Ron Paul makes candid comments regarding global warming and climate change - employs empirical evidence instead of highly speculative predictions
Read here. 'C3' readers are well aware that there is absolutely zero empirical evidence to suggest that human CO2 emissions will cause rapid global warming with catastrophic climate change being the result. Likewise, 'C3' readers know well that all the global climate models have an absolutely atrocious record regarding their catastrophic climate predictions.
It would appear Ron Paul agrees and approaches the global warming issue and human CO2 emissions with a reliance on empirical-based science, not the Ouijia-board science of climate model predictions.
"I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years...Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon."
It's refreshing to hear a candidate who does not pander to the climate hysteria of the anti-science left / liberal mainstream press.
Previously, we reviewed global warming and CO2 data using the Santer et al. recommended 17-year span to determine the impact on temperatures from human emissions. The real world evidence clearly shows that whatever influence CO2 has on global temperatures it appears to be quite small.
Then there is this graph revealing that 2011 satellite daily temperature measurements are below those recorded in 2010, every single day. The combination of these facts support the interpretation that large human CO2 emissions are not causing significant or accelerating warming.
Now, despite all this evidence, Jon Huntsman, a hopeful GOP candidate for president, is going around spouting off about his global warming and climate change worries. Currently the country has vast economic, financial and growth issues yet Huntsman keeps harping on the non-existent global warming. It's like the Hollywood liberal/left that's still harping on about vaccines causing autism when the empirical evidence completely trashes that bogus theory.
It's as if he actually believes the "97%" bogus claim of scientists addicted to taxpayer research monies, instead of believing the real empirical evidence.
And the evidence just keeps mounting. From the billions of dollars we have spent on satellites come these images of the "global" warming anomalies. Whether it is land, sea or air, the actual warming is of a regional/local nature - it is not "global" and the "warming" doesn't dominate. (click on images to enlarge)
Might be time for serious GOP candidates to start pressing Huntsman on the climate facts. If he's challenged about the actual empirical evidence, which he then denys to be true, Americans will view him as just another political hack attempting to mislead the public for his own political gain.
Hell, even Obama has smartened up about the bogus climate hysteria and is starting to avoid it like the plague. Huntsman is so stupid and desperate for liberal love he often gets suckered by the MSM, thus revealing himself to be both left-of-center politically correct and extremely vulnerable with his 'green' non-scientific AGW views.
Read here. We've often noted at 'C3' that persons left-of-center have exhibited some incredibly anti-science attitudes in their approach to environmentalism, and especially the fear of CO2 emissions. Now, the Huffington Post blog empire reveals just how anti-science the mainstream left/liberal/green/Democrat has become.
Their irrational, non-scientific approach to this subject revives memories of the mainstream progressives anti-science eugenics belief that also dominated their thinking and policies.
Scary. And these are the same mainstream left-of-center minds who are now supporting Republican Jon Huntsman's bid for being the party's presidential candidate - hmmm...will Huntsman be at White House gates protesting?
"On August 29, many people of faith -- who fervently believe that God has a much better energy plan for us than the TransCanada oil company -- will go to the White House to bring God's word straight to President Obama's doorstep...What is God saying? "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is" (Deuteronomy 10:14). A contemporary translation: That oil is mine, sayeth the Lord, keep your hands off!..Having spent some time with the Lord recently, I feel there is a message for President Obama: It is God's wrath that shook the White House today. This was a 5.8 wake-up call."
Read here. Well...with the announcement of the CERN cosmic/cloud experiment results, in combination with the recent satellite measure results that confirms climate sensitivity to CO2 to be exceptionally low, the "consensus" CO2-AGW theory is now rapidly mainlining towards the mounting ash heap of consensus thinking and conventional wisdom.
The vast majority of hard-science research scientists are now coming to the belief that the climate models used by the UN's IPCC and major climate agencies are seriously in error, based on this latest research and empirical evidence. This questioning of the CO2-based climate models has recently come to the forefront in recognition that the models and climate modelers appear to have literally no skill in climate predictions, meaning that the models are in need of major revisions.
"Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature..."[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."
CERN is the world's premier home of some 8,000 top-notch scientists and they are the ones who made this critically acclaimed cosmic/cloud experiment possible. As their results clearly show, the climate science is far from being "settled" and the "consensus" on AGW is non-existent.
In regard to Jon "call me crazy" Huntsman, the liberal/left/Democrat choice to be the Republican's presidential candidate, who has called AGW critics 'anti-science,' this leaves him with a major problem reflecting on his incredibly poor judgment regarding the field of climate science. If he is to maintain the moronic green/left dogma that only human CO2 causes global warming and climate change, his only course is to denounce the actual CERN climate experiments as more Republican anti-science.
Other Republican candidates should gleefully (and aggressively) point out that Huntsman is indeed 'crazy' because he refuses to accept the latest climate research and empirical evidence that proves natural forces are the primary forces driving warming and climate change, not the trace gas CO2.
Read here. Why is GM producing an ultra-expensive electric vehicle (an engineering marvel) that lacks a big market and is essentially a sales flop? Did we say massive taxpayer subsidies that guarantee profits for GM, yet?
Thanks, Obama! Just what the average American needs during an economic depression - a green "Edsel" by GM.
