The Plan to Destroy the West: Covid and beyond

by Craig Willms

Naomi Wolf in her 2023 book Facing the Beast sought to expose the failures of the public health response during the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent tyranny, censorship, and totalitarianism let loose on the world. Wolf is (was) a liberal democrat who has now fallen out of favor with the progressive leftists. She's had an awakening, a spiritual transformation that most would have thought impossible before 2020. Her previous persona was lodged firmly in leftist progressivism, feminism and Democratic politics, including working for Democratic presidents directly. Wolf alongside a broadening number of hard-left Democrats are now sounding the alarm. Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Brett Weinstein come to mind, but also folks like Douglass Murray, Eva Vlaardingerbroek and James Lindsey among many others not of the left. I think we should listen.

During the covid pandemic a number of very prominent and reliably liberal public figures and journalists began raising concerns with government, corporate and the media's actions against anyone who balked at the forcing of vaccines as a condition of employment. The shutdown of small business, churches and public education was a total and complete overreaction to the danger posed by a serious illness that was lethal to only the very old and the very sick. The rest of us recovered. Clearly part of a larger agenda to destroy the U.S. and the West, Covid-19 was a planned operation. 

Timing is everything, and I contend covid was let loose when it was to force Donald Trump out of office. Approximately a year before the presidential election covid was timed to exact maximum damage to Trump's chances of reelection. Impeachment and all the accusations they hurled at Trump did not turn the public against him. The economy was strong, and America's challengers were on the ropes. It's quite possible they had covid sitting on the shelf in the event Trump appeared to have reelection in the bag. The pandemic gave them an avenue to implement election fraud schemes in the name of public safety. This is no conspiracy theory, because it happened. Joe Biden did not get 81 million legitimate votes - more than any President in history - not possible.

Why? Because Trump was able to show, however crudely, that the West's decline is not inevitable. The far-reaching global agenda that was launched to hobble the West after the fall of the Soviet Union sought to bring about a nefarious plan to deindustrialize Europe, cripple the U.S. and above all begin the de-population of the world. Trump and his unlikely success were so unexpected that this plan to destroy the West, and in particular the U.S. was in jeopardy. What is still a mystery to me was the near total capitulation of nearly all advanced liberal societies. Does the West really say, "how high?" when the U.S. says jump? Stranger yet was the total absence of any condemnation of China for releasing SARS-CoV-2 on the world. It was, in a word, eerie. One thing that is clear, Covid-19 was not spontaneous or random.

Don't just take my word for it listen to what Dr. David E. Martin has to say, though you won't find him on YouTube - he's been taken down, try Rumble. He tells us that a coronavirus pandemic was planned for years. He explains that shortly after coronavirus was isolated in the mid 1960's it was identified as a vector for modifying into a deadly human virus. Enter Dr. Fauci and people like him pushing gain of function experiments to uncover strains deadly to human beings. Dr. Martin went on to explain that Pfizer's own patents on spike proteins for battling corona virus developed in 1990 does not speak of warp speed. Pfizer soon determined they didn't work anyway. So, it's been known for decades that spike proteins in vaccines for corona viruses did not work. Put on the shelf indeed. 

But the vaccines were the key. The damnable lies behind the push to vaccinate the young and even small children were patently evil. Children and young adults were not at risk whatsoever, this is not arguable. The damage done is incalculable and those people who pushed it on the young will have no tears shed for them as they reach old age with no grandchildren in their lives. The fact that the vaccines did nothing to stop the spread or prevent the disease seems lost on them. 

Even now, just a few short years after the Covid pandemic, the effects of the vaccines are becoming evident, and they are devastating. We don't know what horrors the long-term effects from these vaccines will bring. Already there has been an unexplained 13-20% drop in babies born worldwide. The incidences of myocarditis in adults, young adults, especially young men and in teens has suddenly cropped up worldwide. Young athletes, dropping dead on the field was almost non-existent before the vaccine. More concerning is people in and out of the medical profession are becoming alarmed about the future fertility of vaccinated women. There have been numerous reports of severe menstrual cycle disruptions following vaccination. All over the world vaccinated people are dropping dead in their prime. The term 'excess deaths' is now common, where it was never uttered before Covid. These are things we should know about, all of us. 

Again, this is not merely my conjecture. Consider the study conducted by Dr Nicolas Hulscher called 'A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings after Covid-19 Vaccination' found that of 325 autopsies 73% of the deaths directly attributed or significantly caused by the Covid-19 vaccines. Published in The Lancet, it was unceremoniously pulled down within 24 hours. After a year of battling with naysayers the study now peer-reviewed is re-published and online again. This is explosive to say the least.

Consider also that numerous acclaimed doctors and scientists have nearly had their careers destroyed for bucking the authorities over covid from the beginning. All of them had the facts just as the aforementioned American Dr. David Martin did when he addressed the European Parliament. Why the European Parliament? He was not welcome in America. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mrna vaccine and a vocal critic of the covid vaccine, Dr. John Campbell, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr Aseem Malhotra, and co-signer of the Great Barrington Declaration, epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya all spoke out during the pandemic decrying the official reaction (overreaction) to Covid-19. They were all shunned in their own countries. All have been vindicated by what has followed.

To this day there is still a mainstream media blackout of covid vaccine fallout, it will get you kicked off social media platforms if you post anything contradicting the approved narrative. Don't dare mention that China did not participate in Western vaccine distribution. Consider in this era of maximum Jew hatred that Israel is the most covid compliant country in the world. If it is an anti-fertility program, why not sterilize the Jews.

Covid was but a front in the war against the West, the battles go on unabated. Consider the open borders in America and Europe. It is a literal trojan horse. One has to wonder how the current opposition party in the U.S. the Republicans, can be so passive about the invasion of our southern border. In Europe it's understandable, there is no real opposition movement in Europe. Only time will tell if there's any real hope for America.

Europe has other problems too that are not that much different than America's, but with such weakness the necessary national pride is so easily subdued. Global Climate Change "concerns" lead the efforts to deindustrialize Germany and destroy Dutch farmers and the like. Climate Change is essentially a religion in Europe. Almost no one in Europe opposes its validity. Something has to replace Christ in their lives. There are rumbles of life in recent European elections, some Europeans populations have reached their breaking point. Are they are finally waking up? We can only hope. 

America has been largely deindustrialized already. They are now targeting the energy industry here as they did in Germany.  The U.S. has the patriots and the concerned citizens, but the power of government, big business, the progressive media means that only overwhelming numbers at ballot box will defeat this cabal. Sorry to say I'm not convinced there is enough.

Note: To those who contend that anyone with thoughts along these lines is a conspiracy nut, a fool and a waste of time, need to consider that they are the ones who are being deceived. The modern news industry is agenda driven and has been for decades. The infiltration by the intelligence community into newsrooms is well known. They have been instrumental in the misdirection of media investigations and planting false narratives. To ignore the evidence of this is self-deception. Conspiracies are real. The actual concrete details of such things are likely never to be known; they are conspiracies after all. The nature of conspiracy is secrecy. To believe that conspiracies do not exist is willful and extreme ignorance.

To conceive of and implement an operation of this scope and magnitude (Covid) seems to stretch credulity, but each passing day we are hearing more and more truth eke out. The picture emerging is that nothing is beyond imagination, and it is more frightening than ever. 

