CO2 Archives - Page 4 of 4

The World is NOT Getting Warmer…Mr. President!

September 26, 2018November 15, 2012 Steve MacDonald

Nothing speaks to the cloistered nature of what passes for left wing intelligence like Global Warming. It is the perfect litmus test. All you need do is ask and if the respondent sounds like this, you can rest assured that most everything else they know come from the same poisoned well.

What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.

This is President Obama, the smartest man in any room, repeating what he thinks he knows to be true. Unfortunately for the President and those similarly afflicted, not only has the earth not warmed faster than predicted even 10 years ago, it has not warmed at all.

Where’d All The CO2 Go?

September 26, 2018July 4, 2012 Steve MacDonald

This is curious. Just when the Global Warming Monkeys we’re complaining about how its totally hot, like…as if we were experiencing, like, Global warming, Ok? OMG! So why is it so damn hot if US CO2 emissions from energy are nearing their lowest since 1991…without cap and trade? Could it just be the weather? … Read more

[Updated] AP Proves CO2 based Global Warming Is A Hoax

September 26, 2018November 4, 2011 Steve MacDonald

AP has a story out today, which the green Yahoo’s at Yahoo! have put up front for all to see. The front page lede is ‘Record Rise in Global Warming.‘ But when you follow the link the article itself is titled:"Biggest jump ever seen in Global Warming Gases." Talk about deception. But then, the entire thing, like global warming, turns out to be misleading.

The article goes on at length about emerging Asian economies and the massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere, but the only mention of actual warming is theoretical.

The article itself is so slanted it is past amusing and damn near criminal.

The problem, or course, is that CO2 emissions have been on an upward climb for decades while global temperature have failed to follow. They continue to go up and down without any measurable or predictable connection whatsoever. But that is just another inconvenient truth. So does AP dare to mention that? Of course not. They can barely contain themselves while pointing out that the UN’s IPCC has come under criticism but that most of its conclusions are considered main stream if not a bit too conservative."

Bwahahahahahahaha!

So much for the IPCC passing Green advocacy puff pieces off as science, leaving out contrary evidence, and overall being written by and for politicians with an specific green agenda. Then there is all that hiding the decline business that they are still trying to hide.

The story does get one thing right. Global emissions are still rising. The fact that temperatures have not been in any measurable way affected is only more proof that the "we are killing the planet" meme is just another truck load of nonsense. If we are killing it it is by keeping the third world in the third world where the socialist elites think they belong instead of letting them develop into efficient modern states. You need cheap power to do that. There is nothing cheap about the lefts energy alternatives.

[Update] Hot Air is reporting on the AP report as well, reminding us that despite the CO2 emissions warning and the failure of every man-made program to reduce them, the temperature has not risen for 11 years.

Another Whack at RGGI

May 16, 2019May 31, 2011 Steve MacDonald

..what I find particularity perverse is that “Republican” Senators in New Hampshire could be tying themselves to the Massachusetts compromise as the tipping point at which staying in RGGI would then no longer make sense.

NH Senate Should BEG Our forgiveness on RGGI

September 26, 2018May 16, 2011 Steve MacDonald

Fools! God has a sense of humor. Just days after Republican State Senators in New Hampshire bent over backwards to the green lobby (and refused to leave RGGI) a major green lobby advocate (George Monbiot) announced that none of their ideas work. (Ideas like cap and trade for example.) Now, just days after that, a highly credentialed European scientist who was on the Anthropogenic Global Warming Government money "Gravy Train" has a message to those who continue to support CO2 mitigation of any kind, and in particular the failed variety like RGGI…

..to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

So who is David Evans? Here’s his bio from the article.

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

Is this speaking truth to power?

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

For Repeal of RGGI

September 26, 2018May 5, 2011 Don

This morning NHPR had a program on RGGI. Senator Peter Bragdon spoke for keeping RGGI and Representative Jim Garrity spoke for repeal. I tried to call and comment but didn’t get on the air. They suggested that I send in my comments, so I sent the comments below. Some of my comments are reactions to Peter Bradgon’s comments supporting RGGI.

"I am for repeal of RGGI.

1. We have plenty of energy in this country in the form of coal and gas, and even oil if the government would let us get it. We do not need to import fuel from countries that want to kill us to generate the electricity we need. My understanding is that gas can be relatively easily burned in oil fired energy plants, we have lots of natural gas.

2. It is hard to believe that wood pellets burn more cleanly than oil or certainly than gas. While I understand the desire to buy locally, they should compete like other fuels.

3. If energy efficiency is beneficial to people, governments, businesses, etc., then why do the rest of us have to subsidize it for them?

A Global Warming Alarmist In ‘Efficiency Sheeps’ Clothing?

September 26, 2018March 20, 2011 Steve MacDonald

Gore Jim Grady, President and owner of LighTec in Merrimack, has a letter in the Sunday Telegraph on the current effort in the New Hampshire legislature to drop out of RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. He expresses some concern over Republican objection to the plan, points out what he sees as inconsistencies in objections to it, and does not believe it should be mothballed.

But there are problems.

Jim argues that the fee created by RGGI is actually a small cost that benefits all of us, and that we should not object to such a tax because we have had something similar in place in the State for 12 years now.

Most House members seem utterly unaware that for the past 12 years the state has levied a “tax” on the many that indisputably benefits the many: the Systems Benefit Charge (SBC). If you look at your electric bill, you’ll see a tiny charge of $0.0035 per kilowatt-hours of energy usage to pay for state-sponsored energy efficiency. This SBC “tax” (like RGGI, bipartisan) benefits the many by reducing the need to make multi-billion dollar investments in new power plants and electricity transmission and distribution systems.

But Jim never explains why, if we have that tax in place to benefit state sponsored efficiency projects, why we signed onto a separate system that adds an additional tax, supervised by an out of state entity, that skims a portion of that "tax" off the top for administrative costs? How does that help everyone in New Hampshire when it diverts some of that so-called benefit away from the state.

Why not make a case to raise the SBC to fill the stated need? Why add a separate system, run by an outside third party, based on the questionable need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Because Jim Grady was a member of the working group for the Carbon Co2alition, whose goal is or was…

… to advocate for a national energy policy that protects our communities and environment from the ravages of global warming caused by carbon pollution.

That affiliation might have been good to know in advance. But we can take a look at that right now…