GraniteGrok

If you're like me, you are most likely anxious to learn as much as possible about Senator McCain's exciting VP pick of AK Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is an exchange from the Glenn Beck Show that aired back in June:

Given the importance of energy and its bearing on the upcoming election, Mrs. Palin is obviously well "up to speed" on the issue of drilling and utilizing America's domestic sources. If this interview is any indication, she will do quite well on TV as she hits the road as part of the McCain/ Palin ticket. I like her repeated references to the "radical environmentalists", too. I have a friend that lives in Alaska. I can tell you that Alaskans aren't too keen on folks from Massachusetts and New Jersey telling them what they can and cannot do.

Posted by Doug at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Given the massive shortfalls in their State budget, you'd think that CA would be happy to have a new business that would provide for more jobs, right?  After all, new businesses and employees all pay taxes that can help out their self-made fiscal crisis.

Naw!  From NRO:

California, The Nanny State, continues to trail-blaze America’s Green future with carbon caps, fuel-economy laws, even a South L.A. ban on new fast-food restaurants (to force residents to lead a healthier lifestyle). Now comes Attorney General Jerry Brown’s threat this week to block a proposed water-bottling plant in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.

Well, I can tell you without an expensive survey (which is probably more to the point - not so much pro-environment but anti-business which, after all is said and done, the same thing).

According to AP’s report, Brown said the plant “failed to include an examination of whether the operation will contribute to global warming through the production of plastic bottles, the operation's electrical demands and the diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions produced by trucks traveling to and from the plant.”

If you are asking the question, I can give you the answer from 3,500 miles away - it will have an impact, one that you will not approve of no matter how much money the company spends.  Making things costs energy and uses other materials.  The people who would be employed there would exude CO2 as a matter of living (and a fair amount of methane from time to impolite time too!).  Moving that product will add to emission as its consumers are probably not going to travel there to personally pick up such water containing bottles.

Of course, AG Moonbeam’s criteria would kill all new manufacturing business in the state, but I suppose we should be used to such lunacy by now. 

Thank God that they haven't gotten to the worst question with regards of eliminating CO2 emissions - "are you breathing"?

In time, they will.  CA leads the country in this kind of nuttiness. They have yet to learn that decisions have consequences and so do idiotic ideologies (like carbon emission is the worst sin in the world).

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We hear so much that the US is the enemy when it comes to global warming.  Listening to the true believers would have you think that we are JUST.BAD.PEOPLE.AND.BUSH.IS.EVIL. All the time forgetting that it was Clinton that failed to get that Kyoto treaty ratified (as Congress refused to vote for it, killing it 98-2, or so).

If you listened to the Europeans who have flapped their gums incessantly over the last few of years (not to mention our own homegrown "environment before humans" environmentalists), you'd think that they'd be pretty much emission free, right?  So, this must mean that the US has been chugging up a disaster - all the signatories of Kyoto must really be lowering their levels of the dreaded greenhouse gases, right?

Not so much! (H/T: RedState)

As this shows, we're not doing so bad.  More doers than talkers.  And that's the way it should be - less hot air....more results.  We do- they don't.  

So let's try this - how about the Kyoto signatories paying US for missing their targets?  After all, they'd certainly be trying the same if we were held accountable, right?

Posted by Skip at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friend Chan over at Weekend Pundit has a derisive term for many of the overbearing, snot-mannered, holier-than-thou environmentalists that Mother Gaia comes before any needs of humans:

Green on the outside - red on the inside.  A thin veneer of green encasing a whole lot of red.  Red as in Communist Red.  Red as in fascist - we want you to behave as we believe you should because we know better than you.  We want to control all that can do - all in the name of saving the planet.  After all, Gaia comes before you.  

Liberty? Freedom?  Rights?  Not a chance.  What counts to them are birds, slithering reptiles, snail darters, fish....not your neighbor, your cousin, your spouse, your children.  Even if they are wrong (as they are about to find out that global warming is about to become global cooling - and that will be much more dangerous).

And how do they believe they can act? Brendan O'Neil hits it out of the park!

Imagine a society where simply speaking out of turn or saying the "wrong thing" was openly discussed as a crime against humanity, and where sceptics or deniers of the truth were publicly labelled "criminals", hauled before the press and accused of endangering humanity with their grotesque untruths.

Imagine a society where even some liberals demanded severe restrictions on freedom of movement; where people campaigned for travelling overseas to be made prohibitively expensive in order to force people to stay at home; and where immigration was frowned upon as "toxic" and "destructive".