The Science is Settled: Part II The COLD facts

In a previous post I talked about the phenomenon of how entrenched scientific concepts literally damage science and learning (and truth) by crowding out or holding back new lines of inquiry that potentially contradict established beliefs. If simple prudence and careful vetting of wild supposition was at the root of the scientific community's reticence it might be somewhat understandable. But it's not.

Actually it's usually reputation, money or a political agenda that drives science and its conclusions. It's not just science, but also education, financial systems and even the prevailing entertainment industry that have succumbed to special interest entrenchment.

Quite often in science prevailing "truths" cement all subsequent thought and theories. These facts so fervently celebrated even as their conjurors express doubt -  Einstein and his space-time, Hubble and his redshift and Darwin and his evolution. Each of these men had doubts about the conclusions that were spun out of their theories - theories that are now treated as indisputable fact. Anyone who dares challenge these and many more facts are either treated as charlatans or destroyed.

In the previous article I introduced the notion the the governing force of the universe is not, as it is believed in proper scientific circles, gravity but rather electro-magnatism. When examined this simple theory starts to make sense as it answers the conundrums created by unverifiable convolutions of the gravity-based model. As more and more observable data comes in to validate the Electric Universe theory over the pure speculation and mathematical gymnastics of the relativity/space-time model you would think minds would open to new possibilities. No, in fact the entrenchment and the money grab only intensifies.

As well, in the "Climate Change" "Global Warming" debate the data is turning away from man-caused, CO2 caused global warming to a Solar Minimum caused global cooling. The entrenched scientific community ignores these inconvenient truths because they must follow the money. The money flows out of a political agenda. The danger here is that unlike scientific theory and  the pure knowledge of the Electric Universe model versus the Standard Space/Time model the Climate Change agenda has the potential to ruin industries, societies, the livelihoods and the lives of the least among us while doing absolutely nothing to change the climate one way or the other.

The massive amount of money - billions and billions - could be spent preparing an adaptation strategy that could mean the difference between thriving or societal collapse. As more evidence pours in that cooling, not warming is what's in store for planet Earth the more entrenched and hysterical the Global Warming sirens are wailing.

The SSRC (Space and Science Research Corporation) and its President, Mr. John L. Casey -  a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer - sent a letter to the President warning of the coming climate change. So far he has been ignored.

==========================================

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C.  20500
April 28, 2014
SUBJECT: Request to Prepare the USA for Dangerous Cold Climate.
Dear Mr. President,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Good morning.
            
This letter is sent to you as a heartfelt request that you take immediate action to ensure that the United States of America is fully prepared for the historic, potentially dangerous, new cold climate that has begun.

This request is backed up by research over the past decades into the causes of climate change along with the real status of the Earth’s climate. Key findings of that research are provided here in a partial list of what is either widely accepted or can be easily validated:

1. The past period of global warming, a natural phenomenon produced primarily by the Sun, has ended. We have now had over seventeen years without any effective growth in global atmospheric temperatures in the troposphere. Ironically, this means that for the majority of the time the international community has been dealing with global warming, there wasn’t any! It is therefore important to accept that global warming has ended. There is no global warming!

2. The Earth is actually cooling and has been for years.The world’s oceans have been cooling for eleven years as has the atmosphere for most of that time. Of the twenty-four climate parameters monitored by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) and recorded in its quarterly Global Climate Status Report (GCSR), eighteen of them show global cooling as the dominant trend. The remaining six are expected to convert to ‘cooling’ status within the next five years. Sea levels have already started to drop where some ocean areas are getting colder. The SSRC has predicted a global sea level reduction lasting thirty years to begin at any time between this year and the 2020’s. If these trends change, the SSRC will be the first to report it. However, based on actual global temperatures and the most reliable climate models, there is only one conclusion to be made about the Earth’s current climate status – a new cold climate has arrived!

3. If this new cold epoch proceeds as past episodes (roughly 200 and 400 years ago), we should expect to see substantial global crop damage, social and political upheaval, and loss of life. These ill-effects are expected to start soon and last at least three decades. We have little time left to prepare. Respected Russian scientists have even gone so far as to say a new “Little Ice Age” will start this year! This means the advancing cold climate is a serious threat to our people!

4. The new cold climate is being brought to the Earth by a repeating 206 year cycle of the Sun. I independently discovered this cycle and announced it in 2007. Though many other researchers have discovered this cycle or predicted a coming cold climate, they have been ignored. The cold phase of this two-century-long cycle is produced by the Sun making dramatic reductions in the energy by which it warms the planet. This Sun-driven cold period is called a “solar hibernation,” by the SSRC. It is important to note that NASA, the US Air Force, and the National Solar Observatory have confirmed the on-going decline in solar activity. This has happened as I predicted. It is also necessary to know that this natural, repeating, and ominous change in the Sun is unstoppable!

5. Research related to these solar hibernations, also shows they occur concurrently with the most destructive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the latter of which can add dramatically to an already colder climate.

In addition, I believe African Americans, other minorities, and the poor will suffer the most because of the new cold era and your climate policies. This assertion is supported by the fact that a large percentage of these citizens are largely dependent on the US government for food, which we will start to run short of as the cold starts to damage crops. This means as a result of your climate policies, they may be both unprepared and unable to get food routinely during the worst years of the coming cold climate. Further, your climate policies include making energy costs “skyrocket” to quote you. These energy cost increases will hit minorities and the poor the most.

In summary, the lives of many Americans may be in jeopardy as a consequence of the arrival of the new cold climate, your continued support for the flawed, unreliable manmade global warming theory, and your lack of action to prepare the United States for the next climate change.
Regardless of your stated belief in “accelerating” global warming, (something that does not exist), as President of the United States, you still remain fully responsible and accountable for the welfare of our approximately 317 million citizens.

You therefore deserve to receive this genuine warning about the new cold climate if nothing else, for the record.

Sincerely,
John L. Casey
President

=============================

The age of reality over special interest is long over due. Money trumps everything or so it seems. Curiosity, skepticism and a quest for knowledge - even uncomfortable knowledge - should be driving force behind science. A term like "the science is settled" should never be taken so seriously that doors are slammed and questions never get asked.

Ugh

Save the World

I've been accused of being a denier. Yes, that's right, a denier. I don't take it personally, but I think my accusers misunderstand my stance. I absolutely believe in climate change (that's what they like to call it these days. The nasty right-wingers (and the facts) have ruined their favorite scary words - global warming).

Yes climate change is very real, been going on for, oh, say, a couple billion years now. It's even possible, maybe probable, that the globe is warming. Doesn't sound denialist to you does it? Me either.

Is mankind to blame if it is true? I'm not sure, but then no one is. However, I do deny is that the insane remedies the greenies prescribe for America and Europe (basically all the majority white countries) would be in any way helpful. In fact what they want the West to do is to slit our own throats.


The pain and suffering that the greenies want to impose on humanity spreading outward from the West will be far more devastating than any slight warming of the planet could ever be. What they want is energy starvation. At a time when it's abundantly clear that it takes energy to create and sustain wealth and it is rising wealth that will help the most people far and wide. More than one "global warming believer" sees this as the essential truth. The biggest barrier to improving societal resilience to the vagaries of climate change is poverty. Therefore the spending of ungodly sums of money to try to alter the planet's climate will only lessen the well-being of the great bulk of humanity, and drive us all even further into poverty.

