taxpayer dollars."
"Chevy Volt Gets panned by Consumer Reports. “When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn’t particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it’s not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy.”"
"Officially, the Leaf's range is 100 miles, but that's only in city driving. On a highway, it's less, much less. I got warmings after about 60 miles, and a dead battery at 82. Going 65 mpg to keep up with traffic cut my driving range...Note even if the reporter made it to a charging station,it takes 21 hours to fully recharge the Leaf on 110 volts, and 7 hours on 240 volts."
“While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers,” read a Task Force report, “and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.”
"The Volt is not a true electric vehicle, it is another form of hybrid, administration gave it the $7.5k credit anyway, which was wrong.....They cost twice as much as equivalent gasoline vehicles. If customers won’t pay an extra 5k for a hybrid that gets 50mpg, why will they pay an extra $15-20k for an electric one?"
"The only real downer with the Volt and other electrics is the effect of cold weather on the battery’s endurance. During my test-drive period the temperature rarely got above 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and the battery range never went higher than 26 miles."
"Lane points to a study from J. D. Power and Associates that says there will be very little demand for electric vehicles over the next decade, even with lucrative federal handouts. If coal produces the electricity that powers the electric vehicle while it runs, the reduction in greenhouse gases is negligible. Other environmental headaches include how to depose of exhausted batteries. The lack of charging infrastructure presents another problem."
"REPORT: Ford Losing Interest in Electric Vehicles."
Read here and here. General Electric is a huge supporter of Obama and the rabid-green, pro-regulation, anti-market Democrats - it has paid off handsomely for GE, to the extreme detriment of their competitors, consumers and individual taxpayers. GE has become the quintessential modern model for state-sponsored crony capitalism (national socialist-style) that many large businesses had embraced in the frightening past.
Over recent years, it truly appears GE has become a corrupt, politically motivated entity, with its sole purpose being to avoid onerous regulations and corporate taxes by buying the influence of powerful liberal-leftist politicians.
"Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February.....Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama’s agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration’s record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn’t trust the White House if they told me there was no connection."
"Consider the tax rate paid by two of America's biggest companies — Wal-Mart and General Electric. Wal-Mart paid 34 cents in taxes for every dollar of profit it made in the past three years. General Electric paid just 3.6 cents on the dollar.....That's right; instead of concentrating on making light bulbs, power plants or whatnot, companies [GE] use the tax system to boost their profits."
The super CO2-spewing lifestyles of the billionaires makes many of them very vulnerable to the mega-rich guilt syndrome, leading to the support of left-activist oriented issues. A classic example of this phenomenon is the left dominated global warming fear-mongering.
Because of the guilt-complex, billionaires often will become the useful idiots of the anti-CO2 left. Thus, billionaires, such as Bill Gates, will condone and engage in the mindless CO2 fear-mongering promulgated by leftists, yet are completely reluctant to sacrifice his/her outlandish, personal $30,000 per month CO2 electric bill. Instead, the billionaires propose the rest of humanity should sacrifice by reducing their electric bill (CO2) to zero. (See below for the latest peer-reviewed article about climate-model-idiocy.)
Okay, the facts are still real world facts, despite the zombie billionaire dreamworld - reducing industrial and transportation CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 is totally impossible. And unless the billionaires are recommending that all fire combustion and human breathing be banned, the zero-CO2 idea is simply galactic stupidity on the scale of the stupidity that is exhibited by,....well....er....a 66,000 square foot house for a few family members, just for example.
How did Bill Gates and other Cancún-loving billionaires become so galactically stupid about global warming and CO2?
Simple. They've been infected by the computer virus contagion known as "virtual climate models" that only makes a stealthy jump from the Window's operating system (XP, W7, etc.) to very rich humans. It's been speculated that this stupidity-inducing virus was created by the combined effort of Indian/Chinese government hackers, in hopes of assuring massively idiotic economic and energy decisions being self-imposed on Western economies. [Caution: Attempting to remove this virus causes a human variety of the BSOD syndrome in those mega-CO2 emitting individuals already afflicted with megalomania and severe guilt complex. Removal failure is confirmed by continuous re-boot to the stupidity-state when confronted with real climate evidence and science.]
Soooo, back to the real world and no more Microsoft bashing in this post - what's the latest peer-reviewed science really say about climate models? In summary, one has to be really, really billionaire-stupid to believe any climate model's predictions:
"1. "the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models," so that...
2. models are presently merely "experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable," that...
3. "current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming," that...
4. "there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative," that...
5. "even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions," that...
6. "current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels" but that "such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor," and that...
7. "the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude." In this regard, Lindzen further states that a doubling of the air's present CO2 content might lead to a warming of only "0.5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade," [Lindzen, Richard 2010]
Read here. Insurance companies are seeking any means to increase premiums and profits. One of the current favorite approaches is to conjure up potential disaster scenarios, due to "consensus" global warming science, so that consumer/business insurance premiums can be raised with "expert consensus" justification, so as not to run afoul of regulators.
"RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on "scientific consensus."
To accomplish this task, all it takes is to rent a few climate "expert" bodies for an afternoon and ask them predict natural disasters based on their simplistic religion (ooops, hypothesis) that human CO2 causes global warming, which then supposedly causes more disasters. These are the great, scientific, climate expert minds at work, on the behalf of insurance companies seeking greater profits. (Hmmm....does RICO apply to insurance companies and their scientist collaborators?)