Imagine a society so illiberal that columnists felt no qualms about demanding government legislation to force us to change our behaviour; where the public was continually implored to feel guilty about everything from driving to shopping – and where those who refused to feel guilty were said to be suffering from a "psychological" disorder or some other species of mental illness".

[snip]

In the current debate on liberty, we hear a lot about the attack on our democratic rights by the government's security agenda, but little about the grave impact of environmentalism on the fabric of freedom. It seems to me that green thinking – with its shrill intolerance of dissenting views, its deep distaste for free movement and free choice, and its view of individuals, not as history-makers, but as filthy polluters – poses a more profound threat to liberty even than the government's paranoid anti-terrorist agenda.

Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech....

[snip]

But perhaps the main way that environmentalism undermines the culture of freedom is by its ceaseless promotion of guilt. In the environmentalist era, we are no longer really free citizens, so much as potential polluters. We are continually told – by government, by commentators, by radical activists – that everything we do, from wearing disposable nappies to using deodorant to allowing ourselves to be cremated, is harmful to our surroundings.

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.

On her campaign website, Jeanne Shaheen puts forth, in a style quite similar to that of one of her ideological comrades, Chicken Little, dire warnings of the consequences of not addressing global warming immediately. Says Jeanne,

"A new energy policy is an environmental, national security and economic imperative, and there is no time to waste.”

Got that? She says THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE. You can almost feel the panic laid before visitors to the website:

Reversing global warming is an economic, environmental and health imperative for New Hampshire. If we don’t act to reverse global warming, New Hampshire’s snow season is projected to shrink by almost 50 percent by mid-century, severely impacting our skiing and snowmobile industries. Increasing temperatures also will negatively impact fall foliage tourism, the hunting and fishing industries, and maple sugar production. Our small but precious coastline faces substantial increases in the extent and frequency of coastal flooding, erosion, and property damage. Global warming worsens air quality, putting more stress on people with heart conditions and respiratory conditions, like asthma, and New Hampshire already has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country.

Bad stuff, eh? She then spews the usual blather one expects from politicians choosing this route to scare voters into casting their vote for them, rather than the opponent that "obviously" works against the planet:

Jeanne Shaheen believes it’s long past time that Washington take action. Jeanne Shaheen supports the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050...

So you'd imagine someone so committed to such drastic measures would be leading the way in all regards, right? Come on, it's JEANNE SHAHEEN we're talking about, here. You know about politicians of her ilk: "fine for thee, but not for me..." In the same vein as her famous canoe trip with Al Gore-- you remember, the one where the river dams were opened during a drought while she was the governor so that she and AlGore could have their picture taken in a canoe-- comes the latest, provided by regular 'Grok reader Peter G:

Continue reading "Jeanne Shaheen: DO as I say, not as I do..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Skeptic?  No, I do believe that the Earth has warmed up a bit, as it has in the past.  And it will cool again, as it has in the past (as the natural state of most of North America is generally one with ice on top of it). Skeptic, yes, when it comes to the "truth" that mankind is solely responsible for it - this I reject.  Perhaps to a little degree (pun intended) but not to the irrational reactions that popular society of the Left seems to absolutely believes in.  Let's play "can you see the Mantra?":

Even with the rise in fuel prices, the low-cost airlines in this extremely competitive market still offer flights for less than the cost of a train ticket in Britain or Germany.

At a time when airlines are already the fastest growing source of climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions — increasing nearly 5 percent a year according to a report last week from the European Environment Agency — the new low-cost industry is pumping a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

It is also laying down an infrastructure that guarantees high emissions for years. Low-cost flights have spawned dozens of new pastel-colored, low-cost condominium developments catering to foreigners, which now line Murcia’s scraggly roads.

“Low cost carriers are growing at 9 percent a year, and from an environmental point of view that is a problem,” said Christian Brand, a researcher at Oxford University who specializes in the mathematical modeling of transportation emissions. “Their cheap prices encourage more travel.” 

[snip]

But for many, the economics of flying cheap are proving more compelling than the environmental consequences. With prices for gas and hotels at all-time highs in Britain and Germany, it is, somewhat bizarrely, more economical to fly to Spain, even for a weekend, than to take a traditional driving vacation near home.