"This is so obvious that you’d think it might have also occurred to the people running GM. It probably did – but the reason it doesn’t matter to them is that the Volt (like the Tesla) is a taxpayer-funded money machine for GM. Even if they never sell enough cars to make an honest profit, there’s already been a huge profit to GM in the form of massive federal subsidies and of course, the massive bailout of GM itself back in 2008...Why not throw money at the electric car boondoggle? After all, it’s not GM’s money...we have a billion-dollar electric car boondoggle. And not only won’t they (GM and Tesla) take the hint and quit, they’ll keep at it – demanding more tax dollars, more subsidies, more rebates to “encourage” sales of these otherwise unsalable electric Edsels."
Read here. Saying you believe in global warming when it hasn't existed over the last 15 years is kind of like saying you believe NASA scientists who say they know what extraterrestials think. The results of such crazy beliefs can crater one's electability prospects, as Huntsman is proving.
Read here. The mega-rich, Republican or Democrat, have a high propensity to be fantastically hypocritical about a wide variety of issues, especially those concerning the climate and the environment. The classic case is the super-rich talking about their concern about "global warming" and then proceed to walk a lifestyle that is diametrically opposed to their talk.
It's bad enough when we are lectured by the likes of super-hypocrites such as Ted Turner, Richard Branson, Oprah, Bill Gates and etc., but it becomes insufferable when a billionaire candidate for president talks about his "global warming" concerns and then blatantly acts in accordance with his internal compass that is stuck on massive material greed.
Mitt Romney is such a mega-rich presidential candidate:
"Mitt Romney is looking to quadruple the size of his $12 million California home, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports...The GOP presidential candidate has filed an application with the San Diego government to bulldoze the 3,009-square-foot beachfront house in La Jolla and replace it with a 11,062-square-foot property...In addition to the California house and a townhouse outside of Boston, which is their official primary residence, the Romneys own a $10 million vacation home on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, N.H."
Read here. The Obama-approved rogue EPA agency is determined to crush any economic activity in the name of inconsequential benefit if coal is involved. In the most recent case case, the EPA is mandating that a New Mexican power facility install a $370 million retrofit that will not make any significant difference in the air quality - basically, a waste of money.
Needless to say, the war on average Americans and the economy by Obama's regulators continues. (Time to defund the EPA?)
"Despite comporting with both federal guidelines and state law, these controls weren’t good enough for the EPA...Whatever its rationale, [on August 5th] the EPA imposed Regional Haze retrofits at San Juan that would cost New Mexico ratepayers $370 million – a nearly tenfold increase over those approved by New Mexico officials...Based on peer-reviewed research, there is a 35 percent chance that the visibility “benefit” of the EPA’s preferred controls could be perceptible by the general population on the seventh-worst visibility day of the year at Mesa Verde, the national park closest to the San Juan Generating Station...In other words, most people won’t even notice the difference wrought by the EPA’s ultra-expensive controls."
Read here. The notoriety of Obama's and the Democrat's green job fiasco is finally being picked up by the leading pulpit of green-leftism in the U.S. - the New York Times. The gullibility and idiocy represented by the article brings a certain level of schadenfreude as greenie/leftie/liberal cope with the obvious, yet continue to pursue a failed strategy they do excel at: wasting taxpayer monies.
"In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade."
Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show.
Job training programs intended for the clean economy have also failed to generate big numbers...$59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one."
Pssst....Jon,....did you hear the aliens have already abducted the 50 million global warming refugees that scientists told us about? They're holding them hostage until you declare you're out of the race. Faster, please.
Read here. With U.S. state budgets under tremendous pressure to balance budgets, many are cutting expenses, including those lucrative subsidies for solar installations. Now that solar subsidies have been reduced or eliminated, solar home and business installations rarely make viable economic sense.
Tennessee and Oregon are two recent states that are pulling the plug on solar.
""While the state has put great emphasis on solar technology in recent years, bringing that technology to bear in Tennessee homes and businesses is proving a difficult task because of the high cost of installation, which is becoming increasingly hard for the state and its citizens to swallow. Wednesday, the Tennessee Solar Institute announced it would stop processing applications for further grants as it exhausts about $10 million of stimulus funds encouraging businesses to invest in solar technology."......""Without the tax credits, the economics of commercial solar projects don't work, for electricity buyers or investors who underwrite the projects.""
Read here. Investing in an Indian solar project is not what most Americans would think to be a good and appropriate use of American financing during difficult economic times. For a president that constantly talks about creating new jobs for Americans, he certainly doesn't 'walk the talk' unless it's in another country.
"The $500 million in new loans will come on top of $75 million in financing that the Export-Import Bank has already provided this year for solar power projects in India...“In fiscal year 2011 to date, the Bank has approved financing totaling approximately $75 million for four solar projects in India,” the bank said...“The Bank also has about $500 million of India solar projects in the pipeline that will generate an estimated 315 MW of solar power.”...While in India last month, Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg, an Obama appointee, announced two of the new solar projects the U.S.-government bank will be financing."
Amazingly, this is not the only non-U.S. energy project this president has supported. Instead of helping American companies drill for oil in our own backyard, he instead provided direct help for development of the Brazilian oil fields, which the oil will then be sold to China. Figures.
Hmmm.....I wonder. If he were to aggressively help U.S. oil, natural gas and coal companies to extract our mineral wealth for either internal or overseas sales, would that increase jobs in America? Just asking.
