Monday, June 24, 2013

Where There's Smoke There's Failure

obama, obama jokes, benghazi, climate change, stilton jarlsberg, hope n' change, hope and change, tea party, conservative, coal, economy

In his continuing effort to create as much smoke as possible to avoid talking about his scandals, Barack Obama will soon announce his plan to get rid of as much smoke as possible if it's tied, in any way, to American prosperity or energy independence.

Specifically the president wants to put yet more burdens on coal-fired electrical plants in the United States in order to raise the price of energy, reduce the number of jobs, and keep the Earth's oceans from spontaneously boiling - an issue which is clearly way more urgent than coming clean on Benghazi, IRS harassment of citizens, domestic spying, monumentally screwed-up foreign policy, or any of Obama's other legion of scandals and failures.

As part of the president's "plan," he is strongly demanding that scientists "must design new fuels and energy sources," which would be a pretty good freaking trick. Perhaps as part of his "plan," he should also demand that scientists must design anti-gravity machines, time travel, cake with no calories, and a way for dead people to vote which is more efficient than the system Democrats currently use.

Of course, the fact that recent studies show that the Earth hasn't heated up in the past 16 years is irrelevant to the president's continuing effort to bankrupt the coal industry and further cripple our economy.

Because the real goal of the president's plan is to take the heat off himself.


Robert Sudbury III said...

As part of the president's "plan," he is strongly demanding that scientists "must design new fuels and energy sources"

Have they tried pixie dust? I've heard pixie dust works really, really well!

Karl Uppiano said...

B. Hussein O., thermodynamics is a bitch. Sadly, scientists can't just pull new energy sources out of their ass. The best energy source of all time we're not allowed to use: Nuclear.

Ted said...

Aww, its always precious to look at the dumbest people on earth try to act like they're smart. Gee, a study funded exclusively by petrochemical companies found that the things petrochemical companies wanted to be true...was TRUE? What are the odds? Oh wait, the climate change deniers are a bunch of chimps, so its means its RIGHT!

Karl Uppiano: Nuclear power, on a wattage-per-cost basis, ranks below geothermal, solar, wind, hydropower, oceanogenic, and genetically engineered moss. Great job there.

Amazing how the so-called fiscal conservatives never manage to come up with the cheapest plans. Almost as if they were a bunch of brain-dead morons who don't understand science.....

John the Econ said...

Great cartoon today @Stilton. No doubt you caught his Germany speech, where the delivery from the world's greatest orator was so lame, it as as though his teleprompter didn't even believe it.

@Ted Brist makes a good point when he says "Gee, a study funded exclusively by petrochemical companies found that the things petrochemical companies wanted to be true...was TRUE?"

No question about it. Money can be a very corrupting influence.

So then, what can we conclude about the vast majority of what passes as "climate science", which is almost exclusively funded by governments with expansionist agendas?

Oh, and just who really are the "deniers" these days? Even the warm-mongers at the New York Times, New Republic and The Economist have had to admit that their sacrosanct "the issue is settled" computer models are completely out-of-whack:

Sorry Ted, the climate jig is up, and has been for some time now. The only people hanging on now are "the deniers" who've tied their entire careers and agendas to it, and wish to impose their idea of "science" by fiat.

TrickyRicky said...

@Ted Brist
Sorry that I don't have time to dig up relevant links. It's 4:38 in the morning and I have to get out of the door and go to work. However, when you talk about wattage-per-cost it's pretty damn illuminating that you don't mention the huge regulatory burden dragging nuclear down OR the huge government subsidies making your precious "green" energy "competitive". It's almost like big government libs are brain-dead morons, or more likely dishonest shills for the AGW lobby.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Ted Brist: Where (on earth) did you get that fallacious cost information? Wind, "oceanogenic", and solar are absolutely not cost effective means of energy production. Also, none are "ecologically neutral", unless you want to ignore bird chopping, ice flinging, and the shading of thousands of acres of land that normally are in the sun. Genetically engineered moss? Get real.

Second, industrially funded research is as much hogwash, I guess, as "research" performed by biased scientists funded by monies gathered and directed by foaming at the mouth "environmentalists"?

Coin always has two sides, and I've learned that someone that starts out with ad hominems usually has little more to stand on than there anger and ignorance...

Colby said...

Funy you should mention anti-gravity devices; I heard that Air Force One is powered by such a mechanism. I mean, BO certainly wouldn't fly a 747 all over the world taking vacations if it were powered by hydrocarbons, now, would he? That would make him a hypocritical "do as I say, not as I do" elitist, and we all know he isn't that. Same goes for Al Gore. None of his mansions nor his private plane use power from coal, gas or nuclear energy.

Global warming and cooling has been going on for millenia. I grew up in cold, arid Wyoming; it used to be a tropical rain forest. Was that climate change man caused?