Yeah, you got it.  Not only is the author, Elizabeth Rosenthal, in the tank for this, but so is Christian Brand who she quotes for the article.  The article assumes that one agrees with the premise that travel is bad, that air travel is even worse, and worst of all, adults should not be allowed to choice what to do with their time and their money because it conflicts with their Mantra which, according to AlGore, is both the highest truth and calamity facing mankind.

Rubbish!

Continue reading "Which is more important - personal freedom or hewing to "the Mantra"?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In compliance w/ Kyoto...

I'm for clean air, clean land, and clean water.  Yet, there is that old truth of 80/20 - it takes 20% of the effort to get the job 80% done.  Then the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in and it then takes 80% of the effort (and cost) to get the rest of the 20% done.  Please remember that as you climb that last 20% slope, the cost goes up very cost for that next incremental bit of "goodness".

Yes, there is the fact that I do not believe that Global Warming is largely due to mankind.  Or even a substantial degree.  Spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent something of the order of 0.0015 degree / year - kinda fruitless.  For instance, for the possible rise in sea levels of a foot over the next 100 years (as has happened over the last 100 years without getting our knickers in a knot), I'd think that simply shoring up shorelines would be a heck of a lot less expensive.  After all, we humans are quite the adaptable bunch...

And why do the "cap and trade" or "carbon tax" zealots want the rest of us Americans to live lifestyles (energy wise) of paupers for not much gain at all?  Frankly, my only thoughts are "this is a huge tax posing as "saving the world" and "science as politics" (or is this politics as science)?

Especially when one sees this:

Russians snub offer to help cut emissions

The Russian owners of the Norilsk Nickel plant on the Kola Peninsula earned huge profits last year but haven't made any efforts to cut the plant's emissions. Nor have they taken up a Norwegian offer to fund a clean-up.

Never before has it released such high emissions, and never before has it earned so much money. It's part of the Norilsk Nickel concern, which in turn is part of holding company Interros, controlled by Russians Mikhail Prokhorov and Vladimir Potanin. Forbes Magazine estimated their wealth at about USD 45 billion.

"We are worried over the increased emissions, and we don't know the reason for them," Bente Christiansen, environmental chief for Finnmark County, told newspaper Aftenposten. "We'll be following the situation carefully."

Last year, Norwegian politicians vowed to withdraw the support unless some environmental improvements were made. The money remained, however, in the government's revised state budget that it released earlier this month.

"As long as they're earning money, they'll probably let the plant keep going," said researcher Margrethe Aanesen. "They'll probably never invest in it."

Right.  So if we follow the GAIA religionists, we'd be handcuffing ourselves for not much reason at all.  After all, if China, India, and this example from Russa holds true, it is nothing but talk.  Why?  If we only handcuff ourselves, what is the gain?  If one Russian plant can issue more of a pollutant than an entire country and nothing is done, what is learned?

The short story - unless ALL go into lockstep, those countries pulling on their collective hair shirt will look rather silly in a few years.   Besides, who is going to enforce emission controls on the worse large scale emitters in the world - volcanoes! 

Remember:

• Kyoto signatory countries - emissions up 22%
• US - emissions up 6%

Posted by Skip at 6:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You just knew this was coming...

The BMI reports

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.

 “And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

Got that? We're seeing things that have been predicted "MIGHT be associated with global warming." And then again, maybe not, right Al? This is such bunk...

Posted by Doug at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Having now been on this ball of mud for a few years, I take with a grain of salt the splendiferous pronouncements of "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" from the environmental wackos.  While some of the underlying reasons for doing so did really exist (face it, pollution WAS a HUGE problem here in the US back in the 60s and 70s as lots of "spaces" were treated as dumping grounds).  Since then, however, we have seen tremendous efforts with tremendous results.

Thus, when I hear more of the same, I just go "been there, done that - and we fixed it too".  That is not to say that more cannot be done - it's just that the "gloom and doom" just doesn't excite me any more as I've been Chicken Little'd far too often with the long ago predictions just not jiving with empirical evidence.

Such as these that I found over at PowerLine:

• “...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995, “...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

Continue reading "We've heard this all before....." »

Posted by Skip at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Global warming?  1.7 degree F over the last 100 years.  This winter - not so much!

Get a load of this pix:

So what Doug says here actually is not just "local weather".   Thanks to "Watts Up With That"

There have been a number of indications that January 2008 has been an exceptional month for winter weather in not only North America, but the entire Northern Hemisphere.

We’ve had anecdotal evidence of odd weather in the form of wire reports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and China where record setting cold and snow has been felt with intensity not seen for 30-100 years, depending on the region.