In an article posted at the The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) they say exactly that. It's poverty that is the biggest problem for human climate interaction. Read "What the world needs now is a lot less poverty". It's short and convincing.

At the Global Warming Policy Foundation Matt Ridley, hardly a denier, says essentially the same thing - the world will need more energy not less. Take a minute to read MATT RIDLEY: CLIMATE CURE WORSE THAN THOUGHT. Its real food for thought whatever side your on.

FTA:
One IPCC scenario assumes we'd be burning an astonishing 10 times as much coal as today, producing 50% of its primary energy from coal, compared with about 30% today. Indeed, because oil is assumed to have become scarce, a lot of liquid fuel would then be derived from coal. Nuclear and renewable technologies contribute little, because of a “slow pace of innovation” and hence “fossil fuel technologies continue to dominate the primary energy portfolio over the entire time horizon of the RCP8.5 scenario.” Energy efficiency has improved very little.

These are highly unlikely assumptions. With abundant natural gas displacing coal on a huge scale in the United States today, with the price of solar power plummeting, with nuclear power experiencing a revival, with gigantic methane-hydrate gas resources being discovered on the seabed, with energy efficiency rocketing upwards, and with population growth rates continuing to fall fast in virtually every country in the world, the one thing we can say about RCP8.5 is that it is very, very implausible.

Notice, however, that even so, it is not a world of catastrophic pain. The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three times what it is now. Poverty would be history. So it’s hardly Armageddon.
But there’s an even more startling fact. We now have many different studies of climate sensitivity based on observational data and they all converge on the conclusion that it is much lower than assumed by the IPCC in these models. It has to be, otherwise global temperatures would have risen much faster than they have over the past 50 years.  As Ross McKitrick noted on this page earlier this week, temperatures have not risen at all now for more than 17 years. With these much more realistic estimates of sensitivity (known as “transient climate response”), even RCP8.5 cannot produce dangerous warming. It manages just 2.1C of warming by 2081-2100.

What I have believed all along is that warming is better than cooling. I just don't buy the doomers that claim that all hell will be unleashed if the planet warms by 1 or 2 degrees celsius. The Medieval Warming Period is case in point. Life on Earth was better for more people than the subsequent period known as the Little Ice Age. It's only common sense.

To save the world we need to encourage wealth creation and anti-poverty measures in the poorest places on Earth. It means that the rich will get richer, and the West will continue to rise, and these are good things. This means we will all need greater access to more and more energy. What is it that the greenies and their progressive buddies continuously rally against. Yep, you got it, wealth and energy.

Who is really on the side of the poor?



Ugh (denier)

Global Warming charade just another Intelligent Design

The big red flag in the history of the Global Warming thesis should have been the declaration that the science is settled. The science is never settled. It's an egregious claim even for politicians to make let alone scientists who should know better. By issuing this heavy handed statement they gave themselves permission to begin the process of shaming governments, business and the populace into compliance with their agenda for good or for ill.

In advanced societies people and business will only go so far, eventually the proscribed remedies cost real money. As well, people are smart enough to understand the concept of throwing money down a rat hole. It's when the limit has been reached as to what people will do voluntarily to mitigate their so-called "carbon footprint" that the anthropogenic global warming pushers resort to dangerous and destructive activities. 

The pushers have every right to their opinion. They have every right to express their opinion and try to convince others that theirs is the right and moral position. They don't, however, have the right to declare the truth and then get laws passed or create regulations based on that truth that will severely degrade the economic destinies of the multitudes while enriching the few. Yet, this is exactly what has happened - even as evidence pours in that the science is not settled and that the pushers routinely lie about and obscure their own "facts".

The fact is that climate and its variables are not that well understood. The effect of solar variability and cosmic influences are not well understood. The very nature of the self correcting biosphere is not well understood. Then with all this uncertainty to claim that  the effects of mankind's activity and particularly an increase in the trace gas C02 makes it conclusive that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is upon us is the height of scientific arrogance. (please refer to  http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ )

I'm reminded of another thesis that has no place in the law or the school house. After the Christian fundamentalist failure to elevate Creationism to level of Darwinian Theory in the schools (primarily because it was clearly theistic and not science) a new idea emerged called Intelligent Design. ID was presented as an answer to Darwinism by auguring for irreducible complexity among other things and against natural selection. The issue for ID arises when you wind up in a spiral of infinite regression trying to identify the designer as being anything but God. There is no empirical evidence of a first cause or prime mover if you will, and there never will be. Therefore it isn't science. While there are gaps and holes in Darwinian Theory there is empirical evidence that aspects of the theory are true and demonstrable.

I happen to believe in a "first cause" or God, but I do so on faith because all any of us can ever observe or hope to measure are second causes. The wonders and mysteries of this beautiful world and awesome creation may forever be hidden from us, because until we are unleashed from our mortal coils we are on the inside looking out. We will never be in a position to report on the ultimate "truth". Like a drop of water flowing downstream we can't see the river to even understand that we are in the river.

ID proponents unable to prove it is even a workable theory try to use public opinion and the courts to get into school curriculum along side evolution. Science isn't done in a courtroom or with sound bites.

So too with the proponents of AGW, unable to sufficiently tip public opinion or persuade the corporate world to go all in due to their own untrustworthy science they have used the tremendous power of governments and a willing mainstream media to shove wasteful and damaging policies down our throats toward their end goals. The thing to ask is are they even being honest about those goals? Is it really about green energy and saving the Earth?

So-called “Green” energy is dubious because it doesn't come close to living up to its hype and it harms taxpayers: inefficient technologies like solar and wind energy survive only through taxpayer-funded subsidies. The federal government investing billions in numerous “green” energy projects that have gone bankrupt has literally stuck taxpayers with the tab. Green energy is also destructive because it has been used to enrich government cronies and the war-chests of politicians, while established industries are unreasonably regulated with the specter of punitive expense to companies and rate payers. People will gladly pay for value, and a clean environment has value, but a scam is a scam.

A scam always has an ultimate goal underlying the mechanisms of the play. Obviously this is usually money, of course. It may well be the case with the Climate Change industry, and probably is, but I think it's more sinister than just money. I think there are two things that drive this scam at its core. One being the destruction of Western Civilization and the other a massive reduction in the human population. The two go hand in hand. Western Civ represents growing economies and wealth and thus a support base for more and more consumption. World poverty is going down faster than at anytime in history - this is bad for the saviors of the planet.

The saviors themselves will never suffer nor will their families, but everyone else will.



Ugh

Climate Change Deniers ARE Stupid, right?

Not to drag out the old standby "Climate Change" to fill a blog post, OK that's exactly what I'm doing... Below is a back and forth I had a year ago when I came across an article on some greenie website. The interesting thing was that the responders absolutely hit on every single contradictory cliche I accused them of while trying to come off as reasonable, intelligent and patient.

For instance, at one point one of them put down a bunch of links to studies (proving his point) and when I suggested I could find a bunch of links that would say exactly the opposite, he chided me saying links that any fool could post prove nothing.

I stayed on and had some fun with it anyway...

Note: I interjected a few comments in [brackets]

_____________________________

Craig said...

Oh for God's sake who is denying climate change? No one is denying climate change. Informed, educated, well-intentioned people disagree about "global warming" and more specifically what can or should be done about it - if anything. Treating skeptics as flat-earthers and fools only diminishes you. The climate is going to change, that's a fact. What is causing it is way too complicated to distill down to humanity burning fossil fuels, and specifically the emitting of carbon dioxide.