@Ted Brist,
So we're supposed to buy into studies done by scientists and polticians who want to profit from it?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Karl Uppiano- I think Barry is confusing the role of scientists with that of court magicians.

@Ted Brist- Your dissenting voice would be more impressive if you didn't charge out of the gate spouting insults, racially offensive monkey analogies, and pseudo-scientific drivel.

The alternate power sources you name are not only not fiscally smart, but the sum total of their output can't put a dent in our energy needs.

Does that mean we shouldn't be working to make them cheaper and more efficient? Of course not. But to destroy our energy infrastructure while pretending that those are viable alternatives is madness.

WORD OF WARNING: Ted, if you want to come back and debate with hard facts, feel free to do so. But if you come back with nothing but insults and ludicrous assertions, I'll nuke your comments in a heartbeat. So the offer is out there; put on your big boy pants and let's have an actual conversation.

@John the Econ- Ted doesn't need to read those articles to know they're wrong; he feels it in his heart. Power from wind and sun and water are all free, free, free! The shaman of his drum circle said so.

@TrickyRicky- Right on both counts: government makes current energy production methods artificially expensive, and uses subsidies to make production from alternative methods appear artificially low.

@Emmentaler- Note that Mr. Brist didn't actually cite cost information, fallacious or otherwise. He stated his belief, which isn't actually founded on anything. Although since he posits himself to be more scientifically attuned than the rest of us, maybe he can master the arcane art of adding HTML links to his comments to show where he's getting his (ahem) "information."

Regarding the reliability of studies, it's fine to be suspicious of results generated by those who have vested interests. But these days, that's everyone. Academics who want to receive grants specifically design studies (and/or tailor results) to find whatever the government wants them to find - truth be damned.

@Colby- Actually, Air Force One is a perpetual motion machine. All you need to do is accuse the president of a scandal, and that jet will never stop moving. Seriously, it should be in Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

Bruce Bausch said...

I am surprised that you lambaste a "factually challenged" person so readily, so I will provide you those hyperlinks that @Ted Brist failed to include:
Personally, I think "lamont insane obama" should put his technology where his mouth is and GO to Africa using jet fuel and come back using "green energy". Scary as it may sound, I think we would fare better with Biteme in the Oral Office.
@Ted Brist... your first sentence is the definition of "psychological projection". And that diagnosis is $1000, and you can call me Zigmund.
As far as lamont being a failure, he's only a failure if you consider AMERICAN ideals and our Constitution! As far as Karl Marx is concerned he is a resounding success. If we could only harness the energy created by the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves we could be energy independent by 4PM TODAY!
The Brandenburg Gate has been a "point of reference" for revered men such as JFK and Ronald Reagan. Even liberals are apoplectic over lamont's flaccid performance there;
From The Daily Mail:
What a difference 5 years make: Obama braves blistering Berlin heat to make speech before invite-only crowd of 4,500 (that's 195,500 FEWER than last time he was in Germany)

Mike Porter said...

Ted Brist: do a search for, and take a look at this work: "Twenty-First Century Snake Oil. by T. A. Kiefer ii" - it describes in full what Karl Uppiano points out in his commentary to this blog: thermodynamics is a bitch. I'm willing to bet that the misguided notion of 'renewable energy' comes from a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, or more to the point, the massive scale at which entropy always increases. Some of the shinier pennies may have noticed that evolutionary theory describes ever increasing order in our little Earthly biosphere, and possibly then conclude that the whole process is thus a sustainable one, all the while ignoring the fact that our Sun is pissing away enormous amounts of energy, of which we only receive a miniscule sliver of a miniscule sliver. If there is any lesson to be learned in this vast, ever expanding Universe, it's that there is nothing in it that even remotely resembles 'sustainable'.

But hey, if you truly insist upon believing in magical fairy dust and economies powered with unicorn farts, then have a party. Just keep your friggin' hands off of my energy policy, dork.

It's No Gouda said...

Ted, is "Brist" the past tense of "Bris" ? In your case that would suggest that the "Mohel" trimmed the wrong head.
FYI here's some information from a June 18 press release by the Sierra Club. I don't believe they are funded by the energy producers.
"WASHINGTON DC -- Since 2006, the U.S. has seen the largest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country or region, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The report states that, during this time, U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen by 7.7 percent or 430 million metric tons, primarily due to a decrease in coal use. This decrease in carbon emissions is equal to eliminating the annual greenhouse gas emissions from more than 84 million passenger vehicles or more than 53 million homes.

While America has long been criticized by the international community for not taking a leadership role in reducing carbon emissions, it’s clear now that the work being done to move the country beyond coal is having a significant effect. Coal was responsible for 33 percent of U.S. electricity last month, down from 50 percent just 10 years ago. According to analysis by the Vancouver Observer, CO2 emissions from the average American are now at the same levels that they were in 1964. What’s more, these reductions put America on track to meet and even exceed the goal President Obama set in the Copenhagen Accord of decreasing U.S. CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020."