Read here. Obama and his team think they can pick green energy technology winners. They have increased the subsidies to solar companies by 626% while trying to reduce subsidies to fossil fuels.
"President Barack Obama wants to end subsidies that go to oil and natural gas companies, a new Department of Energy report shows that federal subsidies to clean energy are way up, with solar seeing a subsidy increase of 626 percent...Obama repeated his call to end subsidies to oil and gas companies and said that “instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, we should invest in tomorrow’s,” adding that “clean energy can lead to new jobs and new businesses,” and “[a]n investment in clean energy today is an investment in a better tomorrow.”"
But those solar investments are going south, losing the taxpayer monies in the process as we discussed here and here. Obama and the Federal government need to remove themselves from the energy market, which subsidies and regulation have turned into a dysfunctional sector of the economy.
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Let's face it, the American people are ready for a presidential candidate who demonstrates a strong appreciation for the empirical facts and who is not going to be bamboozled by the media elites nor the taxpayer funded, entrenched bureaucrats on major policy issues.
Jon Huntsman is not that presidential candidate as he is unwilling to accept the actual empirical evidence on global warming. As a result, he will not stop the EPA policy of destroying American competitiveness with their big government, anti-CO2 jihad.
Don't believe that? Hey, let's review the real Jon Huntsman, in all his faded likeness of Obama.
“"We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party,” John Weaver, Huntsman’s chief strategist, said in an interview Wednesday. “The American people are looking for someone who lives in reality and is a truth teller because that’s the only way that the significant problems this country faces can be solved."
Jon Huntsman believes global warming is "global" whereas the empirical evidence is conclusive: there is no global warming, it's regional in nature, and the lack of warming in the U.S. over the last 15 years is a clear example of that. Helloooo....Americans aren't burning up over this cooling trend, Mr. Huntsman. (see below chart)
Jon Huntsman believes that warming is a result of human CO2 emissions and that the globe is endangered, necessitating U.S. economic suicide to save Gaia. But wait, uh oh, it seems not even the world has warmed in the last 15 years; and, another uh oh, it looks like levels of CO2 have no relationship with temperature changes. Damn those pesky empirical facts. (see below chart)
Jon Huntsman believes the bureaucrat scientists on the public dole, who are saying and doing everything (including fabricating data) to protect their incredible global warming gravy train. In contrast, the American people don't believe the global warming exaggerations and hysteria from these same scientists. Why? Because it's obvious these "scientists" have a definite conflict in interest that pushes them to conveniently ignore or dismiss away the actual empirical evidence. It's understandable for the bureaucrats - it's simply money and job security vs. honest science. And we all know which way the bureaucrat it going to tilt with that choice.
Jon Huntsman is just another Obama. As in, the facts are ignored. The "experts" are believed. The voters desires are unheeded. And voila, what did we get? We got a socialist, government-run ObamaCare jammed down our throats, which Americans did not want.
Now we have Jon Huntsman ignoring the climate facts. He believes the Climategate "experts." And he will definitely not do what the voters want. He instead will allow the EPA to aggressively pursue the draconian CO2 policies to the detriment of the U.S. and its citizens.
Jon Huntsman is Obama II. That's why he has such little Republican support and why the coastal liberals/Democrats love him. In the real world though, the American people are saying no more Obamas - enough of the elites' incompetence and left/green ideology of the coastal anti-science crowd.
Read here. Solon Solar is closing their Arizona plant. Green jobs lost will be 65. The company will move manufacturing to existing overseas plants.
""The Solon product we manufacture here in Tucson may have a better fit and finish than some others, but the market doesn't really value that," he said. "The market values a low price. We are going to stop beating our heads against the wall and say, 'How can we be smart strategically?' "
Just more evidence that the continuing hefty subsidies of "green jobs" by the Obama administration is a complete waste of tax payer monies.
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) In the realm of you-can't-make-this-stuff-up, more living proof, this time from Seattle, that the economic stimulus from "green jobs" is a con job that just about every skeptic pointed out. Yet, the mainstream press and your typical liberal/progressive/Democrat actually still believe in the green job fantasy.
This is a classic example of why taxes should be lowered and spending cut. If you provide too much tax money to politicians and entrenched bureaucracies, the money wasted on worthless programs grows exponentially.
"As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable..."The jobs haven't surfaced yet," said director of Got Green, a community organizing group focused on the environment and social justice..."Who's benefiting from this program right now – it doesn't square with what the aspiration was..."I think what it boils down to is who's got the money.""
Read here. Evergreen Solar a subsidized concern that closed its plant and cut 800 jobs has now filed for bankruptcy. Before doing so, they moved their plant to China.
From 2008, at the genesis of the Obama 'green job' scam:
""Thanks to the dedication and collaboration of AeonSolar, Evergreen Solar, PV Powered, IBEW, Turner Construction and the DNCC, we have been able to provide clean, renewable solar power to the Pepsi Center and raise awareness on renewable sources of energy to those attending the Democratic National Convention,” said Andrea Robinson, Director of Sustainability & Greening, Democratic National Convention Committee."
Read here. Despite the U.S. economy being in the tank and millions yearning for high growth that will produce jobs, John Bryson favors imposing a carbon tax that will penalize commerce growth and hurt employment prospects.
