Back Door Socialism

I've talked before talked about George F. Will.

Just gotta share this with ya all.

George Will sits down with The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein. 

GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it's a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people -- our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

 

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it's a series of propositions that can't be refuted. It's very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, "We are the real defenders of science," and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say. 

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, "This is just a sign of the violent weather that's going to become more common because of global warming." Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there's been a collapse of hurricane activity. 

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We've been through this before. You say, "What happened to global cooling?" They say, "Well, our models were wrong." Now we're supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong? 

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: "In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science." Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.


Real Clear Politics

Obama Wasting more Money

Obama Wasting more Money

I dunno about our clown in chief. Is it a mental illness or a rejection of reality?

It isn't my position that there is no climate change (e.g. global warming), just that there is no evidence that it is either caused by human activity, or there is anything we can do about it. In any case, haven't seen the dire predictions of widespread disastrous weather come true.

An interesting article is worthy of note, To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here. 

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in

the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

My point here is weather changes and the old saying people talk about the weather but do nothing about it stands the test of time. Reason for that is just because there is nothing we can do about it.

Now enter the Clown in chief,

Obama orders government to prepare for impact of global warming

President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness

and resilience.”

FULL STORY - Washington Times

I sit here wondering, with trillions of dollars in debt, just who is going to benefit from this sudden splurge of taxpayer money?

This is so hard to take seriously.  I mean the study. The fact that with a national debt of trillions of dollars the government is blowing some 18 million dollars on such nonsense. 

The climate fear mongers have already done a lot to damage our economy, armed with a new worthless study no doubt will feel more brazen with wild claims of doom to promote their agenda of less for all is better.

Feds Will Spend $18M to Develop ‘Reliable’ Climate Change Predictions

(CNSNews.com) –The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture have plans to spend up to $18 million over the next five years to develop “reliable” climate change predictions for the next few decades. The “funding opportunity enables interagency cooperation on one of the most pressing problems of the millennium: climate change and how it is likely to affect our world,” according to NSF’s official request for bids. (See Prediction.pdf)NSF Decadal & Regional Climate Prediction.pdf) 

And despite claims that climate change caused by global warming is causing "extreme weather," a new study by the SI Organization, Inc., a systems engineering firm, ranks 2013 as “one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever,” noting that “there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific, , which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968.”.

FULL STORY - CNS News

Obama, Kill Jobs, Coal

That rascal who occupies the White House is a real piece of work.

Since before the Obama occupation our country has suffered a depressed economy. One would think the President would do everything possible to relieve this situation. No secret there has been a lot of unemployment which leads me to wonder.

What is it with that guy's problem with COAL? 

 For what purpose that Barry would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work?

That guy continues the lie he cares about the MIDDLE CLASS, then boasts

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know -- Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad."

President Obama, Why Are You So Determined To Kill America's Coal Industry?

On Sept. 20 the Obama Administration proposed regulations that would require

future coal-fired power plants to deploy currently nonexistent technologies to reduce their CO2emissions. The President has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to propose rules next year to reduce CO2 emissions from existing coal fired plants. Coal provides nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity – no small amount –

Forbes

EPA admits new coal regulations won't reduce global warming

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal designed to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce global warming will actually have no “notable CO2 emission changes.”

So, a rule that will essentially ban new coal-fired power plants will actually have no impact on global warming. Got it.

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022,” the EPA writes under the comments section of its proposal.

The EPA also admits that “the owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice.”

Examiner

Dispelling Some Popular Myths on CO2 Emissions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set out on the next step to make

certain coal never sees the light of day. Approximately 36 coal-fired power plants would be the immediate victims. Newspapers and liberal blogs are certain to applaud what the EPA is about to do and support that agency's claim it is all part of an effort to prevent Global Warming (AKA Climate Change). Many laymen will be willing to go with what they read, trusting that it is correct and unwilling (or unable) to check for accuracy or factual truth. In some ways this submission is preaching to the choir, but the following facts might be useful to the choir provided it is willing to sing its shocking lyrics to the environmentalists.

American Thinker

Climategate ?

This is a long article, well worth the read. Does a good job of exploring the politics involved when it comes to climate research.

Best I can do here is show the introduction, then the final paragraph.  Link to the article at the end.

