About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Mathematical Proof Climate Alarmists are Morons

Posted by Catmman on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:59:05 PM
Claiming greenhouse gases saved us from another Ice Age is equally as probable as climate alarmists claiming global warming will be a catastrophy.
 
NASA's James Hansen Moron Probability = 100%
 
 
(H/T: Junk Science)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming Causes...RACIST MISOGYNY

Posted by Catmman on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:58:58 PM
Head Explosion Alert!  Racism/Class Envy/Socialism/Redistibutionism/Junk Science.  This post HAS IT ALL!!
 
Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s now an issue of race, according to global warming activists and policy makers.
 
Notice how there is no mention of SCIENTIST?  Just "activist" and "policy makers".  This should tell you already where this article is headed.  And that's just the FIRST sentence!

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.
 
So if your white and it's rainy, gloomy and cold outside this coming winter; when you get a touch of the Winter "blahs" just remember - black people will feel worse than you.  Just because their black.  Rep. Clyburn says so. 

“Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites,” the report says. “Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.
 
Got that?  Blacks are "far less responsible" for climate change as well.  It's all of us evil white folk apparently who are poluting the planet making the world unsafe for non-whites.
 
“[W]hile individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change, scientists warn that warmer waters may foster-more intense storms,” the background paper on the commission’s efforts, authored by Michel Gelobter, Carla Peterman and Azebuilke Akaba said. “The flooding of New Orleans still highlights the vulnerability of the African-American community to types of extreme weather events expected with global climate change.”
 
Katrina?  All about black people.  I suppose they are making the argument here that only blacks suffered from the effects of Katrina, and by virtue of their skin color are targeted by flood waters specifically because they are black.  I could point to the fact that south Texas was just hit by a Category II hurricane just last week, but the hispanics and whites (and blacks) here in Texas must have evolved some type of genetic defense against hurricane floodwaters.  I haven't seen to many Texans (of any color) holding out their hands for a guvment debit card.  I also enjoy how "individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change" but these morons then go on to specifically tie Katrina to global climate change.
 
NOW let's slam those who have money.  Those who may want to invest their own money in "climate change solutions" shouldn't be allowed to earn any profit from their investment!

J. Andrew Hoerner, director of the sustainable economics program at Redefining Progress and a co-author of the EJCC report, told the Business & Media Institute that solutions to climate change should be designed in a way so investors don’t reap all the benefits.
 
“There is a certain disconnect between what is good for workers, consumers, managers, and the economy on one hand and stockholders on the other,” Hoerner said. “We found that the combination of efficient market instruments, return of the revenue, cost-effective promotion of new clean technologies and efficiency, and targeted policies for low-income households grows the economy. It increases employment and profits overall, and provides a net benefit for consumers.” 
 
Workers of the World UNITE!!  “We found that the combination of efficient market instruments, return of the revenue, cost-effective promotion of new clean technologies and efficiency, and targeted policies for low-income households grows the economy."  WTF is a efficient market instrument?  That whole sentence reads like a Dilbert cartoon! How does anything in that sentence equal the outcome, ie growing the economy?  And I thought profits were bad?  If the investors aren't going to be allowed a return on their investment (profit), why bring it up?

The report suggested implementing a “fee, tax or allowance auction on polluters,” which was meant to “eliminate the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income households.This would pay for efforts to reduce global warming. Hoerner said that although it would cause product costs to increase, under his policy, the revenue from the “fee, tax, or allowance auction payment” would be redistributed to consumers to offset the higher costs.
 
It's always about the money.  Let's just implement a new "fee".  We'll give the money to those who need it - the ones who aren't responsible for global warming.  Wait, what?  We should give the "extra money" generated from a tax on global warming to those who don't cause global warming so they can offset the cost of the global warming they don't cause?  If blacks don't cause global warming, why do they need money to offset it's effects?  Shouldn't that money go to those who cause global warming (read whitey) so they can clean up their act - thereby eliminating global warming's impact on everyone?  Or do these folks not care how global warming effects anyone other than blacks?  How does that NOT  make these people racists?
 
This is the most patently racist, anti-capitalist, Socialist, offensive post I think I have ever read on global warming/climate change.  I am disgusted that a member of the United States House of Representatives, a sitting legislator, was even part of this travesty let alone a major player in its production.
 
This is probably the best evidence that global warming/climate change has nothing whatsoever to do with the planet or environment.  It is about government control.  It's about class warfare.  It's about money; the redistribution of income. 
 
Un. Effing. Believable!
 