Jim hlavac said...

Hey, Ted, for the good of the environment let's pave over hundreds of thousands of acre of land so we can generate a few watts of energy with solar power made with rare earth metals which China is nearly the sole source of.

Don't forget to mine the metals for 300 foot tall windmills that blot the landscape and kill 500,000 birds a year - for the good of the people.

And let's dream energy in baby diapers so that we can really get off of what works into dreams. I love it!

Meanwhile, during the 1970s and early 1980s the "climate change" crowd was crowing ICE AGE! and of course, massive government intervention and control of everything so that we could stave off the 'bergs.

Don't forget my favorite times, to which we are returning, the Middle Ages, when the temps were so warm they grew wine grapes in Scotland, got drunk, and left the fires burning beneath the armor-plate building pits for knights in shining thereof (a particular favorite of mine.)

Meanwhile, it snowed in Tucson, was 45 degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn for the first time in several hundred years and relentless snow is falling the world over. You know why? The cold of the arctic is moving south, and west and east because the Magnetic North Pole has moved 1500 miles from where it was when I was born (I take full responsibility,) and is now near to Russia (who may also be responsible.) With the move the jet stream has squiggled like a Richter reading in San Francisco after a good quake.

Other than that, and more -- there's always more in the destruction of your fantasy -- thanks for the comedy. But don't call me dumb, it bugs me.

John the Econ said...

@It's No Gouda, it is also amusing to note that the US, which rejected the Kyoto protocols, did more to reduce CO2 than most of the nations that signed on. They're all now pretending that Kyoto never existed.

Also amusing is that the supposedly oh-so-green Germans whom Obama was addressing, are actually increasing their consumption of coal. In fact, they're now buying up the coal that we no longer use!

@Stilton, I know you find Mr. Brist highly annoying for peeing in your pool, but I'd encourage you to let him continue to spew his ignorant and dated Progressive nonsense. It's an amusing eye into the Progressive mind, from which we all can learn. There's more than enough chlorine and sunlight here to neutralize his intellectual waste.

Earl Allison said...

Aw, Ted, don't be so hard on yourself! As long as Joe Biden is around, you aren't one of the dumbest people on earth!

I believe in you -- and one day, you can ACT smart, I promise!

Turn your "logic" around. Anti-fossil fuel companies and think tanks sponsor studies that will ... that's right, show the results THEY want, too.

Here's something none of you "climate change" cultists (and I am old enough to remember in the 70's when we were headed towards a New Ice Age -- how's that working out for you?) seem to grasp.

Do you really think none of the oil companies are working on alternate energy sources?

They are, because whichever of them comes up with one that will work and be economical will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

But, you know, keep being a shill if it makes you happy.

Queso Grande said...

@NoGouda, I think you may be onto something there with the bris reference.....and in that vein, let's not rub him the wrong way, it'll only lengthen his argument and add girth to his attitude.
You heard about the mohel who kept all the 'leavings' during his career? After he retired he opened up a wallet shop.....just rub them and they turn into suitcases....

Ted is just proof of the Reagan's not that liberals are dumb, there's just so much they don't know.

@Stilton, I think that these scandals are serving their purpose. Frankly, the Presnewdebt does! not! care! and just continues on but we all seem to have forgotten Benghazi.(Present company accepted, of course)

Truly, the only way out for America now is for a trial and penalty for Treason being demanded and acted upon, for only that would indicate that EVERYONE understands the nature of what Uhhhhbama has done.

Anything less will simply serve the staus quo.

I keep looking at my maps for uninhabited landmasses to decamp to, and using simply the Constitution, create a new land.

George in Houtx said...

Ted Brist, careful with the accusations or I'll start flinging poop from my side of the cage! if nuclear power ranks lower than solar or wind power, why are we getting so much power from solar and wind? oh ..... whoooops! ...... we really aren't, are we.

John the Econ said...

A better question might be: If wind and solar are so wonderful, why do they have to be so subsidized to such absurd extremes, and yet produce a statistically irrelevant percentage of our power?

Oil & Gas: $0.64/megawatt hr
Coal: $0.64/megawatt hr
Hydro: $0.82/megawatt hr
Nuclear: $3.14/megawatt hr
Wind: $56.29/megawatt hr
Solar: $775.64/megawatt hr

Could it be that it's all a crony-capitalist scam?

Grizzly said...

Such declarations from the Big Zero remind me of the same kind of slogans of Josef Stalin from the previous century: "The Five Year Plan in Three Years!" Just declare it so and it must happen.

Ted said...