Who's John Bryson? He is Obama's choice for U.S. Commerce Secretary - a choice who favors taxes to punish commerce but is appointed to a position that supposedly represents commerce interests. Unbelievable.
Seriously, Obama has to be completely brain-dead regarding business and economic growth.
"Should energy consumers pay extra taxes to fund government-mandated and subsidized renewable energy technologies? "Absolutely yes," says John Bryson, President Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary. He made the remark at a meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California in 2009 and went on to extol the virtues of hidden rates in California, a state encumbered with some of the nation's highest electricity and unemployment rates."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Jon Hunstman is the Obama-white of the GOP 2012 presidential nomination campaign. Huntsman is Obama's favorite, big government Republican, and the fringe green extremists prefer him because of his support of Obama's "moderate" anti-growth, anti-prosperity and pro-regulation programs.
The environmental radicals that abhor businesses and decry Americans having access to low cost energy solutions see a win-win in a Obama vs. Huntsman 2012 election. No matter which of these candidates win, the green-left's nirvana of economic strangulation, UN-world governance and dictatorial EPA-style of regulation initiated by Obama will continue.
To better understand both Obama's and Hunstman's radical green supporters, all one has to do is read about their beliefs and objectives - their own words reveal the truth.
The spending hockey-stick was unveiled as new evidence that unprecedented global warming has caused accelerating spending, unequivocal debt and severe economic climate change (ie, high unemployment and slow growth).
Relying on the consensus precautionary principle, Mann has advised President Obama to spend much greater amounts in all areas to mitigate and adapt as quickly as possible to the economic hell that's in the pipeline from the massive CO2-induced global warming that took place over the last decade. (image source here)
Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."
So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.
Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?
These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.
And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.
Global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, who advocate for more government spending, regulations and taxes to make a gallon of gas even more expensive, claim that current global temperatures are "unprecedented." Nothing could be more scientific-nonsense when, clearly, peer-reviewed study after study shows that current modern warming is lukewarm versus previous periods.
The Gore-Romney-Obama nonsense about "unprecedented" warming can't even hold its own during the 20th century, as a new study by Yi et al. establishes without a reasonable doubt. Early 20th century temperatures prior to large human CO2 emissions were hotter than temperatures in the 1990s and early 21st century.
And to emphasize the anti-science hysteria from Democrat/Republican big government liberals/leftists/progressives, this study shows how absurd their claim is that climate change is only due to recent human CO2 emissions.
"In the ongoing global warming debate there is often a significant difference between the perception of what is going on with the Earth’s climate when compared to what is actually going on. There is no greater example of this than the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere...A recent study is probably the highest resolution reconstruction using temperature and precipitation records from the region and then correlating to tree-ring data to create a high resolution reconstruction of the summer temperatures for North-Central China...it is clear that the peak of the modern warming cycle for the summer months took place 70-80 years ago. It should be noted that the United States set the all time temperature record for 50% of the states back in the 1930′s."
"We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585–1587 AD, 1689–1691 AD, 1784–1786 AD and 1876–1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560–1561 AD, 1599–1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615–1617 AD, 1638–1641 AD and 1899–1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527–1529 AD, 1720–1722 AD, 1813–1814 AD, 1856–1857 AD and 1926–1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm–dry and cold–wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold–dry and warm–wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available." [Liang Yi, Hongjun Yu, Junyi Ge, Zhongping Lai, Xingyong Xu, Li Qin and Shuzhen Peng 2011: Climatic Change]
Read here and here. The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly voted to end the lucrative ethanol corporate welfare scheme. The two largest supporters of this billions-of-dollars per year welfare scam are President Obama and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and both remained loyal to the bitter end. Their support was primarily due to pandering for Iowa votes and for immense contributions from the ethanol industry.
Originally, politicians embraced ethanol subsidies as a supposed means to reduce global warming and to provide energy independence, plus Obama's team claimed the subsidy would increase the nation's "green job" employment. As this corporate welfare program continued to suck money out of taxpayer wallets, it became obvious that ethanol production/use had no discernible impact on global warming or energy independence or overall employment.
Other than Obama and Romney, the majority of politicians from both parties decided it was time for this brain-dead corporate welfare subsidy to end. When true leadership was required to stare down the pigs at the government trough, neither party's major candidate had the spine to do so.
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Thursday’s Senate vote in favor of quickly killing a major ethanol industry tax break “ill advised,” alleging it will cost jobs...“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate to reform and modernize tax incentives and other programs that support biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not reforms and are ill advised. They will lead to job loss as our nation begins its economic recovery and pull the rug out from under industry, which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater dependence on foreign oil.”"
Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.
As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.
The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.
Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!
"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."
"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
Read here. As our previous post about Mitt Romney and global warming suggested, this hopeful GOP presidential nominee is a man who likes big government solutions. More laws, regulations, taxes, micro-management and bureaucracy are his favored "silver bullets," which RomneyCare is the classic example. Unfortunately for Massachussets and Romney, this legislation, which is the precursor to ObamaCare, has been a failedbig government solution.
As for the similarly designed ObamaCare, a new survey by McKinsey & Co. has found the following:
"The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work..."
As this new analysis about the Obama health care legislation indicates, along with our previous post about California's radical-green economic disaster produced by liberals/leftists/progressives, advocates of big government solutions are this nation's worst leaders.
For the American voter and taxpayer, Romney and Obama are clear examples of being incapable of solving existing problems without creating even larger ones with the socialist-like solutions they impose on others, forcibly. Neither is the right person to bring America back to prosperity and to the small government principles envisioned by the founders.
Read here. California's politicians who favor big government solutions have placed the state's economic climate into a death spiral, much of it due to new environmental regulations. These regulations are simply driving business away from the state, leaving wholesale economic destruction in their path.
"Ideas matter, particularly when colored by religious fanaticism, wreaking havoc even in the most favored of places. Take, for instance, Iran, a country blessed with a rich heritage and enormous physical and human resources...Then there’s California, rich in everything from oil and food to international trade and technology, but still skimming along the bottom of the national economy. The state’s unemployment rate is now worse than Michigan’s...Among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan regions, four of the six with the highest unemployment numbers are located in the Golden State: Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco...In California green zealots compel companies to shift their operations to states that are still interested in growing their economy — like Texas. The green regime is one reason why CEO Magazine has ranked California the worst business climate in the nation."
California's politicians and bureaucrats have literally become possessed by a fundamentalist green ideology, combined with an irrational fear that they will perish from "global warming" (see chart to left, click to enlarge) due to the evil carbon dioxide molecule.
The incredible green stupidity, "warming" hysteria and irrational behavior of California's politicians have had horrendous economic consequences for that state, which are undeniable.
The empirical evidence is so clear cut, so stark, so obvious that there is no way a national politician would even think of following the crazed, hysterical green environmental regulations that rained down economic destruction on California, right? You'd be wrong, though.
Views of GOP presidential contender, George Romney:
“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting...“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
Romney is of the same ilk who have caused the greatest state to become the largest economic wasteland in the U.S. The man is not fit for the Oval office while being possessed by, and embracing, the green radical agenda.
Read here. Everyone and his mama now knows that Obama promised "skyrocketing" energy prices, and, by Allah God, he actually delivered that result. He carried out his promise while keeping unemployment high and squeezing the wallet of middle America. Now, the GOP's Obama-lite candidate wants to build on Obama's big government economic and energy disasters.
Mitt Romney, the current leading poll contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has written a book calling for 'carbon taxes' to be assessed on fossil fuels. Soooo...Romney's solution to the economy and energy problems is to raise prices of energy even higher for the average American, while continuing Obama's policy to discourage cheap fossil fuels. Brilliant!
Just what this country needs - impoverish more Americans and drive more jobs overseas to countries with lower costs.
Romney is a big government, liberal Massachusetts Republican whose RomneyCare was the genesis of ObamaCare. And now he wants to pay his respects to Obama by doubling down on economic misery and skyrocketing energy prices.
Why would the leading GOP contender, labeled "conservative" by the MSM press, propose such idiocy? Well, the Federal government needs more revenues to pay for the favored spendthrift policies of big government technocrats and politicians. By taxing fossil fuels, the carbon tax would automatically open up the spigots to American wallets on a daily basis. Once this tax is implemented, it would go on forever, with more increases implemented in the future when needed, just like the social security payroll tax.
So there is no misunderstanding by the naive and gullible, the Romney proposed carbon tax is a perpetual scheme to suck-the-money into the Washington D.C. blackhole of out-of-control spending, incompetence and political corruption.
Of course, Romney the slickster won't admit this as being the reason. Instead he states we need a carbon tax to save Americans from "global warming" that's been warmingcooling Americans for the last 15 years. Whatever, Mitt...
Read here and here. The slick, slippery, elite GOP technocrat that gave the world the failed RomneyCare, has now chosen to join with other big government proponents by embracing the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. Most certainly our nation has a lot of very difficult problems to solve but quite frankly, global warming is not one of them, which Romney can't seem to grasp.
In fact, the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 15 years at a 3°F degree per century rate - that's right, cooling, not warming. And, by the way, global warming has decelerated (see chart, click on to enlarge) over the last 15 years, while atmospheric CO2 levels continue growing in a "business as usual" mode.
This is the real-world, empirical climate evidence that the big government, elite, Republican/Democrat political class constantly deny. Romney and his ilk are essentially empircal science deniers.
Why? Because politicians like Romney have to lie about scary problems, such as global warming, in order to justify greater government taxation, spending and regulation, which is why our country is on the path to becoming the next Greece. Plus, in the case of Romney, he's just another Obama-lite craving to be loved by the coastal establishment and the MSM, which means he has to deny the actual global warming cooling empirical evidence.
Unlike Palin, Romney can't think outside the establishment box, which means he has to fabricate believable falsehoods instead of challenging the consensus. Whereas Palin is a natural born leader, Romney is a natural born follower of elitism that condones lying to the public about everything.
For example, here's a big whopping lie that Romney spreads about global warming: "Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions.” Then there is the whole issue of Romney totally ignoring hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists that challenge the "consensus" orthodoxy of climate science.
Of course, lying is second nature to Romney, as evidenced by his recent claims that RomneyCare is different than ObamaCare. But in fact, both healthcare acts are alike, with just about all leftists/liberals and conservatives/libertarians being unanimous on that - a true bipartisan consensus generated by Romney.