From our remote sensing groups, we have reports of significant negative anomalies in both the RSS and UAH global satellite data for the lower troposphere. The there’s NOAA’s announcement that January 2008, was below 20th century averages, plus news that Arctic sea ice has quickly recovered from the record low extent of Summer 2007.  Finally, there’s the massive La Nina said to be the driver of all this but may be a harbinger of a more permanent phase shift according to veteran forecaster Joe Bastardi.

 [snip]

January 2008 had the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008, just slightly larger than the previous largest anomaly of January, 1984.

Here are the rankings for the top 10 months, ranked by Northern Hemisphere coverage. January 2008 comes in second to Feburary of 1978.

Here in NH, we are getting close to or will break the season's most snowiest!  And as they say in the Infomercials "Wait, there's more!" 

Continue reading "How cold did you say it was????" »

Posted by Skip at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So, now the environmental extremists want to tax you, take the money, and berate you parents for letting your kids get fat:

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are calling for a couch potato sin tax to finance their outdoor classrooms, reportedly to fight childhood obesity. It’s part of a growing “Leave No Child Inside” movement to get kids outside of classrooms and reduce screen time. We want to “tax part of the problem to fund the solution,” a Sierra Club spokesperson told KOB-TV news.

Remember - it's for the children.  What scolds - "since you can't take good care of your kids, based on our standards, we'll take your money and spend it our way on them...or is that, for our purposes masked as 'for them'".

It is now a SIN to do what you want to do with your own time and own money for your own children.  After all, along with global warming, childhood obesity is the obsession du jour.  

An alliance of more than a dozen New Mexico environmental groups will lobby again for legislative approval of a 1 percent sales tax — or “sin tax" — on new televisions and video games to fund outdoor education programs. Such a tax could raise an estimated $4 million a year....

The environmental alliance will ask for a half-million dollars to continue the fledgling Outdoor Classroom program. The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico boasts 30,000 members among its combined groups, which include the Sierra Club, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy and 1000 Friends of New Mexico. ...The program works with educators to develop curriculum, provide teaching materials, pay for busing students to the parks and for service-learning grants. A portion of the money also went to the Rural Education Bureau of the Public Education Department. “I would love to see this move forward and get funding. A lot of it needs to be used to train teachers," said Donna Grein, the bureau's education administrator....

Mark my words, this is just an attempt to get more money for THEIR projects for the wilderness; I bet that if strict audit procedures are sprung on them that they would find that not all of this new revenue stream would end up "for the children" (cynical, aren't I).

Continue reading "We want to tax you and use it to shame you" »

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

after a male grooms a female, the likelihood that she will engage in sexual activity with the male was about three times more than if the grooming had not occurred.

.

And as with other commodities, the value of sex is affected by supply and demand factors: A male would spend more time grooming a female if there were fewer females in the vicinity.

.

"And when the female supply is higher, the male spends less time on grooming ... The mating actually becomes cheaper depending on the market," Gumert said.

Posted by Doug at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I grew up around Boston and went to school / lived in there during the 70's.  During that time, as the late 60's radicalism started to abate, one thing kept appearing in the news:

Seabrook

For those outside of the New England area, that is the nuclear power station that was built in Seabrook, NH.  Given the projections of the time, it was needed as the New England area was importing most of its electrical power from outside the area.  While Plymouth Station also was nuclear, my memories are of the protests of the Clamshell Alliance (a hodge-podge, often raggedy clad, mixture of early environmentalists and hippies) ready at the drop of a hat to go protest the building of the two reactors at Seabrook.  Or, stand in front of a judge with reams of paper to slow the process down.

Fast forward 30 years, and once again, I see the rounding up of the same mentality, this time, down Texas way:

Texas anti-nuclear activists are rallying their forces to challenge the so-called nuclear renaissance that could see the state become home to the country's first new nuclear power plant project in nearly 30 years.

On Friday a coalition of groups said it will intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of NRG Energy's application to build two new reactors in Matagorda County, next to the existing South Texas Project nuclear plant.

The commission filed notice this week that a 60-day public comment period is now open for groups to intervene in the review for the joint construction and operation permit.

Austin-based officials with the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition said they don't yet know if they will intervene in the review separately or under one name. But they don't plan on sitting on their hands.

"We need to draw a line in the sand here in Texas and create a new nuclear resistance movement to say no to the nuclear regurgitation," said Karen Hadden, director of SEED.