I am sick and tired of the debate being waved off as if we who question proposed drastic measures are knuckledragging protohumans. There is a legitimate debate to be had about what should be done.
Reply07/16/2012 at 01:01 PM



Ted Lee Eubanks said...

Craig, I wondered how long I would have to wait before one of the denier birders would speak up. You comment that "treating skeptics as flat-earthers and fools only diminishes you." Nonsense. Undermining you are the histrionics about the subject and your inability to actually offer a "legitimate debate." So here is the invitation, Craig. Gut it up and show us your data. Let me see the peer reviewed studies that would argue otherwise. Give us your case that argues against this being "way too complicated to distill down to humanity burning fossil fuels, and specifically the emitting of carbon dioxide." Don't just snivel. Debate.
Reply07/16/2012 at 02:00 PM


Ted Lee Eubanks said...

For those like Craig who are nonplussed by climate change (what a way to rain on a parade?), here are a few current papers related to the science rather than the politics. http://certiclean-certified.com/lcs/docs/2007_Climate_EOS_Projection.pdf  http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC23258/

If you are not up to reading these papers, at least read this last one. As the authors state, "But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

Craig, anthropogenic means caused by man. Your comment that climate change is "way too complicated to distill down to humanity burning fossil fuels" is contrary to the published science. We await your data.
Ted
Reply07/16/2012 at 09:49 PM

Craig said...

Gee, thanks for the vocabulary lesson on anthropogenic, I never knew... This is exactly what I mean, by the way, about the arrogant superiority complex you folks display toward anyone who differs with you. Consensus, scientific or not, isn't necessarily the truth. I can get a list together of nice links that will say exactly the opposite - if I must. (I'd start with http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

One question that has always bothered me and none of you can answer without a hockey stick. How did medieval man "cause" global warming? And even more important how was it bad for humanity? Everything I have read points to nothing but good coming out of warmer temperatures for health and well being of mankind.

But let's just say you're right about absolutely everything. What should we do that's practical, rational and dare I say actually doable. Wasting billions on carbon sequestration and other redistribution schemes is none of these. As Lomborg suggests the rational thing to do is to learn to adapt to warmer temperatures just as mankind learned to adapt to colder temperatures a few centuries ago. Science and technology will continue to advance just as it has since the dawn of the industrial revolution and practical solutions will arise - yes, before it's too late. Or, just in time for the next anthropogenic ice age.
Reply07/17/2012 at 02:12 PM


Joshua said...

Craig, a few things. First, your statement "Everything I have read points to nothing but good coming out of warmer temperatures for health and well being of mankind." You apparently need to read something a bit less biased. Warmer temperatures are likely to be disastrous to mankind for a number of reasons, starting with tropical diseases like malaria and dengue spreading over wider areas of the globe. Agricultural pests will similarly spread more readily from the tropics into temperate zones. Throw in increased demand for electricity and water, demands that many communities are already struggling to satisfy. That assumes that warmer temperatures actually happen. It's called "global" climate change, not "your neighborhood" climate change, for a reason. A temperature 5 degrees (F) warmer in any one state or even country would be barely noticeable. A global change of 5 degrees would just about end life as we know it. But a global change is not going to change every single place on the planet by the same amount; some areas will likely get cooler. And the changes of real significance are likely to be in areas indirectly affected by temperature, such as precipitation, evaporation, ocean currents, etc.

As for medieval man, they were certainly capable of burning wood, which on a per-unit-of-energy basis is thought to generate more climate change than burning fossil fuels. They also had livestock, considered a source of atmospheric heat-trapping gases including methane (more potent than carbon dioxide). They clear-cut many forests which releases a great deal of carbon from organic forms into the atmosphere. And really, the data on the medieval warming period indicates that it was milder than the current one, [no, sir, no it wasn't. Ugh] and possibly not even global. 

Adaptation is a fine idea for those who can do it. Unfortunately, adaptation requires money and resources. Many countries lack those. So the poorer countries wind up stuck with that other, less pleasant sort of adaptation, the Darwinian natural selection sort, where the fittest survive and everyone else dies. For the wealthy countries who have generated most of the greenhouse gases, and profited hugely from doing so, to fret about the monetary cost of carbon sequestration and other climate stabilization strategies, is not going to be received well if people in poorer countries are dying and think that we made most of our money while causing it. I'm also surprised how much that you, ostensibly a birder, emphasize the survival of humans. If climate change takes place as predicted,
we are going to see an avalanche of extinctions of birds, mammals, fish, and other life forms across the planet. Our adapting does nothing to help other species. Some of us care about that.

Not surprised that you mention Bjorn Lomborg. Unfortunately, the man's area of expertise is political science; both his Master's and Ph.D. were in that area. He lectured a bit on statistics within the political sciences, but never earned any degrees in that area. And everything that he knows about climatology and the rest of the natural sciences, he learned after he had already made up his mind to
oppose environmentalism, which allowed him (maybe conciously, maybe not) to cherry-pick the bits that supported his preconceived notions and conveniently overlook the parts that were contrary to his personal views. To get a degree in a field, you have to learn the entire thing, not just the parts that you find agreeable.

Which brings me to your claim "Consensus scientific or not isn't necessarily the truth. I can get a list together of nice links that will say exactly the opposite" A collection of links vs. scientific consensus. Links come from websites that Ted, or I, or you, or anyone else could put up. I could pull a bunch of numbers and graphs out of my behind and post it on a website. More to the point, I could post my opinions somewhere even if they were based on a complete misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the facts. Scientific consensus rides on publications, which each have to make it through a long and arduous process of quality control involving dozens of people before they make it into print. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations get corrected by this process. If any conclusion seems wrong, other scientists can repeat the steps of the study and try it out for themselves, and if they find out that the previous study was wrong, they can publish that too. Contrary to the conspiracy theories, it happens all the time. So, links vs. scientific consensus? Not much of a choice there.
Reply07/18/2012 at 10:39 AM


Craig said...

Why is everything I read biased? Because it disagrees with your "consensus"? Don't even try to tell me there hasn't been shenanigans played with the science behind these theories. There is a lot of money riding on making global warming scary - we must do something NOW. Billions have been thrown at scientists and there are billions more at stake. Scientists need to eat too and this research has been an incredible boon monetarily. Sorry if I don't trust the ultimate motives behind all this. (You of course are above reproach) Call me a conspiracy nut if you must.

My point is there is probably not much man can do - reasonably - that would make a difference considering the cost/benefit ratio. Mankind has adapted to climate change way before the evil ones drove their cars and fired up their power plants. Populations soared during the Medieval Warming Period and plummeted during the Little Ice Age - people suffered. I'm sorry but warmer is just better.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking all reasonable measures to mitigate the junk mankind throws up into the air. But going backward economically will never get us there - ever. How does a economically weaker "West" make the world a cleaner, greener place? Poverty stricken countries and emerging countries like China and India are belching cesspools, yet they were never going to be required to adhere to the standards the West was facing. In my view advancing science and technology from a position of economic strength is going to do far more good than forcing the West to reduce our wealth through direct confiscation and the high prices of false scarcity.



Joshua said...