Now, one must give credit when due because Romney is correct that the climate is changing, but it's done that forever - no big surprise there. The world has indeed warmed since the Little Ice Age ended, some 250 years ago, but that has been primarily driven by natural forces, not CO2. And yes, greenhouse gases from humans have likely increased the amount of warming but again it's natural warming that dominates. This cooling and warming stuff just happens, and in reality, humans can't do anything about it other than adapt to the change.
With Romney's declaration of being AGW-faithful, he joins Newt, Huntsman and Gov. Christie who have needlessly taken themselves out of the race for the Republican nomination. These are the GOP Al Gore acolytes, which conservative and libertarian voters will most likely not follow.
For other Republicans wanting to bitch slap these AGW-loving, GOP elitists during debates, here is some material to help you do so:
Read here. An Iowa poll on Republican candidates just came out. Jon Huntsman got just 1 vote (not even 1%). This moderate liberal, green Republican candidate, that the MSM press wants the Republicans to nominate, just flat-out fails to resonate with conservative/libertarian/independent voters.
It would seem being a Republican candidate who actually believes the bogus claim that "90% of scientists think global warming is a crisis" is definitely not a winning formula, which this Obama-lite candidate is proving in spades.
Memo to Republican presidential candidates: If you don't want to be on the Climate Depot dufus list with other green morons, drop both the bogus "90%" claim and the human CO2 emissions fear-mongering schtick - they don't play in Peoria, or even Des Moines or Dubuque.
Read here. Following in the footsteps of outspoken global warmists, such as Fidel and Hugo, is really not a well thought out path to the White House for any Republican. And, for a Republican to follow the "science" advice of an admirer of dictators and totalitarians is really, really stupid, to say the least.
The left's purpose of convincing the public and policymakers that humans are to blame for climate change and global warming is well known, and blatantly promulgated by its adherents. Obviously, Gov. Christie missed the memo as to what this is all about. Did we say clueless?
The extreme left and radical greens are in need of collaborators to accomplish their agenda. Useful idiot Republicans are perfect for the cause, especially those who have an Oval office itch and think going 'green' is the scratch to get them there.
Unfortunately for Christie, the majority of the American public is well past the point where global warming and climate change are major concerns - that voter attitude is especially true for Republicans. It is highly doubtful that any Republican embracing the ideology of AGW will win the nomination, which means Christie has managed to already place his candidacy in the loser's column before even getting started.
For any future Republican candidates who are tempted by the left's siren song of global warming, it might be best to educate oneself about the global warming fundamentals before choosing to crash on the rocks, like Christie, Newt and Huntsman:
Read here and here. No wonder Newt thinks ethanol subsidies are such a great idea - he literally gets paid huge bucks to say that. He's definitely going to be a big hit in the Iowa 2012 Republican primary where a large number of the ethanol-loving parasites live and vote.
Over the last 15 years, corn farmers have averaged about $5 billion per year in subsidies. In addition, ethanol blenders get 45 cents per gallon, almost another $5 billion, which is indirectly shared with the corn producers. And finally, the federal government imposes a 54 cent/gallon tariff on cheap foreign ethanol products, which is another indirect subsidy for corn farmers (the tariffs protect them from a cheaper and better product, foreign sugarcane ethanol).
Sooo, while the farmer and corporate welfare queens are pigging out at the ethanol-subsidy trough, a new peer-researched report in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons indicates that the subsidized/mandated biofuel polices are increasing the levels of poverty, starvation and death across the globe.
"Combining these estimates with estimates of the increase in poverty owing to growth in biofuels production over 2004 levels leads to the conclusion that additional biofuel production may have resulted in at least 192,000 excess deaths [editor: during 2010]...Based on current technologies, higher biofuel production necessarily means greater diversion of crops and/or cropland to the production of fuel rather than food. The iron law of supply and demand dictates that this would almost unavoidably increase global food prices over what they would otherwise be. Indeed, this is confirmed by studies of the impact of biofuel production on global food prices,..."[Indur M. Goklany 2011: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons]
With the U.S. representing some 70% of world corn production, and with ethanol now consuming 40% of that U.S. production, there is less corn to feed both people and animals, which ultimately drives prices higher on a wide variety of food products. The higher prices mean many eat less or nothing at all, which is increasing the incidence of starvation and death.
Thank you, Newt and Iowa parasites. (And yes, subsidies for all energy sources/parasites should be killed, not just those for ethanol.)
Read here. America does not need any more corporate subsidies or earmarks, especially those that are designed to enrich real billionaires or wannabes, whether they be Boone Pickens or George Soros or Al Gore. This country is bankrupt, primarily because both Republican and Democrat politicians keep handing out billions to their friends and favorite lobbyists.
Natural gas is a clean and bountiful energy resource and will become more prevalent in daily use without any subsidies, if the politicans, regulators and the Federal government would just simply get out of the energy business. Instead, we get this crony capitalism that the likes of Obama and Ron Paul embrace and champion, which ends up totally distorting the market and lavishly lining the pockets of their friends, like Boone Pickens or GE.
Ron Paul does not deserve your vote nor your support, Mr/Ms Libertarian. And the below Republicans who also voted for this Pickens's subsidization should be tossed out of office, along with any leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat who still remains in office. Terminate the careers of the big spenders and big subsidizers once and for all in 2012.