@JohnThEcon: We can conclude that since their funding isn't tied to what they prove, just that they give incontrovertible proof of it, that argument is the dumbest false equivalency I have ever heard in my life.

Government funding starts with the science and ends with the answer (since they care about keeping people alive in reality). Corporate funding starts with the answer ("There is no global warming") and ends with the science (aka the ass they pulled that out of) that has nothing to with the truth (since they care exclusively about keeping their profits up).

Well done, you've finally punctured your bubble and figured out the leftist media is a complete paranoid myth. All you're showing me is that those sources made some extremely bad hiring choices, and/or have fallen for the false equivalency fallacy.

@TrickyRicky: On the subject of unregulated nuclear power plants.....are you a complete moron, or is there some area not related to this where you have some competence. A lack of regulation on nuclear power....does the name Chernobyl mean anything to you? At all?

I thought you people were the paranoid lunatics who were terrified of terrorists getting a dirty bomb. Guess you don't care about an American city getting wiped out in a nuclear holocaust (and without safety regulations it fucking will), so long as its a white person who does it.

And I notice that the wind power gets less than a percent the subsidy that big oil does. Missed that, didn't ya?

@Emmanteler: Leaving aside that I love the fact your only capable argument against algae or oceanogenic as power supplies is to dismiss them because you don't understand them, I love that you still cling to that long discredited idea that wind turbines killing anything other than an anecdotal number of birds like a security blanket.

John the Econ said...

@Ted Brist says "We can conclude that since their funding isn't tied to what they prove, just that they give incontrovertible proof of it, that argument is the dumbest false equivalency I have ever heard in my life."

Why is that? Why should we expect that the government will bestow grants primarily to those they expect will provide the desired results any less than we'd expect private entities to? In research academia, scientists live or die based on how they bring in the bacon. It's little different than in the private sector. Why are state-paid scientists any more ethical than non-state paid ones? If they are ethically compromised, they have the exact same motivations.

And as we've already seen, there is no "incontrovertible proof" of singularly caused anthropocentric global warming from CO2. The "models" they wish to use to justify re-aligning our entire economy simply do not work. The "hockey stick" is at best hokum, and at worst, a lie.

Government funding for "climate research" started with a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after the new ice age didn't pan out in the '70s.

Motivations aside, the fact remains that they are wrong. But unlike the privately-paid scientists, they continue to get funded with OPM. (Other people's money) Nice racket.

Ted said...

@JohnTheEcon: Because the government doesn't have a financial stake in anything other than the truth. This is the part you keep missing.

Climate Scientists would get the exact same level of funding if they all had results that said that global warming was nonexistent. They would still be hired for regular environmental studies. BUT, if they were found to be falsifying data, they would be blacklisteed from the scientific community, and never get work again. They have no financial stake in the results, just in the science and the truth.

Scientists in the employ of petrochemical companies have absolutely no interest in the science. They care about telling the world what their bosses paid them to tell them. They will never face being discredited for lying, as they aren't hired based on their reputation, just on how well they lie, and can obfuscate.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the only reason you believe this ridiculous stuff about climate scientists lying to get funding is because you've been lied to. But you've got to be smart enough to realize that makes absolutely no sense.

The government and the scientific community would love nothing more than to tell people that there is no global warming. But they can't, because the math, the results, the reality - none of it backs that up in the slightest.

The models only don't make sense if you don't factor in the release of greenhouse gasses trapped in the polar ice caps (you know, that thing we've known about for decades) causing a feedback loop that would allow greenhouse gasses to spike. If those gasses are released by global temperature increases, then it does cause the situation to get exponentially worse, following the model almost exactly.

graylady said...

Ted, you forget, this is the Obama administration. They are willing to spend any amount of money to get the results THEY want. To Hell with "the truth". Expecting the truth out of the Obamaites is like expecting gold out the rear end of a pig.

Ted said...

@graylady: You still haven't given one good reason WHY they would want that result, apart from "they're out to hurt me for no good reason", which is traditionally viewed as schizophrenic paranoia.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Ahahahaha! You KILL me Mr. Brist. Please, if I may? How many years have you languished on this glorious planet Gaia? How long have you observed Government being interested in nothing but the truth with their outlay of our money? Really, now! What is the color of the sky in your world?!

And why, Mr. Brist, when I don't cite actual data, I am guilty of foisting anecdotal data, but you are somehow immune to a similar indictment within your wondrously objective, data-filled posts?

OK, enough picking on you. Birds and wind turbines: go visit the environmentally conscious American Bird Conservancy and read their take on it. Numbers aren't huge, but they're very real. Or, how about the hyperbole in what is likely one of your favorite liberal rags, The Huffington Post. They, of course, are exaggerating the numbers from ABC by an order of magnitude - as they are wont to do - but the dateline is an ancient 14 May 2013. Must have been discredited since then - or, perhaps, only in your mind.