Sure.  The problem is, I don't see a whole lot of ability, country wide, to increase the supply of electricity easily and quickly and at no cost to the environment.  One only has to look back at California a few years ago and remember how crippling the the blackouts were to the economy and to life in general.  Lots of people, deprived of their air conditioners and other modern conveniences were not impressed (or in Maine, for that matter).

Yes, I know that the Enron market manipulators played their roles in that fiasco - and I am glad that those that were found guilty are paying the price.  However, in watching things around the country, and locally, I see often see self-righteous environmentalists decrying "how could you even THINK of something like this"?  Yet, what do they offer in return?

Er, not much.....

Continue reading "And so it starts again...NIMBYism and nukes" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, on the road and as always, I get to read USA Today, the travelers' newspaper, as it is properly delivered to my front door in the wee early hours of the morning.  Generally, there's always a couple of articles that are a hoot that evoke a "oh really?" response (re: smack forehead with open hand "oh really?" roll eyes kind) response.

Today?  Right on time.... 

The research, led by ecologist Jianguo "Jack" Liu, a Michigan State University professor of fisheries and wildlife, looked at international data comparing utility consumption and housing space per capita in married and divorced households. He found that divorce creates more households with fewer people, using more energy and water and taking up more space.

Oh, the ignominy of it all!  Now, I think divorce is a horrible thing and certainly I believe that divorce in this country has become far too easy - and not just from the legal aspect.  Starting with the Boomer generation (and more on what we Boomers are teaching the next generations), it is all about

ME

Nothing seems to be as important as ME - our culture is skewed too much to the individual and not realizing that there are things more important than ME.  Don't worry - I'm going all collective-like the Democrats Prez wannabees here, but there is something of great value in understanding that while ME is important, there are times that MORE THAN ME is more important.  We seemingly, as a society, are all too willing to pull up stakes and move on (or is "abandon" more the word to use) when the going gets too tough?  "Oh, my needs are not being fulfilled - I'm not a complete person" after dealing with a problem for merely a couple of weeks or months.  Try a couple of years - or decades, bucko.

Anyways, I digress and back to topic.  Why do I get this feeling that this is one of those studies that mere common sense would seem to answer almost right away and at little cost?  Let's see - folks like to have their own places.....get married and share one space....split up - go back to previous state (own place).

Own place means space and power and stuff, right?  Increased individual expenses, right: 

Continue reading "Oh My - Such a reason not too!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Power Watch Declared for Maine for Second Straight Day

For the second day in a row, the operator of the region's power grid has declared a power watch for the state of Maine.

[snip]

Consumers are being asked to reduce their electricity use by shutting off unnecessary lights and electrical appliances and putting off activities such as laundry and dishwashing.

In Baghdad this might be expected, but MAINE? It's too bad, really. At one time, they had a nuclear power plant all to themselves, which, according to the Wikipedia,

Over its 25 years as Maine's sole operating nuclear power plant, the power station produced much of Maine's power.

But that was before it was shuttered. While planned with a forty year lifespan, it barely operated past the halfway point. Again from Wikepedia:

Initial opposition to constructing the plant was led by Citizens for Safe Power, from 1967 through 1972; the group failed to stop construction but succeeded in persuading the Nuclear regulatory Commission to impose stricter environmental standards and monitoring. During the 1980s, when nuclear opposition was provoked by the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, two attempts by referendum (1980 and 1982) at closing the plant were defeated. A third referendum in 1987 was triggered by the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine. The referendums all failed despite gaining more than 40% of the vote. Ultimately the questions raised in the referendums by the Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee, and its allied citizen groups, proved persuasive to policy makers who made the ultimate decision for early closure of the plant.

If and when nuclear power comes back into favor, what do you suppose their chances will be of getting another one of these? Throw another log on the fire...

Posted by Doug at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Riinnnggg - Hi, I'm <cute young female voice on the line, CYFVONL> and I'm calling from the Sierra Club.  We're not calling to ask for money, but we are asking if you would be willing to sign our petition to fight global warming and outsourcing of American jobs.

OK, I think, is this a repeat of the Purple People ("Hi, would you be in favor of affordable health insurance for all Americans?").  Ask a rather inane question, get an assent to a petition, and then turn it into a political play not quite when the signatory believed.

Yup, I decided to ask questions!

Me: Well, can I ask a couple of questions first?

CYFVONL: sure!