The Republican Co-Sponsors of H. R. 1380, the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill:
The Washington Post seems to think Republican candidates need to be quizzed about global warming and climate change. Not a bad idea, but maybe its the Washington Post that should first be quizzed about its beliefs and its knowledge of actual climate science and facts. (click on image to enlarge)
As a large, left/liberal, anti-science, dying MSM purveyor of global warming hysteria ("...that is probably the most important set of facts we face as a nation, and as human beings on planet earth."), it's high time that Republicans start stuffing the scientific facts down the Post's gaping throat and feel good about it.
For example, it's highly unlikely that the WAPO editors, reporters, pundits, cartoonists (yes, go ahead, roll your eyes) and readers are even aware of all the reality-based studies and research done on the actual sea level facts. Why are they unaware of the facts? Well...it's because the anti-science Post does not publish actual scientific facts, it only publishes hysterical, speculative predictions (often referred to as "wild ass guesses") that they know their mentally challenged, liberal/left readers will accept as "science."
The real climate science facts regarding sea levels are shown in the accompanying chart (which, btw, one will never see published in the Post - hey, the empirical science facts hurt, ya know).
Look carefully at that chart. After all that really, really, really terrible global warming that we have read of (ad nauseum) and suffered from over the last 40 years, and that the Post's editors and cartoonists are sooo hysterical about, the latest scientific facts (tide gauges and satellites) have sea levels rising from 1 to 3mm/year, which translates into a measly 3.5 to 11 inches by the year 2100. This is what causes their editors and cartoonists to pee in their panties, and why they believe 50 million climate refugees are roaming the Earth.
Yup, those are the unadulterated, scientific facts - a measly 11 inches by century-end, maybe; and, better yet, the actual sea level rises are just a fraction of what the Post's preeminent "science experts'" predictions are. Amazingly, the Washington Post believes "expert" predictions are facts, just like that 50 million climate refugee prediction "fact" thingy.
That's right, the actual sea level facts are are just a fraction of the ludicrous expert predictions the Washington Post normally publishes without any reservation (see the red-bar predictions in the chart). They literally mislead their readers on a daily basis (okay, granted that's not terribly difficult to do) by portraying 100% pure guesstimates as 100% actual science facts.
So, here's some advice to Republicans. The climate facts are literally unknown to leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrats of the mainstream media. Simply just jam the actual facts down their throats any chance they give you. You should truly welcome this opportunity since almost every global warming speculative fiction that the WAPO has published has been proven wrong, and they're still wrong after all these hysterical years.
Finally, Mr/Ms Republican, why not ask your favorite Post editor or reporter why they don't actually publish the sea level facts for their readers to see - get a citizen journalist to record it and gleefully put them on the spot and YouTube - embrace showing their factual stupidity and prediction hysteria.
Read here. Jon Huntsman, another big government, big spending, liberal-loving Republican, has had a love affair with not only Obama, but with the Pelosi approved 'cap & trade' schemes that she tried to jam down the throats of Americans.
Recently, Huntsman had this to say about global warming in an obvious attempt to defend his desire for the big government, 'cap & trade' CO2 tax scheme:
“I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.”
Well, I'm not a presidential candidate but I believe at least 90% of Republicans know that Jon Huntsman is just another self-absorbed, power hungry, big tax, and big spending liberal Democrat. If Huntsman had any principles, he'd listen to that 90% and run as a Democrat presidential candidate.
Read here. There are some self-anointed Republican presidential candidates, such as Newt Gingrich, who now find themselves at a significant disadvantage to several of their peers. Simply put, Gingrich and a few others embraced the bogus, and non-scientific, UN IPCC approach to climate science...
"...the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”"
Since even the IPCC Climategate-type of scientists are now admitting to a non-empirical, non-evidence, non-scientific approach to climate science, it would behoove (imperative?) Gingrich and similar presidential candidates just admit to being grossly mislead by the political-agenda driven "scientists." By doing so, these AGW-tainted Republican candidates can then aggressively call for certain scientific policies that would put climate science back into the real-world, empirical realm.
What type of policies could Gingrich et al. call for that would enhance the empirical methodology of climate science versus the speculative, non-verifiable version of current IPCC "climate science"? How about these simple ones for starters:
Call for a reduction of the billions spent on non-empirical, non-verifiable climate models, and then invest a portion of those savings towards a state-of-the-art surface temperature measurement system. This new surface temperature measurement endeavor would rely on objective, automated measurement technology that is equal to the NASA satellite and the ocean ARGO technology currently utilized.
Call for an independent and complete forensic audit of the global and U.S. temperature datasets currently published by America's climate agencies.
Call for an independent and complete forensic audit of all U.S./global coastal tide gauge measurements.
Call for a complete withdrawal (money and researchers) from the United Nations controlled IPCC boondoggle until points #1-3 are accomplished. Americans deserve to know the actual climate facts before any more money or personnel are wasted on the corrupt UN effort.
Don't hold your breath regarding the above points, though. Republican candidates such as Gingrich, Pawlenty, and Huntsman are not leaders. They are strictly political animals, like John McCain, with no principles other than pleasing the Washington Post and other liberal coastal elites/pundits.
Read here. Previously, we wrote about Pelosi's Republican couch toy-boy, and his embracing of global warming hysteria and the left/liberal big government nirvana of 'cap & trade'. And as mentioned previously, he is now getting trashed largely because of his past big government, big ethanol, and big green beliefs.