Let's see - what other ad hominems did you fling my way? Ah, yes. Algae and "oceanic power" - like the wave-driven generators tried in Finland back in 2008? And so many other failed attempts to harness tidal power for electrical energy since, oh, I don't know - 1890?

You see, Ted, I am an off-grid power generation aficionado - oh! And a degreed electrical engineer with a couple of masters degrees, currently pursuing a doctorate in statistical math. I'm a product of the same institution indoctrinating hundreds of thousands every day - I just didn't turn out as they had hoped. I may not be citing hard data when I laugh at your outrageous claims, but I have as good or better credentials than the so-called impartial scientists you cite. And, trust me: I would *love* for all this energy hoakum to be economically feasible, thereby energizing my off-grid applications without costing the arm-and-leg it has cost me to develop it thus far. And biofuel from algae and other sources (frier grease, field corn) are little better than curiosities, not yet ready for prime time.

Nuclear energy is a boogey man to you? But the Soviet government had all their government-funded scientist focused on it. And, of course, since they were all funded by the government, they were only interested in the truth... If anything, nuclear energy is over-regulated in the US - particularly as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.

My recommendation: one, don't trust so much in the government. do some research beyond The Discovery Channel. Yes, all these technologies are out there, most of them are really, really cool - but they are all nascent and economically infeasible. Consider that if, as you folks have deluded yourself into desiring, all of the economically feasible methods of power generation were immediately made illegal, you would not be able to post a witty ad hominem retort to this here - electricity, that ubiquitous fuel keeping that thrash music pouring out of your iPod, will have become a very expensive luxury.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Bruch Bausch- Thank you for the informative links! Also, I entirely agree that when I use the word "failure" in association with Barry's policies, it's only in the sense of doing anything good for America. I actually believe that his policies are succeeding spectacularly towards achieving his actual goals of cripping our nation on the world stage.

@It's No Gouda- Good stats, and it also opens the door to point out that conservatives aren't against clean air and more efficient means of producing energy. However, energy needs must be met in the interim - which is where we part company with the Obamites.

@Jim Hlavac- Ah, the infinite variability of weather and climate change. It's always been with us, and there simply hasn't been a compelling argument made that - for the first time in Earth's history - MAN is the new driving force behind climate change.

@John the Econ- I think the Kyoto Accord honked off the left because they wanted the U.S. to smooch some foreign keester. The fact that we reduced emissions on our own was entirely secondary to them.

Regarding Mr. Brist, please understand that I don't want to nuke anyone's post simply because they disagree with me or anyone else. It's all about civility; if we can keep the exchanges polite, then I welcome Ted or anyone else to drop in and make their points. Hope n' Change isn't intended to be an echo chamber.

@Earl Allison- I believe that the energy companies are working on alternative energy sources, and I'm all for it. Although rather than subsidize the experimentation with government money, I've always preferred the idea of telling the private sector if they can develop some marvelous new energy source, they can market it tax free for the next 50 years. How much of a boom in research do you think that would cause - at no expense to taxpayers?

@Queso Grande- Although it's barely been mentioned so far, one of the real thrusts of today's cartoon was the fact that Barry is pushing this totally meaningless "plan" as yet another distraction from BENGHAZI and other scandals. I will not forget a successful terrorist attack on Americans, and I will not forgive the government officials - B. Hussein included - who lied about it and gave cover to Al Qaeda.

@George in HouTx- Solar and wind are useful power sources in very certain areas, but barely crack out of the "novelty" category when it comes to supply our actual energy needs. Hopefully, they'll get cheaper and more efficient - but there's simply nothing on the scientific horizon that makes these techonologies all that promising.

@John the Econ- The numbers really tell it all, don't they?

@Grizzly- Exactly. Barry is demanding magic, pure and simple. Which is also what he promised to deliver in 2008 - and failed miserably.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Ted Brist- I give you a sincere tip o' the hat for coming back and being civil. So let's chat!

I've got to take immediate exception to the idea that "Government funding starts with the science and ends with the answer." Government funding does nothing to ensure an impartial result - and in fact, grant money predictably flows to those researchers who start with a position that the government wants proved for its own political benefit. I'll concede that privately funded studies may also be driven by self-interest, but the notion of government impartiality and a love of pure science just don't wash.

Where was the government love of pure science when they were pouring money into Solyndra - a venture everyone knew was crashing and burning? And where is Obama's love of science when he declares that he isn't sure "life has become" even when a full-term infant has been born? You may remember that he (in)famously declared that such a decision was "above my paygrade."

Next, let's look at your statement "there is no global warming." As a matter of fact, there hasn't been global warming for 16 years - but yes, things DO get warmer and colder and only a fool would deny it. But that's not the same as proving manmade causality.

