Hubristic overestimation of human significance — in this case both for doing harm and correcting it by policy — may be the fundamental reason for broad acceptance of man-made climate change theory… In many ways, belief in climate apocalypse reflects similar moralistic disapproval of “materialist” Western society, and the claim that its wealth has been bought at the expense of others, including now that of “future generations.”

This quasi-religious belief is particularly appealing to the political and bureaucratic classes, because it provides new justifications for intervention to correct the imperfections and ongoing inequities of perpetually demonized capitalism. In a classic example of psychological “projection,” however, alarmists claim that it is their opponents who are tainted by “greed” and “self-interest.”

Read the whole thing here.

I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

Read the whole thing.

just asking…

In today’s automobile fleet, the majority of the pollution comes from the oldest, dirtiest cars. In fact, the dirtiest 10% of the cars account for more than 50% of smog and carbon monoxide. The dirtiest one-third of the fleet accounts for more than 80% of the pollution… When it comes to smog, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates that new SUV is a lot cleaner than an old, poorly-tuned compact…

An economic phenomenon called “price elasticity of demand” is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president’s attack on greenhouse-gas emissions….

The Obama fuel efficiency plan may also contribute to a significant increase in highway deaths as vehicles are required to quickly meet the new CAFE standard and will likely become lighter in weight as a result… Specifically, the NRC estimated that in 1993 there were between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle crash deaths that would not have occurred if cars were as heavy as they were in 1976…

Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.

via Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars – WSJ.com.

California regulators have apparently discovered it ain’t easy being green…

• “ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly.”
• It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it.
• It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous.
• Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic “dead zones” in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.
• It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2, which is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times more than an equivalent amount of CO2.

Next time you hear an environmentalist lecturing you on how YOU need to adopt some new “green” solution… think beyond step one.

IBDeditorials.com: Will California Shuck Corn Ethanol?.

My current concern with the emissions trading scheme is that a religious fervour has built up around the altar of global warming. Those who serve at the altar have become ruthless in their denigration of alternate views. This fervour has now received its imprimatur by reason of a new tax, or should it be tithe to be paid to the Rudd Labor Government.

The similarity in this newest forte of socialism can be defined by the ultimate purpose of divesting the individual of their asset or income stream on the premise of an apparent greater moral good.

But who becomes the benefactors of this divestment? The administrators and the traders. Their pockets are lined with the property and income of others.

Aussie senator denounces global warming scheme.

Windmills of Change, originally uploaded by red321.

Expansive dreams about renewable energy, like Al Gore’s hope of replacing all fossil fuels in a decade, are bumping up against the reality of a power grid that cannot handle the new demands.

The dirty [little] secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

Politicians in Washington have long known about the grid’s limitations but have made scant headway in solving them. They are reluctant to trample the prerogatives of state governments, which have traditionally exercised authority over the grid and have little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.

The Energy Challenge – Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits – Series – NYTimes.com.

You know… where has this story been the past 5 years NYT??? There WERE ALWAYS problems with the green, wind-driven agenda and this is just one more of those problems that are easily recognizable to anyone of reasonable intelligence… yet only NOW does the NYT run stories about how all these millions of dollar investments aren’t really working because of FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS of the system??? after it has been CHAMPIONING these very solutions for the past decade or so???

How much will clean energy cost anyway??? I guess we’ll never know because there will always be another bank-breaking technical hurdle in the way after we invest in whatever environmentalists demand we invest in… they don’t have a clue… the fact that the Grid CANT SUPPORT wind-mills SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST THING YOU IDOTS took a look at!

You know, this is just one more example of Liberalism’s fundamental problem: the law of unintended/unexpected consequences. A MARKET-DRIVEN approach to energy would have uncovered these kind of problems and put investment dollars where it would be more useful. These poor saps in Maple Ridge, N.Y. just took the word of a few self-proclaimed expert politicians — who assured everyone that THEIR plan would magically make our lives better — and now have nothing to show for it. This kind of top-down market decision-making causes NOTHING but problems… and this is exactly what Obama is suggesting… that HIS ideas will save us all.

the utter arrogance…

The interview begins with the following question:

“Why do you think they [the left] broke over Iraq, and to a lesser extent, over Afghanistan, since, both the ostensible reconstruction and what happened was a promotion of democracy? Why was the left angry, what currents do you see that alienated them from the policy since they were not a part of the realist politique of the 1970′s and 80′s?”

Hitchens responds by saying

“The crucial thing for most of the left now is what goes under the name of anti-globalization; a primitive … non-marxist form of anti-capitalism. ANd if that is your main concern, then by definition the United States is the main enemy, which with only a little displacement means that any potential enemy of the United States is at least a potential friend. I have certainly read articles… from quite prominent leftists that give the strong impression that Jihadism may have its drawbacks, but it is better than no anti-globalization at all. In other words, it is a move from a conservative position to a reactionary one.”

Now, my argument depends in part on the validity of Hitchen’s claim, so I want to spend at least some time establishing the evidence of his contention of the new anti-capitalist agenda of the modern Democrat party.