Fortunately for the American consumer and small businesses, the public has come to the realization that human-caused, catastrophic global warming was fabricated hysteria, and the onerous 'cap & trade' legislation was the elites' hypocritical attempt to prosper by imposing more misery on the middle class. Unfortunately for Newt, the middle class America remembers his and her advocacy for 'cap & trade' and the hysterical embrace of global warming fears.
Sooo, how could Newt Gingrich ever recover from his idiotic embrace of the big green, big government, big ethanol and other fanatic environmental stances? Well, it won't be easy, but if he acted quickly and loudly on just a handful of key points he could become a real player with the small/limited government voters.
Here are 4 statements/ideas he could "embrace" and loudly publicize that would make his presidential bid at least viable, if not unbeatable long-term (if he pounds away on them):
1. If Newt were to say: "Speculative catastrophic global warming propaganda that Obama's EPA and the UN's IPCC publicizes is just that, simply speculation. We need better empirical evidence, not further speculative predictions from government computer models that have proven to be so wrong."
2. If Newt were to say: "Other nation's cap and trade policies have not worked as big government scientists and bureaucrats planned and promised, and in fact, have become platforms for only enriching the wealthy and enhancing organized corruption. The facts on the ground now show I was wrong on 'cap & trade' and it's good this legislation was killed. It pleases me that conservatives and libertarians drove the stake into this beast."
3. If Newt were to say: "The radical green organizations and Obama's EPA are attempting to label CO2 as a pollutant when it is absolutely necessary for life. Without CO2, we'd all be dead. What we should be focusing on instead is a legitimate pollutant called 'black soot' that scientists estimate causes 50% of global warming. This is a pollutant we can reduce without hurting America's middle class, and the result would be saving millions of lives from airborne pollution and also significantly reducing Arctic warming and melting."
4. If Newt were to say: "The United Nations and its IPCC agency has totally destroyed the credibility of climate science. It has also grievously harmed the overall reputation of general science because of the fraudulent Climategate-style of science it condones and encourages. The UN needs to be put on a short leash to prevent any further damage to science. Most importantly, the UN has to be completely eliminated from the climate change discussion among nations as Americans no longer believe any of the hysterical climate pronouncements made by the UN, and they shouldn't."
If Newt were to embrace the above four points, he would start getting some serious traction among those voters who massively turned away from the big government tide in the 2010 elections. As it now stands, if he does not robustly disavow and turn away from his incredibly stupid stances on global warming and 'cap & trade', he will never be a viable Republican candidate.
Read here and here. The infamous 'Newt & Nancy' video is the classic example of the primary problem in Washington - simply stated, it's the politicians. h/t: Climate Depot
Let's be blunt:
Any politician who believes the fabricated hysteria of catastrophic global warming is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who thinks that the American populace will put them in office to direct and manage climate change is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who believes the U.S. Congress and the bureaucracy should be responsible for the global climate is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who believes that Americans will put them in office to do the actual bidding for the United Nation's wealth redistribution schemes via climate change regulatory policies is literally unfit for office.
Finally, any politician who supports billions of big business subsidies for the absolute idiotic and incredibly wasteful ethanol program literally should never be allowed near the White House.
Well now.....based on those parameters, then Newt is literally unfit for office, especially the Oval Office. He is the wrong man, at the wrong time, for our modern economic and employment problems, and our soon to crash and burn, out-of-control federal government debt/spending.
The huge, exponentially growing problems this nation faces are not the result of either global warming or global climate change. They are the result of politicians with delusions of grandeur and believed omniscience, which Newt embodies big-time. He's the epitome of the problem that exists, not the solution we dearly need.
"“American Tradition Partnership welcomes Newt Gingrich’s entry into the Democrat presidential primary, where his decades-long record of radical ‘green’ activism will make for a close contest between he and President Obama for the liberal base,”..."As a paid operative of ethanol interests and an outspoken advocate of global regulatory regimes, redistribution of wealth, federal controls of private property, multi-billion dollar welfare programs for wind and solar and taxing Americans into what he calls ‘environmental compliance,’ Gingrich’s entry into the Democrat race was a foregone conclusion.”...“Gingrich’s 2008 TV ad he recorded at the request of Al Gore, where he snuggles on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi and blames the American economy for so-called ‘global warming’ is the kind of manifesto that really speaks to radical environmentalists. And we all know how much environmentalists love issuing manifestos.”"
"Gingrich was the only CPAC speaker who made a grandiose, rock star-style entrance down the aisle of the Marriott Ballroom, complete with spotlights and the raucous song “Eye of the Tiger.” Every other speaker humbly entered the stage from the wings, with relatively little fanfare...he pretends to be pro-job and pro-energy, but Newt Gingrich is truly a radical, liberal environmentalist of the highest order. He wants the government to pay people to be environmentalists, and he misguidedly claims that this is "public-private environmentalism" which upholds a partnership between the government and the private sector. His proposals are far from free market environmentalism. He wants to combine government with wealth redistribution...Gingrich has long advocated for what he considers “Green Conservatism,” and advocates for government intervention in free enterprise, the use of international organizations, free trade agreements. He even argues in favor of former President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policy (Gingrich voted in favor of a federal Department of Energy, as well as the Department of Education, two unconstitutional policies comprising the core of Carter’s doomed domestic agenda)."