Regarding nuclear plants, don't be throwing down the term "moron" at TrickyRicky if you first have to put your own words in his mouth. He said there is a regulatory burden on nuclear (fact) misrepresent that argument as saying he favors no regulation whatsoever.

You then make the leap to dirty bombs (not that anyone mentioned killing security for nuke plants), and THEN put a nasty little edge of racism into your rant. As a friend, Ted, I have to tell you that this just makes you seem angry and dimwitted. Focus and try to keep up with the actual arguments here on the page.

Regarding wind turbines, they actually kill a shitload of birds - though not as many as buildings, windows, and predators. Though they are taking a pretty good bite about of the Bald Eagle population. As far as algae and oceanographic energy are concerned, I'm all for developing them - but NOT killing off our current means of energy production in the interim.

@John the Econ- Simple, eloquent, polite, and well-documented. A model for us all.

@Ted Brist- "The government doesn't have a financial stake in anything but the truth"?! Did you believe that to be true under Bush, or is this only a recent development? The government loathes truth if it undermines their power - which is frequently the case. Where is the "science" behind Obama wanting to fund preschool for all kids, despite ample evidence that Headstart has been a complete waste of billions of dollars?

And you say that climate scientists who falsified data would be blacklisted from the scientific community- but you're forgetting that it was recently shown that data WAS being falsified, and the rest of the scientific community jumped on the bandwagon to keep their grants flowing.

As far as the studies conducted by petrochemical firms, I'm certainly not going to be a knucklehead and say I expect them to be honest or accurate - but I will say that they could be, which is why it's important to subject such studies to impartial peer review.

Finally, regarding greenhouse gasses trapped in the polar ice caps, those really can be an enormous source of environmental trouble for us (and don't even get me started on frozen methane rising from the ocean floors). But those real issues demand that we find out whether there is manmade causality - because if there isn't, then crippling our industrial capabilies (which might manufacture means of helping people cope with environmental change) would be the worse mistake we could make.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@graylady- You've summed things up in a short and sweet way. Obama is the living, breathing proof that government operates in its own self-interest, and cares not a whit about "truth."

@Ted Brist- You're new here, so let me make something explicit that pretty much everyone else takes for granted: there's no paranoia involved in believing the evidence of our own eyes that Obama (and many on the Left) despise this country and want to bring it down in order to A) make the world a better place and B) rebuild the United States as a socialist utopia.

I highly recommend you read Dinesh D'Souza's compelling and thoroughly convincing book "The Roots of Obama's Rage."

@Emmentaler- Sir, I'm dabbing a respectful tear from my eye after reading your magnificent post. You are the winner - please take any prize from the top shelf.

Bruce Bausch said...

Hey, Big Cheese, ( Queso Grande),
Queso Grande said...
"the Reagan saying....'it's not that liberals are dumb, there's just so much they don't know.'"
The actual Ronald Reagan quote is;
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Please keep it accurate so liberals don't get distracted by minor issues.

Ted said...

@Stilton: I remind you, a non-existent political benefit. I'm not buying into your paranoid delusional conspiracy wherein all the credible scientists and left-leaning politicians are a vast conspiracy to prove global warming is real in order to take away your freedom fries or whatever you tell yourself.

With petrochemical companies, its very, very simple. If global warming is real, they will have to stop drilling for and selling oil. SO they want it to not be real, so they can keep making obscene amounts of money. So they pay people to say its not real. With the government, they want global warming to be real, so they can.....what? What exactly do they gain? They will lose revenue from oil taxes, they have to overhaul their infrastructure, but they will gain....what? Obama wants to destroy big business because he hates whitey? Explain to me how that fits in with the Dow reaching a record high under him? Oh look, I notice thats a talking point not in your little essay about how Obama hates whitey.

There are only two reasons they would say global warming is real - (a) its real, (b) they're trying to hurt you for no good reason. If the latter seems more credible, congratulations, you're a schizophrenic. Get help.

Solyndra, Solyndra....Oh, you mean that company that was going to be successful, but the Chinese undercut the company severely through a greater deal of government backing, driving it into bankruptcy artificially? And then instead of being productive and actually fixing a problem posed by Chinese intervention into the US economy, the right decided it would be better for them to bitch, whine, and try to make a scandal?

If I remember right, that that was Obama leaving that discussion to the actual scientists, as opposed to you, who feel entitled to use the fact that fetus's "masturbate" as a reason to deny women their rights.

And that record-breaking drought last year, how does that factor into your idea that climate change isn't real? Hmm?

Yes, there's a middle ground between too much regulation and none....which is exactly what we have now. There is just enough regulation at present to be safe. Good that you're being reasonable on this and not putting human lives being wiped out through radiation poisoning behind corporate profits.