The Climategate Chronicle: How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised

To what extent is climate change actually occuring? Late last year, climate researchers were accused of exaggerating study results. SPIEGEL ONLINE has since analyzed the hacked "Climategate" e-mails and provided insights into one of the most unprecedented spats in recent scientific history.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Time for Clear Answers Is Over

However, it seems all but impossible to provide conclusive proof in climate research.

There are still significant gaps in climate research.
 In particular, the simulation of clouds is nearly
 impossible.

Scientific philosopher Silvio Funtovicz foresaw this dilemma as early as 1990. He described climate research as a "postnormal science." On account of its high complexity, he said it was subject to great uncertainty while, at the same time, harboring huge risks.

The experts therefore face a dilemma: They have little chance of giving the right advice. If they don't sound the alarm, they are accused of not fulfilling their moral obligations. However, alarmist predictions are criticized if the predicted changes fail to materialize quickly.

Climatological findings will probably remain ambiguous even if further progress is made. Weingart says it's now up to scientists and society to learn to come to terms with this. In particular, he warns, politicians must understand that there is no such thing as clear results. "Politicians should stop listening to scientists who promise simple answers," Weingart says.

The Enigmatic Sun: With the "STEREO" (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) telescope, climate researchers are able to observe the sun, whose influence on climatic variations is still a controversial topic.


Der Spiegel - FULL ARTICLE

Global Warming Stagnating?

Can't exactly say I am surprised that weather does not obey computer instructions. So where are we now in this panic of Global Warming thing?

Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel

with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

No doubt real scientists will take note. People who have political use of the global warming model no doubt will ignore it. 

SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?

Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding.

SPIEGEL: But don't climate simulations for Germany's latitudes predict that, as

temperatures rise, there will be less, not more, rain in the summers?

Storch: That only appears to be contradictory. We actually do expect there to be less total precipitation during the summer months. But there may be more extreme weather events, in which a great deal of rain falls from the sky within a short span of time. But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn't be playing a major role in any case yet.

SPIEGEL: Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?

Storch: Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate. There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, "Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!" over any natural disaster. But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing.

SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.

Storch: It's a strange idea. What state of the Earth's atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2into the air and thereby violates our constitution?

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Der Spiegel - FULL INTERVIEW

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Climate Worriers Power Grab

Climate change Chicken Littles can't seem to push their agenda before the legislatures where laws are suppose to be made. Nonetheless, they are not deterred. Hope springs eternal in the Courts.

Federal Judges are not elected and immune to citizen review. Hopefully the United States Supreme Court will put a stop to this runaround the proper channels.

Supreme Court takes global warming case that targets power companies

A global warming lawsuit aiming to force power companies to curtail carbon emissions will come before the Supreme Court next year. The suit asks for a judicial order to that effect, but would such a move usurp role of other government branches?

Looks like it to me.

The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a major environmental lawsuit that seeks to force six electric power companies to cap and reduce their carbon-dioxide emissions to fight global warming.

It seeks a judicial order declaring that the fossil-fueled power plants are a “public nuisance.” It also seeks a judicial order capping the plants’ greenhouse gas emissions and requiring the plants to adopt a schedule of reduced emissions in future years.

What makes the lawsuit unusual is that it is an attempt to fill a vacuum in US environmental policy on how best to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming. The issue is a source of substantial controversy and a political hot potato, particularly at a time of high unemployment and a sluggish economy.

I love that one line editorial claiming a vacuum in US environmental policy.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on grounds that it raised sensitive policy questions best left to the political branches. But a federal appeals court in New York reversed that decision, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

The power companies are now asking the US Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court and dismiss the lawsuit.

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Cumberland Fossil Plant near Clarksville, Tenn., is shown in this 2002 file photo.

Ron Schmitt/AP Photo/TVA

Fossil Plant? How about calling it what it is, a coal fire plant?

“The ramifications of this [appeals court] holding, if it is allowed to stand, are staggering,” wrote Peter Keisler in a brief on behalf of the six power companies. “This litigation seeks to transfer to the judiciary standardless authority for some of the most important and sensitive economic, energy, and social policy issues presently before the country.”

The highlighted above would reflect my view.

FULL TEXT