First, there is developing a preference within the Democratic party to replace private, capitalist institutions with their respective government counterparts. Health care policy is a prime example of this developing preference; Democrats want to turn an entire segment of our economy into a government institution. If Democrats believed in the capitalist system; why would they want to socialize a trillion-dollar business? The question, obviously, is rhetorical. Anyone with the slightest respect for capitalism wouldn’t be demanding a complete government takeover as the solution of first choice–especially when other approaches may be tried without such a fundamental shift.

One sees this indifferent attitude threaded through many other policy areas as well. Business taxes are never high enough, the RICH never pay enough, and intense regulatory regimes make certain businesses prohibitively expensive. Similar distaste for private alternatives also exist in areas like the education system as I have previously noted.

Secondly, profits have become the new ‘causus beli‘ for the left, especially if that profit margin is 8% and you are in an industry drilling for various liquids in various parts of the country. Never mind the fact that 8% profit margin is a rather meager margin, or that that the companies making these meager profits are employing, providing health care, insuring, and feeding hundreds of thousands of American citizens, or that these companies make your and my life possible by providing us a source of energy we need to accomplish even the simplest tasks. No… none of this matters because the motive for accomplishing these ends … the profit motive… is inherently suspect.

Third, there is a general unwillingness to let markets fix themselves by many on the Left (and Right, for that matter)–requiring government intervention into almost every market problem. Whether you are letting market actors (i.e. “speculators”) use market mechanisms to secure future commodity prices or allowing the market to adjust downward to reflect more apparent risks in the housing market, modern liberals require government intervention in problems which are best left to the market’s internal control mechanisms–mechanisms that react much more quickly and effectively than ‘bailouts’ ever could.

Hitchens prescient** observation helps explain not only the Democrat dissolution with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts but also their selective outrage on environmental issues. When non-capitalist countries such as China, Russia, or Venesuela drill within 100 miles off the Florida coast… not a whisper is heard from Democrat lawmakers. But the suggestion that an American business engage in the the same activity draws cries of outrage from these same lawmakers. The Billions of personal wealth held by Russian oil tycoons such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, or Vladmir Putin inexplicably escape criticism from Democrat lawmakers but a (comparatively) moderate yearly compensation of 10 or 20 million dollars by an American CEO draws rabid screams of outrage! How can this be?!

It’s the profit motive, stupid.

You see, it is only capitalist institutions who engage in activity for profit that draw the attacks and slander of modern Liberals. Economic activities done by Private, US companies are subject to the highest scrutiny, while these same activities, if practiced by non-capitalist countries, are not criticized in the slightest!!! There are no senate committees questioning OPEC directors… no committees attacking Putin’s oil tycoons, no committees demanding China clean its environment… no bills demanding Europe buy carbon credits from our businesses… no demand Saudi Arabia ALSO refrain from drilling for the sake of the environment… no explanation of how stopping American businesses from speculation will in any way mitigate the worldwide speculation problem. No, only America is forced to bleed the consequences of environmental sins.

This anti-capitalist agenda is even more apparent when you look beyond liberal rhetoric to their policies. Take a look at the ‘solutions’ to the global-warming: carbon-credits, mandated fuel standards, increased carbon taxes, lifestyle alterations–all of these are simply a litany of ways for a more intrusive federal government into the private sector. The only ‘solutions’ to global warming liberals advocate are government solutions… not private sector solutions. It doesn’t matter if windmills can’t replace our energy needs; it’s what liberals think is best. It doesn’t matter if we can’t grow enough corn to power even a tiny fraction of our automotive backbone; it is the ‘solution’ liberals have chosen through outrageous subsidies. The vision of the anointed is what matters; not the collective conscience of rational, market actors.

The environmental agenda is only a front; Liberals don’t care about the environment UNLESS they can use it as a tool, as a mechanism to attack capitalism and promote an ever-more-intrusive federal government. There is no true LOVE of the earth backing up this movement, if there were, we would expect to see CONSISTENCE IN LIBERAL OUTRAGE! But we do not see the same vitriol against any other country who engages in carbon-related activities. ONLY America cannot drill for more oil…. ONLY AMERICA must give up our economic and national interests so that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela may further suppliment their own interests. ONLY America must accept high gasoline prices while the rest of the world can produce their way to lower prices. ONLY Americans must invest trillions to become “green” even though doing so will not make a dent in worldwide CO2 output. America must bleed… WE must be the sacrificial lamb at the alter of environmental worship.

This is the dirty little secret of American Liberalism… anti-globalization under the guise of environmentalism.

* I also recently watched a fantastic interview with Vaclav Klaus on the same topic within the past few weeks — HIGHLY RECOMMENDED viewing.

** sorry, that word is not on the Pompous Ass Word website… although I think it should be.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

If this goes to prove ANYTHING… it is that Democrats are so out-of-touch with facts and reality that neither facts nor reality matter to them in the slightest. They are completely willing to believe that we can have lower carbon footprints in 2050 than we did in 1700… even though there was next to NO industry in the 1700′s. The Democrats who want or believe this is possible suffer from a severe mental impairment. They are delusional. To even suggest this as a matter of public policy is laughable…

Are these the minds we want RUNNING the country? (oh! let’s allow these minds to manage the economy too…)

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.