Craig, to answer your question "Why is everything I read biased?" You said before that "Everything I have read points to nothing but good coming out of warmer temperatures for health and well being of mankind." There is an avalanche of evidence pointing to warmer temperatures being disastrous to mankind for a wide variety of reasons, some of which I already listed. If you have not read any of that material, then what you have read is presenting only one side of the issue. That is a dictionary definition of "biased".

A little light reading for you:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
This is not a scientific article, but the author is at least familiar with the scientific basis of climate change and the predictions it makes for human welfare. I do not necessarily agree with 100% of the article's content, but it's certainly closer to reality than what you've been reading. The population numbers from the medieval warming period and little ice age do not apply to our current situation. World population then was a tiny fraction of what it is now. Populations boomed during the warming period because we were making advances in agriculture, medicine, exploration. Populations plummeted after the warming period because, oh yeah, the Black Death, among other things. The climate was not driving the population changes.

If you really want to stay buried in your conspiracy theories, then nothing I say will penetrate the sand in which you've buried your head. But just look at your own statements like "There is a lot of money riding on making global warming scary" and think about that. How much money is there in making global warming *not* scary? Several million times more. Scientists' grants are a pittance relative to the revenue pulled in by the industries that extract, process, sell, and consume fossil fuels. [BS, the money shoveled into "climate change" by governments alone dwarfs that of industry by orders of magnitude, add the free media trumpets and you're comparing apples to blue berries]

Now, if you want to make the arguments about affordability of the various schemes to stabilize the climate, or about the fairness of deals that demand the West make changes while exempting rapidly developing countries with far higher populations, you might have valid arguments there. Unfortunately, any points you make in those areas have been sorely undermined by your disputing the scientific evidence. When you make claims that are unsupported by the facts, it casts doubt on your opinions in the areas where facts may actually exist to support your case. [There you go, the science is settled - the facts are in. Not quite]
Reply07/24/2012 at 01:15 AM


Craig said...

Conspiracy theories??? Ever hear of ClimateGate? Cmon. There have been numerous fallicies that have come to light as the pushers ramp up the fear mongering. I am neither a scholar nor a scientist (probably obvious by now) but I am a bullshit detector. All up and down the cast of characters pushing this notion are bullshit artists and profiteers along with the serious scientists. These folks have the megaphone of the major media and the money of superpower governments so the constant drumbeat against the "oil companies" and the "Koch Brothers" bank rolling the opposition is falling on my sand-filled deaf ears.

There is BS and dishonesty on both sides of this debate. Just like anything else identified and embraced by the left-side of the political spectrum the elements of truth and rightousness are buried in the rubble of the sledge hammer they (always) employ. This is probably why the opposition is so adamant. Cooler heads and wiser men could probably come to a compromise that would work for both sides. Me, I still think technological advancements (not friggin' windmills) will make most of the pollution/spewing elements of this debate just go away. Maybe not as quickly as you would like, but eventually.

_______________________

The sheer arrogance and condescension of these guys is what struck me. I continued with this far longer than I should have or needed to. Neither ceded any of my points to any degree - they, along with the science and the scientists were above reproach and had nothing but pure scientific motives. These guys along with all the other anti-capitalist crowd fails to acknowledge that it is capitalism that is the engine that drives science, scientific advancements and scientific progress for all kinds of reasons. All of which needs the power and the strength of strong economies - economies that rely on increasing energy consumption. I say clean it up where ever possible, but to purposely kill the economies of advanced societies for this theory is the epitome of denial. It isn't going to happen.



Ugh
(AKA Craig)

Inferiority Complex: European Americans vs American Americans

It's not exactly news that Americans actually live in the Un-united States of America. We have Red States and Blue States, East Coast and Left Coast and whole lot of red-necks in between. The electorate as a whole over the last four or five national elections has been very close to a 50/50 split between the two parties. Then there are millions who don't consider themselves Republicans or Democrats - in fact those people may now be in the majority. But the real divide is between those who think we should be more like Europe and those who think we should be America, ruggedly independent and unique.

The Media and Hollywood mostly fall on the America-should-be-more-like-Europe side, and have been for decades. I think back to the James Bond movie in the 70's "Live and Let Die" where England was, of course, well represented by James Bond - the dashing Roger Moore in this case. America was represented by Sheriff J.W. Pepper a tobacco chewing red-neck Louisiana lawman. Actor Clifton James did an admirable job portraying every stereotype imaginable of the fat, stupid American. This treatment of a southern hick lawman was not written into the movie by accident. It was done to create a contrast, and that it did.

Millions of Americans see Sheriff J.W. Pepper as an apt representation of what America looks like to the rest of the world - and they may be right. I don't think it's accurate, but who am I to argue what others think.

I doubt Europeans care what I think of the trajectory of European culture. It makes me sad actually. It seems to me it's a culture that has decided on suicide. It's sad because so much of what makes America what it is comes straight from our European heritage. Many American's see our brash arrogance as an unfounded superiority complex while at the same time holding an attitude of our inferiority to our elders in the old world. The supposed European maturity and reasonableness stands in stark in contrast to the cowboy culture of can-do, no holds barred America.

Yes, there is probably some truth in that assessment, but what difference does it make when the writing is so clearly on the wall. In two crucial and critical areas Europe is throwing in the towel and therefore the wonderfulness of the mature and erudite European culture will cease to exist anyway. First, white Europeans have stopped having babies. No babies, no future. Having babies is a sign that the people believe in the culture and in the future. Obviously Europeans don't. Second, Europe has decided culturally on energy starvation. Without abundant energy and plenty of babies there can be no great future.

In America the pragmatic and sober in government and business have thus far thwarted the daffy Al Gore-rites. The shale gas and shale oil boom are beginning to transform the largest energy consumer into a legitimate big-time energy producer. If the Obama team can be held off for a few more years, there's an actual shot at something that has been thought an impossibility. That being energy independence from the Middle East. Now, I understand the global chess board will never actually let that happen, but having real leverage is plus for the U.S.

On the other score unlike much of Europe the U.S. is still a very religious country. Like it or not religion seems to help people believe in a future worth living. Religion is also family oriented and so is having babies. It's not to say there isn't a problem, white Americans aren't having enough babies either, but certainly far more than Europeans.

America is poised to grow, to achieve, to be relevant if Washington politics doesn't derail it, however I'm not so confident in the great European cultures. Right now Europe is a huge and relevant market, but the trajectory in terms of population, debt and energy is frightening.

Many Americans - the European Americans - see the health care systems and welfare systems in most European countries as something to be admired, without opening their eyes to the fact that they are unsustainable. Neither are they sustainable in this country without strong and robust economic growth. Current policies on both continents are not fostering strong and robust economic growth. Energy seems to be the difference - if the U.S. doesn't (completely) fall prey to the "climate change" insanity gripping Europe then America stands a chance.

How obvious does it have to be that alternative energy is a joke. They like to call it sustainable, but it cannot, will not ever sustain a modern economy. Wind and solar, both strategies that Europe has bet the farm on, are never going to be a consistent high output solutions. A child should be able to see that, yet the powers that be and apparently the people of Europe are willing to pay outrageous costs for some kind of feel good principle. Wind is just plain inconsistent and the Sun, well news flash, the Sun sets everyday - for many hours at a time.

The act of labeling CO2 as a dangerous pollutant may help them justify this insanity. It is not a pollutant but rather a vital element necessary for life on Earth.Water vapor is by far the greatest of all greenhouse gases, however mankind and his SUV's don't put water vapor into the atmosphere. Their SUV's do put CO2 into the air and thus the irrational focus on a trace element.

Sure plenty of American's believe this tripe too, but so far rational men have not allowed it to kill our future - so far. It's no coincidence that a number of large European companies - many from Germany - are building huge facilities in the U.S. precisely because of energy costs. Among the companies setting up shop in the U.S. we see Airbus going to Mobile, Alabama. Siemens, to Charlotte, North Carolina. BASF, to Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Michelin, to Greenville, South Carolina. BMZ GmbH, to Virginia Beach. SO.F.TER Group, to Lebanon, Tennessee. Prufrex Innovative Power Products, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Thomas Magnete GmbH to Brookfield, Wisconsin. Wacker Polysilicon, to Chattanooga, Tennessee. Kayser Automotive, to Fulton, Kentucky. British-based Rolls Royce to Prince George County, Virginia for producing engine parts. The Kűbler to Charlotte, North Carolina. The Austrian steelmaker Voestalpine AG to Corpus Christi, Texas. Royal Dutch Shell to Pennsylvania.

That's a veritable who's who of  major European companies. The German government in particular has committed to alternative energy, to the point of doubling down in recent years. Their corporations have taken notice. They may argue that lower labor costs can be found in many of these southern U.S. states, but even lower labor costs can be had in any number of places - it's reliable energy at reasonable costs that are attracting these German titans. I have also heard rumblings that some American companies are seriously considering bringing manufacturing home from China for the very same reason.

None of this will ever convince European American's that America need not emulate European socialism. It's not say there aren't many, many admirable things about Europe. The rat race pace of modern American life borders on it's own form of insanity, but we will mature, because our culture will survive. It's not that certain that great cultures of Europe will survive in any recognizable form.



Ugh




  

This is the fraud that never ends...

So much has already been written and debated on the subject of Global Warming and its soul mate Climate Change that along with the general public I have become bored with it. This is possibly exactly what the fraudsters are counting on. So completely have they woven the narrative that mankind is the principal cause of climate change and burning fossil fuels is the culprit that every institution on Earth is "dedicated" to reducing their so-called carbon footprint in one way or another. If that was all there was to it then there is little harm in it. Efficient and wise use of fossil fuels is in everyone's best interest. Unfortunately that's not even close to the end game. Thank God there are dedicated souls ready to hold the fraudsters proclamations and activities up to the light.

Two years ago when a flood of e-mails was leaked out of the UEA's CRU in Britain "Climategate" was born. The e-mails revealed a pattern of concerted efforts to skew the data (or ignore the contradictory data), discredit skeptics and steer the UN's IPCC into global warming alarmism. This severely damaged the fraudsters cause and when coupled with the world economic downturn and rising oil prices the polls showed a significant change in the general publics attitude toward so-called climate change. Of course the sympathetic institutional and media investigations exonerated Phil Jones and Michael Mann and the rest of the players at the UEA.

Now another batch of e-mails has leaked that only bolster the case against the global warming fraudsters. The moniker Climategate 2.0 is being bandied about. In the coming days and weeks as these e-mails are parsed we'll learn even more about the duplicity and fraud the profiteers of this farce have tried to pull off. The question is - is it too late?

As I said earlier nearly every conceivable institution has embraced the Politically Correct position that mankind is a scourge on the Earth. Global Warming is just another piece of incontrovertible evidence. It is all sliding toward government control of the global economy with a World Government as the final authority. The only possible outcome is a decrease in the standard of living for the creative and productive societies. The seeds of this are being sewn as we speak while we watch the normalization of high unemployment and debt-ridden governments as corporate institutions continue to thrive. This is the set up of capitalism as the ultimate scapegoat. After all it is fruits of capitalism that brings us bad things like rich people, debt and global warming. (Never mind that capitalism brings us all the good things too).

Does anyone honestly think Occupy Wall Street is spontaneous? It is amorphous and indistinct on purpose. It is designed to sow discontent while the gun sights are firmly fixed on capitalism itself. It will not succeed on it's own as it is supposed to be just another piece of evidence that our system has utterly failed.

If and when that happens - a global meltdown of the world economic system the only possible outcome is the elimination of millions if not billions of people. This is the actual endgame. First the rich (people and nations) have to be made the scapegoats then the institutions must fail.

As Mark Steyn said in his best selling book America Alone it will be America that has to put a stop to this. Europe is in no position to do anything so momentous. We are literally seeing Germany, the only real rich country in Europe, being set up as the scapegoat for the collapse of the EU. China feels it will be able to fill vacuum when the West falls by it's own hand.

Until now the lynch pin of this scenario has not been mentioned. This is the very reason Barack Obama can not be allowed a second term. He instrumental in this normalization of America as a declining nation. He goes around the world criticizing then apologizing for America. He is in my mind a traitor. To others he is a realist because they are also convinced that for the world to succeed America itself must fail. Once America falls either before or after the EU then the West is lost. Barack Obama is doing his part.

I know it is said every election cycle... This is the most important election of our lifetime. This time it really is.


CW

What a good idea!

This really makes me angry. You should be angry too...

Every time I shop at a home improvement store these days I make sure to buy incandescent light bulbs. Oh, yeah, and I make sure they are Sylvania brand too. The days of finding these on store shelves in America are numbered.

The ordinary light bulb symbolizes the human race coming out of the dark ages, literally. The light bulb is birth of modernity. Just as the light bulb symbolizes mankind coming out of the darkness the U.S. epitomizes the modern technological world. Soon, the ordinary incandescent light bulb will be banned in the U.S. - a dark day indeed.

What this all means is a huge boost to China and the American firms that will complete the Chinese takeover of this industry. All this is happening with the blessing AND the help of the U.S Treasury Department. Perennial light bulb maker GE is already in China making bulbs after having closed it's last U.S. plant in 2010 and laid off many American workers. It's a shocker, I know. In the name of a greener world other major U.S. firms are bankrolling the Chinese lighting industry. And here we thought President Obama's chief  go-forward strategy was fostering a green everything industry.

To be fair to the President the seeds of this were sown long before his time in the White House, but he certainly was a part of the Democratically controlled Congress in 2007 when the Federal law was passed to ban the incandescent bulb. Regardless of the timing it is the notion that there is a concerted effort to build this industry in China with Federal government and United Nations backing. Enter the gigantic investment house Goldman Sachs and networking powerhouse Cisco Systems and a juggernaut is born.

The altruistic underpinnings of this project like all "green" efforts isn't helpful when American and other western workers are thrown out of their jobs. Here the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), which invests in projects that can produce global environmental benefits is spearheading this project. Yes, the U.S. Treasury is a major funder for the GEF. This is being done as an environmental benefit by reducing China's carbon dioxide emissions and thereby benefiting the whole planet. So, I guess the ends justify the means and the means is destroying yet another domestic industry.

This new project backed by the aforementioned investors builds on a previous, $26 million GEF/UNDP pilot project, known as the China Green Lights project. That project was a roaring success for the environment and for China. The claim that it saves 15.78 billion kilowatt hours of energy, worth about $986 million to consumers, and, using dubious calculating methods is supposed to have kept 6.8 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. All is well. Nevermind that it threw thousands of Americans out of work and shuttered numerous factories.

The fact that the incandescent bulb is being replaced by an inferior and possible dangerous product - the compact fluorescent bulb  - is the just one part of this story that gets the dander up.That they are made primarily in China is the kicker. Perhaps the inevitability of the end of the lowly incandescent bulb was to be expected, but the destruction of an industry in order to force us to buy inferior foreign products is just wrong.