Turns out the "experts" were totally wrong, but what the heck...it only cost those pesky, ingrate consumers/businesses some additional $82 billion in hurricane premiums and policy cancellations.
Deutsche Bank, like another German corporation, will go to any lengths to assure their profits from government subsidized green energy and CO2 emissions trading, including fabricating lies about the fully discredited 'hockey stick' science.
Much time has been spent investigating Mann's 'hockey stick', and a marvelous book has been written about its bogosity and the hackClimategate scientists behind it. Two separate investigations by U.S. authorities eventually discredited this science to the point where the IPCC was forced to omit it from its 2007 report.
As a reminder, the infamous 'hockey stick' was an attempt by Climategate scientists to literally fabricate a false temperature record that would show modern temperatures as being "unprecedented," even when compared to the Medieval Warming Period. Their clownish version of "science" included doing the following to accomplish this objective for the IPCC and its reports:
1. Utilized a discredited statistical technique that selected tree ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase (the hockey stick "blade") - plus excluding those tree ring records that had a lack of 20th century warming
2. Included tree species that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, which all tree ring experts knew were not a response to higher temperatures but to other factors (mainly to the increase of CO2 fertilization)
3. Utilized a bogus statistical technique that over-weighted tree-ring records that exhibited a sharp 20th century increase, by at least 390 times
4. The rapid 20th century "blade" temperature increase totally disappears when the above three points are properly corrected
5. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key r2 statistical validation measurement of their temperature reconstructions for a critical reason - the extremely low r2 of their studies statistically proved their proxy temperature reconstructions were worthless (statistically insignificant)
6. Michael Mann, and authors of subsequent hockey stick look-alike studies, withheld the key data, algorithms and software used in their proxy reconstructions to eliminate the possibility that other scientists would ever challenge their findings
7. Michael Mann and other paleo-climate scientists conspired to misrepresent/hide other proxy temperature reconstructions that did not exhibit a sharp 20th century increase - commonly referred to as "Mike's trick" and the "hide the decline" tactic.
An example of this last point can be seen in the graphs below, which clearly represent an attempt to brazenly mislead the public about the true nature of modern and Medieval temperatures. (click on images to enlarge)
Of course, Deutsche Bank has a history of embracing crank policies that enrich their coffers - as do other wealthy investors whoshare the same history. Is Deutsche Bank again inserting itself into politics at the expense of truth and freedoms? Read carefully the top two links and it becomes readily apparent the falsehoods and misinformation that Deutsche Bank is attempting to disseminate about discredited global warming science.
Unfortunately for DB, there is a wealth of peer-reviewed studies over the last several years that makes a shambles of the IPCC's catastrophic AGW-hypothesis, which btw, the public no longerbelieves, despite the continuing Aryan corporate propaganda done in the name of greed.
Read here. There are a number of global corporations that seem immune to scientific truth and empirical evidence. Munich Re is such a corporation. Time and time again their marketing and PR types go with bogus falsehoods despite their own in-house scientists concluding differently.
In terms of actual evidence there is none that supports the lying-hype of Munich Re.
"Earlier this week Munich Re called for action on climate change, while touting its green investments, explaining that the rise in costs due to hurricanes was due to only one factor: [Since 1980] windstorm natural catastrophes more than doubled, with particularly heavy losses from Atlantic hurricanes. This rise can only be explained by global warming.....Knowing some of the scientists at Munich Re, and having high respect for their work and integrity, I can only conclude that the marketing department is not talking to the research department. What else would explain such polar opposite messages? (In case you are curious, the messages in the peer reviewed research results are consistent with the state of the science on this subject. The other stuff is not.)"
Read here. If one desires any proof that the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress could care less about the environment, the legislation to expand the use of ethanol as fuel is all one needs. Almost all proposed climate/energy legislation is blatant big corporate welfare or an attempt to enrich wealthy liberal/left donors who invest in get-rich-quick-on-taxpayer-subsidies green schemes.
The ethanol expansion is a classic case of a gigantic corporate welfare scheme, which a lot of people and groups (both left and right) are now plenty sick and tired of, as the above linked article documents.
And, as we've mentioned before, the ethanol (and other biofuels) solution is just plain stupid for a lot of important reasons.
Ethanol produces little or no additional energy versus energy needed to produce it.
Can damage vehicle engines not designed to run on ethanol.
Result in greater CO2 emissions than fossil fuel.
Causes rising food prices either directly or by competing with food crops.
Food riots and hunger have been direct result of higher ethanol production.
Encourages clearing of climate-stabilizing forest lands.
Increases use of fertilizer leading to greater runoff and NOx emissions.
Huge amounts of scarce fresh water wasted to produce single gallon of ethanol.
Produce less energy than simply burning the biomass to produce electricity.
Are only commercially viable with government subsidies and forced use mandates.
Read here. Obama and Democrats continue to propose and maintain energy regulations/legislation that suck big money out of taxpayers' wallet to enrich the Dem-Left's renewable energy, big corporate supporters and lobbyists.
$1.78 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Corn ethanol
$2.55 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Celluosic ethanol
$3.00 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Biodiesel
So far, renewable energy schemes (scams?) from large corporations are mostly environmental disasters, funded by the gigantic annual expense to individual taxpayers.