No, they don't kill "a shitload of" birds. You're going by estimations, which in turn take their data from extrapolating beyond the rational point - something both estimations were criticized for. You'd have to have a really, really low respect for the Bald Eagle to think its not smart enough to not fly right into the giant moving blades. Hence the problem with those numbers, its under the assumption that birds have no form of survival instincts whatsoever.

YFIC said...

Ted, I just want you to be aware that posting here is like casting pearls before swine, they have ears, but do not hear.

God Bless you for trying Ted.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Bruce Bausch- It's like Reagan knew Ted Brist personally...!

@Ted Brist- "All" the credible scientists have not reached consensus, and virtually all of the left-leaning politicians are nincompoops whose power over others would be strengthened by the very policies we see them putting in place. So I think I'll just choose to ignore your diagnosis of "paranoid delusional conspiracist."

Regarding your hatred and distrust of petrochemical companies, okay - yeah - we get it. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that to disbelieve everything they say makes you sound like a paranoid delusional conspiracist.

But you then suggest that there's no political benefit to be gained from promoting the false doctrine of man-caused climate change? Ted, surely you're smoking something stonger than the Choom Gang ever got there hands on. The "Climate Change" scenario allows the Left to commandeer the economy, control almost every aspect of our personal lives (which uses energy), clears the way for socialist redistribution of wealth (including spreading OUR wealth to other countries, which is a major, major, major goal of Obama's).

You then embarrass yourself by suggesting that business is doing great under Obama because the DOW is going up (or was until recently). Do you seriously not know that Wall Street has soared only because of the way the Fed has been printing money and nearly giving it away? The high stock market prices don't indicate a robust economy - they represent a rapidly declining dollar. I'll let John the Econ school you further if he thinks you can grasp it.

And again, you start projecting racism into everything (seriously, you should get that looked at). I did not say that Obama hates "Whitey" - although I do, in fact, believe that both he and his loathesome wife do dislike white folks (he said as much in his autobiography, she said as much in her college dissertation). But the reason Barry wants to take down this country isn't because he hates white people - it's because he hates Western Colonialism. Seriously, go read D'Souza's book and educate yourself.

Regarding Solyndra, it was already known that the company couldn't/wouldn't survive (including the Chinese price cutting) when Barry was pouring money into it purely for the PR value of impressing the rubes. Which, in your case, he clearly did.

Regarding Obama leaving the decision on abortion to scientists, he sure as hell did NOT do that when he rejected legislation to protect live births - preferring instead to endorse "partial birth" and "post birth" abortions.

And I have no idea in hell what you're talking about when you refer to fetal masturbation. Is that what you did while you were a fetus, Ted, or what you do now when you see a fetus?

"And that record breaking drought last year" - was a record breaking drought. I've never said that the climate doesn't change - it always has and always will. I'm waiting for proof that we're affecting that change before I let morons tear down our infrastructure.

Thank you, though, for recognizing that nobody other than you was confused about the need for balanced regulation of things like nuke plants. Maybe there's some hope for you yet if you lay off the fetal porn.

And finally, while I don't have my conversion tables handy, I think hundreds of thousands of birds do make a shitload, and my opinion of Bald Eagles' intelligence doesn't change the many pictures I've seen of the great birds being turned into sushi by wind turbines.

For you to deny that wind turbines kill any birds seems an outright rejection of science. But then, so do the rest of your arguments.

@YFIC- Just so you know, Ted is selling fetal pictures of you on eBay.

John the Econ said...

@Ted Brist, what do you mean that "government doesn't have a financial stake in anything other than the truth"? That's laughable. The vast majority of Al Gore's personal fortune is tied to his profiteering from "global warming".

The government has far more interest in this other than just money: Total control of not just the entire economy, but every aspect of your personal life.

Remember, there's no activity you partake in life that does not involve spewing carbon. Once governments assert their "right" to control that, there is no aspect of your life they will not be able to regulate.

So as a result, aspects of climate science that do not involve carbon get short shrift. There is no interest in funding anything that cannot be used politically to expand the bureaucracy.

You've already lost the debate with reality. The "hockey stick science" of the '90s didn't pan out. (You clearly didn't read the links above about this) The models are wrong. They honestly don't know what's going on.

If they can't predict the climate a week, month, year, or decade out, what makes anyone think they can do it for 100 years?

I'm not the one who's been lied to.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Little Teddy: that "record breaking drought last year" was not record breaking. For "record breaking", you need to go back to the Dust Bowl periods during the 30s or the the 50s. The one last year was just a little parched spell - which you'd know if you could... just.... o-p-e-n that mind of yours. From your performance on display here, I suspect that opening that mind would be on the order of splitting an atom, though. Not the energy, mind you; but the interior space...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- You did a better job than I did of explaining how controlling carbon emissions actually gives the government power over everything and everyone - which is their goal. And the idea that government officials aren't operating in their own interest, as Ted believes, is stunning to me. It's like there's no news at all in his world.