The LED light bulb is making a move.Currently they are expensive, but they are far more efficient, safer and at least for now they are being made in America where they are exported to China. Small victories I guess.




CW

No need for green

The decades long obsession hard core leftists and everyday liberals have had with alternative energy culminating in President Obama's energy starvation policies in favor of "green energy" is based on false premises all around.

Just taking for a moment the whole Global Warming debate and boiling it all down it becomes a matter of burning fossil fuels. The dubious inference that C02 as a byproduct of burning oil and coal is the main cause of Global Warming is the only arrow in their quiver. Almost daily a new story emerges that casts even more doubt on the C02 based computer models that have promised the end of the world. It seems Global Warming, or rather, climate change is a natural, cyclical process.

Without Global Warming the Greens would have to rely on pollution and tragic accidents to make a case against fossil fuels. This may not be enough. Accidents are just that. Accidents are understandable. Pollution is probably not enough to turn the public against fossil fuels since people can see with their own eyes that the environment (yes, with controls, regulations and government rules) is getting better all the time. In my state they discontinued vehicle emissions inspections a decade ago. Air quality doesn't fall below thresholds that dictate such a requirement.

The reason CAGW and pollution are so important to the Greens is because the depletion angle of peak oil has been smashed. In a recent story at Salon.com "Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong" by Michael Lind dispels the notion that the U.S. is hopelessly dependent on foreign sources of oil and that we must move toward alternative energy. Yeah, this was at Salon.com. I know, who would have guessed...

FTA
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.


Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.


The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.


If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.

The realization that we as a society need not rush to the green side needs to have an advocacy and a bullhorn. The green "save the environment" mantra has permeated everything. Every corporation, even the energy companies - the enemy - pay lip service to the greens. There's nothing wrong with being an advocate for clean air and water, but that doesn't mean we should be made to feel guilty about the lifestyle we've created with the viable energy options we enjoy now.

The costs of propping up green energy while at the same time stifling domestic fossil fuel production always falls on the poorest among us. The average person will not be able to afford to fly, or even take a long vacation by car. Major industries will wither (and millions will lose their jobs) during a forced transition. This isn't even taking into account the unreliability of so called green energy. Simply put the technology is just not ready for the utopian dreams of the greens - the reality of a green revolution will be a nightmare for millions.

One day the age of oil and the age of coal will end, but it will be when the magic of solar energy is actually realized (or some other such magic). We need to fight vigorously the forces that would diminish our quality of life with lies about man-caused global warming or the preposterousness that C02 is a dangerous pollutant.

Read the whole story - it's eye opening



CW

The Snows of Kilimanjaro and other lies

Even though Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" has been repeatedly discredited I still hear assertions from the film thrown out as absolute truth. One such is the notion that the dwindling snow cover on Mount Kilimanjaro is a direct result of so-called global warming. Gore will show disturbing time-lapsed images of the the mountain losing the very snow cap that makes Kilimanjaro a stunning visual as juts out of the African savanna.

The inconvenient truth is that there is no evidence that temperatures on Mount Kilimanjaro are any higher than they have been for decades. If Gore was interested in the truth he would show time-lapsed photos of the African landscape that surrounds the mountain. What you'd see is massive deforestation over the decades. This deforestation reduces the moisture available to fall as snow in the higher elevations. Without new snow the very natural process of sublimation proceeds apace. Sublimation, the process of a solid turning into a gas, is the real reason the snow cap on Kilimanjaro is disappearing.

None of this is denying climate change since we "deniers" understand that climate change is real and perpetual. As Al Gore says, this is not a political issue, it's a moral issue. It's the alarmists who are immoral. The alarmists simply lie. They lie not only to enhance a political agenda that sets out to denude advanced Western cultures in preparation for an eventual one world government, but mostly they lie to line their own pockets. Al Gore's carbon trading scheme is the scam it seems, but heady scientists scratching for billions in government grant money with cooked science is just as immoral. How is it moral to destroy what Western culture has built in some il-conceived Utopian quest? Padding your wallet by shaming the populace into believing they are responsible for destroying Mother Earth is despicable.

One truth is that energy use equals power and wealth. The culture that uses the most energy (in the wisest way) will be dominant and rich. Al Gore, President Obama and the progressives have made it a goal to strip the United States of easy access to cheap power and by extension the path extinguish our wealth. Despite what he says, no one can examine Obama's actions before or after the horrible Deep Water Horizon incident and say he hasn't been categorically, systematically denying the U.S. the ability to discover and develop domestic energy. He has actually called for the destruction of the American coal industry.

In a time when good paying jobs are scarce domestic energy development would (literally) pump billions of dollars into local and state economies. Modern nuclear power, which has been deemed imminently safe here and abroad, gets lip service and nothing more. So is the President really interested in good jobs?

The green energy paradigm Obama urges is a canard, it's window dressing. It is the illusion that he is doing something about energy and jobs. Windmills are a joke. Solar power is just not ready and ethanol is anything but cost efficient. Spain's il-conceived green economy instituted years ago in a socialist-utopian fog has produced 20% (official) unemployment. All of these alternative energy solutions may provide useful supplemental energy provided the national energy backbone is robust.

There's nothing wrong with the continuing and even urgent development of promising alternative energy solutions. The end of the oil age is inevitable and desirable in the long run. What is happening now is self mutilation, cutting off our nose to spite our face. The Global Warming lies regarding human causation and the categorization of carbon dioxide as a poison only serves to make regular everyday people poorer. The cost of essential energy takes money out of the family budget and gives it to foreign dictators. This is what is truly immoral.


CW

Random Observations

1. Ethanol pollutes in Minnesota
I heard in passing yesterday while getting ready for work that something like 5 ethanol plants in Minnesota are being cited and fined for violations to the clean air and clean water laws. The irony is almost too much. I don't have anything against ethanol per se (other than the little issue of state government subsidizing rich farmers and corporations) but wasn't ethanol not only supposed to lessen our dependence on foreign oil but also save the Earth? Hmmm.

2. Gay, Gay, Gay
Is it just me or are you also getting sick and tired of gay issues permeating every single aspect of American life. For God's Sake you'd think 50% of the people in this country are gay! It seems every movie and most the TV shows have to have the obligatory adorable gay character who is above reproach. (I'm pretty sure that was in the new contract after the last Hollywood writers strike) These cuddly gay characters are always far wiser and more pure than the hapless heterosexuals they support.

You can't make any statement critical of any aspect of the gay lifestyle, just ask Carl Paladino. After last week I would vote for candidate Paladino for governor of NY if I lived there! It's a new week and the new topic is "bullying". There will be new laws passed because this such a pressing national concern. I'll give you one guess which special interest group is behind this garbage.

3. Isn't it ironic
By the mid term elections of 1982 in the midst of a recession a popular President had signed significant and popular legislation, but still saw his party lose ground. In the 2010 mid terms we seem to be staring at a repeat... But wait!

An unpopular President signs the Affordable Care Act (unpopular and frankly mysterious), the Recovery Act (wildly unpopular and ineffective), Wall Street reform (confusing and not likely to prevent future financial catastrophes), student loan reform (done by decree with no debate whatsoever), new regulation of the credit card industry (20%+ interests rates and rising, helpful, no?), the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (aka thought crimes). Sorry, but these are not popular or even helpful during an anemic, jobless recovery.