Me: Before I say yes, can you tell me how you are planning on stopping outsourcing?  Is a through tax policy?  Or legal definitions?  Or something else?  Are you planning on advocating for change in the other countries that take those jobs to give them back? 

CYFVONL: We want to give this petition to the politicians...

Me: I got that....but what are you going to tell them to do - what are you advocating for? 

CYFVONL: Uh, I don't know

Me: Can I talk to your manager then? 

CYFVONL: Let me go find an answer

(Medium length silence) 

CYFVONL: We think that American companies should keep American jobs here and not send them overseas and...

Me: OK, I guess you cannot answer the question.  Let's go back to global warming, OK?

CYFVONL:  OK, we want to stop global warming

Me: how?

CYFVONL: huh?

Me: what policies are you advocating for in order to slow global warming?

CYFVONL: I'm not sure I know what you mean...

Continue reading "The Sierra Club - dialing for dummies" »

Posted by Skip at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ever since I can remember, my Dad was complaining about the demise of the pesticide DDT. "There were no mosquitos back then," he still says to this day. He always insisted that the reasons used by the environmentalists to create the near panic that led to its being outlawed was nothing but a bunch of hogwash.

* 

West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitus (EEE) were unheard of back then. Malaria was in check - even in the poorest parts of the globe like Africa. How many thousands have died as a direct result of the infamous 1972 ban of DDT?

This September marks the 45th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson's anti-pesticide manifesto credited with inspiring the environmentalist movement.

But this anniversary is no cause for celebration. The legacy of Silent Spring includes more than a million deaths a year from the mosquito-borne disease malaria. Though nearly eradicated decades ago, malaria has resurged with a vengeance because DDT, the most effective agent of mosquito control, has been essentially discarded--discarded based not on scientific concerns about its safety, but on environmental dogma.

Click here to read his entire piece. It not only sums up the history of how it all went down rather nicely in a clear and concise manner, but also undeniably shows the pattern that remains in use to this day by those with radical environmental agendas. Reread the piece and substitute "global warming"  for "DDT"-- See how it fits? 

Again, from Mr. Lockitch's essay:

[T]he scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent.

Posted by Doug at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OK, so which is it?  If I am skeptical, I'm lower than whale poop.  If I am an acoloyte, is it rational to be one?  From NRO, this observation:

Re: Mmmmm Saltier Oceans   [Iain Murray]

Point and counterpoint:

Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.

—Michael Schirber, LiveScience, 29 June 2005

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.

—Catherine Brahic, New Scientist, 23 August 2007

Whatever the anomaly, the cause is global warming.

Can you have it both ways?  Doubtful - not in the same place in such a small amount of time.... 

While I do admit that the global temp has risen a degree C over the last 100 years, it is not clear that we know enough in sufficient detail to say with much rigor that humans are responsible.  The sims are incomplete as almost every week there seems to be something that raises the eyebrows (one way or the other).

Science is based on skepticism and not consensus until all empirical data and observations are accounted for and can be explained.  I am of the opinion that we just don't know enough to say one way or the other. 

Posted by Skip at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrats have got it wrong – as usual! 

The Democrat dominated US House, searching for a snake in the petroleum woodpile have gone after the first snake they saw while ignoring the real menaces that are still there. They have pushed through a bill allowing for lawsuits against OPEC. Wow, they really care about high gas prices so much that they are willing to go after OPEC.

.

But the problem of high gas prices has little to do with OPEC and its quotas and much to do with NIMBY! Now NIMBY is not a cartel making billions of dollars so they don't want to sue them. In fact, NIMBY has more lawyers than Congress. And NIMBY is always in court with their own suits. They sue everyone over everything and they have succeeded in driving up gas prices.

.

Of course NIMBY is an attitude more than an organization. Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) has prevented building or expanding oil refineries in this country for so long that the few existing refineries can not keep up with the demand. NIMBY has also kept oil from being produced off the coast of Florida, the coast of California and in the Alaskan Wildlife refuge. We can't refine it, we can't drill for it – the cost goes up.

.

Posted by Doug at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I've seen the word "FredHead" standing for those that are campainging for a Presidential run by Fred Thompon (actor, former US attorney, and former Senator).  I know another conservative in the local area seems to be all for this!

IF this is an indication, I could be interested....maybe it's time to look into him.....the actor that was a President wasn't bad at all......

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever.  Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. 

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

Humor...I like it!

(H/T: NRO mention of Fred Thompson on the Paul Harvey commentary) 

Posted by Skip at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)