@Emmentaler- Everything is evidence of climate change to the true believer. More storms, fewer storms, bigger storms, smaller storms, hotter, colder, wetter, drier, and on and on. It's a phenomenon called "Observational Bias," which isn't really a bad synonym for the current state of "Climate Change Science."

Pete(Detroit) said...

As I recall, the original global warming study was funded by the Thatcher gov't in order to sway public opinion away from coal, and towards nuke power, as Great Briton has to import sh*t tons of coal per year. The intrepid scientists were kinda geeked that they got paid for a bogus study, and immediately started to wonder who ELSE they could get to pay for the work they already did. And lo, the scam was born.

When looking at things on a geological time scale, say the past 400,000 years, we see that heavy glaciation is the norm, w/ 'temperate' breaks of 15 - 20k years interspersed. (we're approx 15k years into the current warm period). So, really, what we think of as 'normal' is really a 20% fluke. And if the pattern holds, it's going to get VERY cold again. Probably not this year, probably not for a 1000 years, but eventually a bit of global warming would be a good thing, perhaps...

Speaking of Nukes, the reason we need so many regulations and have the waste issues that we do is because we fuel them w/ uranium, which is particularly poorly suited as fuel for a power plant, UNLESS you're making bomb fuel. THORIUM is a MUCH better fuel (needs a different reactor design, iirc) but was suppressed because the government wanted breeder reactors to make plutonium to make bombs. Power generation is (or was) a side product.

Birds, eagles and otherwise, get clobbered by wind turbines because they cannot see the blades coming. What appears to be clear air suddenly has an edged club moving at 60 mph... like stepping off the curb onto the freeway, and not knowing to look for traffic. The way is clear in front of you, yes?

As for the president's motives, I hardly care if teh driving force behind his actions are that he's a white hating anti-colonial Islamist wanna be, or if he's simply George Soros' meat puppet, or maybe it's just Tuesday. I really don't care WHY he's trashing everything that made America different, but he clearly *is* and I would VERY much like him to stop.

Queso Grande said...

@Bruce Bausch, Mea culpa. I get very little time online, and I have a tendency to hit, paraphrase and run.
Point well taken, and I thank you for correcting the record.

John the Econ said...

@Stilton, I've often fantasized setting up a blog site where I'd play the role of a demented eco-fascist, listing all of the things that should be outlawed based solely on my personal dislike for them, and using their supposed "carbon footprint" as the pretense. (Even went as far as registering some domains) I wish I had the spare time to actually do it.

That is what "global warming" has always been about; wanna-be totalitarians using the carbon excuse as a reason to do whatever they want; be it to build rail lines nobody really wants or outlawing consumption or behaviors they find personally distasteful.

As an "eco-fascist inquisitor", instead of targeting SUVs and lawn tractors, I'd target pop stars, concert venues, and anything funded by the NEA.

John the Econ said...

Catch Obama's Warm-mongering speech today? I came across this yesterday that explains it pretty well:

"He believes American lifestyles are unnecessarily wasteful and that we should temper our ambitions and adopt a lifestyle more to his liking. Essentially, it would suit him if we all lived in a college town and rode a bicycle. Also, I believe part of the president’s motivation for his pointless act is punitive. Obama wants to punish America for its wasteful past. But of course, the rules don’t apply to him and his family. A life of large homes, private jets, big cars and cash payments from the oil and gas industry await him in his private life. Just ask former vice president Al Gore. Voters notice that Democrats have a blind spot to the hypocrisy that surrounds global-warming politics."

Many on the left who confuse religion with moralizing, in fact, envy the moralizers in the use of moral authority as a vehicle to get people to behave in the manner they think they should. It's one of the main aspects that makes "warmism" like an actual religion.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- That assessment of Barry is right on. How about this little tidbit from 2008, which is sounding mighty timely about now...

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

He doesn't give a flying fart about the environment; he wants to punish us for having more than other countries.

John the Econ said...

What I'd like to see is someone on a government grant do up an estimate of what the "carbon footprint" is of Obama's upcoming Africa junket. At >$100-million, it's gotta be pretty substantial. Certainly more in a single trip than generations of my family driving SUVs all over the place or leaving our thermostats at non-approved levels.

Think that will ever happen, Ted?

JustaJeepGuy said...

It seems to me that Ted doesn't just drink the Fla-Vor-Aid, he's mainlining it! Does he really believe government is so benign? Or is it that he's one of those who truly believe we should all do what he says because he knows what's good for us? Kinda like Barack Hussein, y'know?

Daddy Dave said...

Wow, this is a long thread! Great comments but, @Bruce Bausch had me with "If we could only harness the energy created by the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves we could be energy independent by 4PM TODAY!" Love it!