I don't see this as an equivalent situation.

4. Foreclose This!
Does the fact that foreclosure paperwork may have errors, typo's or the wrong signature excuse the "homeowner" for not making the payments he or she agreed upon? The bottom line is this: if you don't pay the bank back they get to take the house. A mortgage is a contract signed by both parties. When it is breached the aggrieved party has recourse. This is contract law which is the basis for our civil society and now we have lawmakers threatening banks with punative legislation if they don't act against their own interests. Yes, it's sad that so many people will lose their houses, but the law is the law and reality is reality. Yes shit happens, jobs are lost, but this is not the bank's fault.

If you find yourself unable to make the payments, call the bank and see if you can't work something out. Simply not paying your monthly bill is a violation of the contract YOU signed.

5. Take this climate change and shove it
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, reigns from the American Physical Society after 60+ years. What follows is the key paragraph from his resignation letter to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society:

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

The problem is that folks like Curtis G. Callan hold the the key to kingdom of grant money that pays the salaries career physicists. The only ones courageous to speak out against this farce are the old men, the ones with nothing to lose. What happens when they are all gone?



CW

Cosmic Rays and CFCs, oh my

Hardly a week goes by without another story of how we have been misled (at least some of us) by the science of C02 and "Global Warming". Obviously the Climategate story about the so-called hacked e-mails and data out of the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was a real eye opener. These particular scientists were the source sited for much of the data in the last few IPCC reports. These are the reports politicians and activists were using to justify draconian energy policies all in the name of saving the world.

Here now the latest revelation that C02 is not what's going to kill us...

A new study shows CFCs, cosmic rays to be major culprits for global warming. Co2 is not the wicked step-child. According to Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Ontario's University of Waterloo CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.


FTA:
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.


All this goes to demonstrate that we don't know what we don't know. Climate science is complicated, but what isn't complicated is understanding that the smoking gun will not be one single element like C02. For scientists and politicians to hoist this fraud on us in a quest to redistribute wealth from rich productive nations to poor, backward and corrupt nations (and of course scientific grant money) is downright criminal.

CW

You Can't Handle the Truth: CAGW is a fraud

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming IS a Fraud

We mostly abhor them. We wish they'd put their talent to good use instead of creating mischief or worse, committing crimes. I'm talking about computer hackers. But once in a while something good comes out of it - intentional or not. Sometimes they expose a vulnerability that really needs to be addressed. Sometimes they expose fraud.

It seems Russian hackers obtained a folder containing documents, data and, e-mails from Britain's Climate Research Unit (known as CRU) that appears to be proof of a conspiracy to conjure up the existence of and the cause (Western Civilization, of course) and the ultimate threat of global warming.

The question of who put these hackers up to it - some are speculating it was funded by the Russian government - seems to be beside the point. The list of CAGW conspirators implicated in this fraud includes a who's who of the world's leading climate alarmists. The best part is the hacked data and e-mail correspondences appears to have been confirmed as legitimate. CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed that CRU servers had been hacked leading one to consider that the incriminating documents now circling the cyber world are in fact genuine.

This small group of scientists associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia have consciously withheld and worse, disposed of actual data that proves their own claims false. They are using false data to pressure governments and international organizations to restrict global progress on the development of third world economies and thus putting peoples lives and livelihoods at risk. The honorable Lord Moncton calls it a global fraud. It most surely is, but its more than that, it raises the question about accountability? Who are these climate propagandists and their cohorts in government accountable to? The truth or their anti human progress agenda? This deception is simply unacceptable. While their ‘science’ sets out to prove current world temperatures are the highest ever and human CO2 was the cause the actual truth (that we don't know what we don't know) is ignored and ridiculed. The e-mails exposed in this hacked data seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.

Those of us who are labeled "global warming deniers" always suspected fraud from the climate change "industry" - especially since its been proven on several occasions even before these revealtions, but hopefully this will cause enough shame that these people will slink off quietly into the night. Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.




CW

Random Thoughts

Just some random thoughts on issues great and small...

1.) Did you hear the Bob Griese (football legend) ooops when he made a racially insensitive remark about NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya?

They were discussing a promo graphic listing the top five drivers in the Chase for the Cup race, when broadcast partner Chris Spielman asked, "Where's Montoya?" to which Griese responded, "Out eating a taco."

OMG what a horrible, terrible, racist, God-awful, earth-shattering thing to say. OK, so he wasn't too bright to say that in this day of hyper-sensitivity, but for Heaven's sake it was a minor fopaugh. Ask yourself this: If someone had asked "where's Tony Stewart?" and Griese had said, "out eating a cheeseburger" would anyone have to apologise? The answer is no.

Move on, nothing to see here.

2.) It seems to me that the average (uninformed) person regards the "fight" against climate change with the same passion they give to recycling. No one, not even those evil American flag waving conservatives, want waste and pollution to choke the planet. So most people casually go along with this hoax of "fighting climate change" because they want to feel good about themselves the way they do every week when they put the recycling on the curb. So far they have paid nothing but the cost of an overpriced hybrid in the driveway.

The problem is the purveyors of this hoax are using the good will and noble intentions of the hybrid driving recyclers to advance an agenda they know will do nothing to stop climate change - because it a preposterous goal on the face of it. Their real goal is to redistribute the wealth of the hardworking and productive to the backward and corrupt as if somehow the hardworking and productive are cheating the poor out of their share of the wealth. If people really understood what the "climate" pimps (including and especially President Obama) are doing I doubt they would go along with it.

3.) The health care issues in this country are real, no question about it. Too many people have no access to health care coverage. So, when the "government is the only answer" crowd toss up one lie after another to demonize their opponents it becomes harder and harder to weed out the good ideas from the bad. The biggest whopper of all is the constant lie about obscene profits for the health care insurance industry. It's just plain not true...

The truth is that the healthcare insurance industry's profits are small fraction of that of other industries. For example, Network Equipment manufacturers reap 20.4% profits, Railroads 12.6%, Crude Oil extraction 11.5%, Securities 10.7 %, Household & personal products 8.7%. Where does the health care insurance industry fall? A whopping 2.2%. Why that's obscene!

4.) The White House vs Fox News is either a brilliant strategy by one or both parties or a disaster for the seemingly thinned skinned Obama administration. One school of thought is that the White House having no illusions of turning Fox News around is firing a warning shot at the other networks. This one is a little weak. The other theory I heard that the more Fox is attacked the more shrill and over the top it will become making the already near-parody news/opinion operation even more goofy. This one is plausible. The most likely scenario is the one that seems most obvious. This White House feels entitled to complete and utter adoration and Fox News just isn't playing along. The hissy fit angle seems about right to me.

5.) The Stock Market Rally that's been ongoing since March is perplexing on the face of it. Really though it's not that surprising. Companies will enjoy increased profits and increased dividends when they have slashed their payrolls to the bone and reduced their inventories to one deep. Lead times for manufactured goods are going way up because the reduced work force. Eventually this will backfire. Without (employed) consumers driving demand across all non military sectors eventually profits and dividends will fall. Unless employers see the need to start calling people back to work a double dip recession (or worse) is a distinct possibility. There are a few proven forecasters predicting the "or worse" part.

I'm jumping down from the watchtower now... I've got work to do.



CW