(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Courage to do NOTHING on Global Warming

Posted by Catmman on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:01:18 AM
Here's 11 reasons "global warming/climate change" as portrayed by the alarmists is bunk.  Great referenced info:
 
Even if global temperature has risen, it has risen in a straight line at a natural 0.5C/century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum, long before we could have had any influence (Akasofu, 2008).
 
Even if warming had sped up, now temperature is 7C below most of the past 500m yrs; 5C below all 4 recent inter-glacials; and up to 3C below the Bronze Age, Roman & mediaeval optima (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
 
Even if today’s warming were unprecedented, the Sun is the probable cause. It was more active in the past 70 years than in the previous 11,400 (Usoskin et al., 2003; Hathaway et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005).
 
Even if the sun were not to blame, the UN’s climate panel has not shown that humanity is to blame. CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did in 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004).
 
Even if CO2 were to blame, no “runaway greenhouse” catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian era, when there was ~20 times today’s concentration in the air. Temperature was just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
 
Even if CO2 levels had set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years, temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
 
Even if the planet were not cooling, the rate of warming is far less than the UN imagines. It would be too small to cause harm. There may well be no new warming until 2015, if then (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
 
Even if warming were harmful, humankind’s effect is minuscule. “The observed changes may be natural” (IPCC, 2001; cf. Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
 
Even if our effect were significant, the UN’s projected human fingerprint - tropical mid-troposphere warming at thrice the surface rate - is absent (Douglass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
 
Even if the human fingerprint were present, climate models cannot predict the future of the complex, chaotic climate unless we know its initial state to an unattainable precision (Lorenz, 1963; Giorgi, 2005; IPCC, 2001). Even if computer models could work, they cannot predict future rates of warming. Temperature response to atmospheric greenhouse-gas enrichment is an input to the computers, not an output from them (Akasofu, 2008).
 
Therefore, extravagant, futile schemes by the State and its organs to mitigate imagined “global warming” will have no more effect than King Canute’s command to the tide not to come in and wet the Royal feet. We must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong. There is no manmade “climate crisis”. It is a non-problem. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
 
Even more information here.
 
(H/T: ICECAP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is the "natural-gas" car worth it?

Posted by Catmman on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:00:40 AM
A lynchpin of the T. Boone Pickens national energy plan is to use America's natural gas resources to fuel our vehicles instead of using petroleum based fuels (gasoline/diesel).
 
This is all well and good as far as it goes.  But there are serious drawbacks, not the least of which is cost, for this technology:
 
Automakers have been trying to get the public to buy natural gas vehicles since the 1970s. Yet, despite millions in tax subsidies, today there is only one — count them: one — -compressed-natural-gas (CNG) product in America’s showrooms. It’s the Honda Civic GX and it ain’t exactly flying off the shelves.
 
No wonder. The CNG-powered Civic GX sells at a whopping $8,780 over the price of a comparable gas-powered Civic DX, yet has 24 percent less horsepower, is 2 seconds slower 0-60 mph, has half the trunk size (due to the huge CNG tank behind the back seats), and only goes 250 miles on a tank of natural gas vs. 400 for its petrol-powered sister. 
 
Friedman is full of hot air on “America’s abundant natural gas supplies” (his own newspaper wrote on May 29 that the industry is looking abroad for more supplies “as production falls off in North America, where many fields are tapped out”), but natural gas is at least cheaper per mile than gasoline at current, $4-a-gallon, prices. So, assuming lousy performance doesn't phase you, how long would it take to recoup the GX’s premium in saved fuel prices? About 213,000 miles according to a Car & Driver calculation — or 14 years of normal driving.
 
“Obviously,” wrote C&D, “paying more for a (natural gas) Civic is not a financially driven choice but an environmentally driven one.”
 
The CNG Honda Civic-GX
 
This technology is available for those who wish to avail themselves of it, just as with a hybrid.  What a lot of activists and pro-"green" pundits fail to realise is that the market (meaning the American people) as a group doesn't want it.  It is still too cost prohibitive and an inconvenient hassle to use this technology (especially in the case of CNG).  The cost/benefit just isn't there for the average American.  The government does offer tax credits into the thousands of dollars, but even this still doesn't offset the initial or even long term higher costs for the use or purchase of this technology.
 
What makes this worse is that people like T. Boone (though I agree with his rhetoric on this issue) is also calling for massive government regulation and subsidies to make these technologies "more competitive".  Anyone with half a brain knows where that will lead eventually.  Of course to the wacko "greeny" that is the intention anyway - massive government regulation and mandating of technology use - all for the "greater good".
 
If people want to use/own supposed "green" technology, so be it.  Let them pay for it and be happy.  I should not be made to help pay for it in the form of taxation (which supplies the government subsidies), nor should I be mandated to use it if I deem it isn't worth it or affordable for me or my family.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »