I’ve been thinking about this post for a while. The starting point was this post on the ultra-liberal Guardian website entitled: “Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?” Let’s go with a few of the salient points:
Although there is an important role for scepticism in science, for almost 30 years some corporations have supported a disinformation campaign about climate change science.
Really? for 30 years? In fact, 30 years ago the “science” community was screaming and yelling about the coming ice age.
Disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily – if not criminally – irresponsible, because the consensus scientific view is based upon strong evidence that climate change:
• Is already being experienced by tens of thousands in the world;
• Will be experienced in the future by millions of people from greenhouse gas emissions that have already been emitted but not yet felt due to lags in the climate system; and,
• Will increase dramatically in the future unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced from existing global emissions levels.
Before the hysteria of the next ice age, er, global warming, er, climate change – I would almost be sure that for all of human history people have experienced climate change – its called weather. People are killed every year with hurricanes and typhoons, heat waves cause some to die (mainly the very young and the old and sick), cold weather kills thousands every year, tornadoes, hailstorms, lightning–human beings have been experiencing WEATHER for as long as humanity has existed. So I will grant the first point – tens of thousands of humans experience climate change every year. I’d go so far so to say that every human being alive has had weather changes.
Point 2 – people will continue to experience weather.
Point 3 – prove it! There is evidence that the planet has been substantially warmer than it is today and substantially colder. Is there any evidence that people were responsible for those changes? There is speculation – but as with all things global in scope, there’s no real proof one way or another. There is carbon dioxide being emitted by all these people breathing in and out! Of course, there are ice cores and other scientific evidence showing far higher carbon dioxide levels in the past. I’m almost certain there weren’t any coal-fired electricity generation plants and SUVs 10,000 years ago. So the possibility that man has very little to do with the changes is dismissed by the hyteria crowd.
But one thing they want for sure – they want blood:
The corporations that have funded the sowing of doubt on this issue are clearly doing this because they see greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies as adversely affecting their financial interests.
This might be understood as a new type of crime against humanity.
We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.
So just remenber – if you finance any investigations that go against the “scientific consensus” or you question any of the finding of your “betters” who have published “peer-reviewed science” – you could be charged with crimes against humanity! At least if this little twerp has anything to say about it.
NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY – this example from New York of all wonderfully liberal places:
“Most people did not want wind turbines,” Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn said Tuesday.
Come, come now people. The Messiah has decreed that you will have electricity if the wind blows or the sun shines. Why in the world would good New Yorkers not want wind turbines?
Last month, hundreds of residents in this Yates County town of 1,000, bordering Naples, turned out largely to voice their opposition to turbines in an emotionally charged gathering. Most of the 116 residents who spoke at the meeting were against the machines, said Dunn.
When the board convened Monday, it determined the 17 proposed turbines would have a negative impact due to noise, light flicker and positioning on steep slopes. Dunn said the board was particularly disturbed because the original proposal stated the turbines would not be sited on slopes exceeding 15 percent, yet the environmental study showed some were slated to be built on such slopes.
Resident Vince Johnson, who lives on Italy Hill Turnpike near a targeted turbine site, said he was worried about storm-water runoff from turbines — as well as noise and possible effect on spring-fed wells
Water runoff? Slopes? Noise? Wells? Hey – who wouldn’t want to have 20 story turbines booming away. But they are very very very very green!
So should local cities be able to throw roadblocks in the way of energy independence and Algore worship?
Aren’t you just so excited that the Energy Secretary announced spending another $34 million bucks we are borrowing from our great-grandchildren?
Colorado will get more than $34 million in federal stimulus money for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday.Of the total, $9.5 million will be used to expand the Renewable Energy Rebates and Grants Program, Chu said. The other $24.6 million will go to the State Energy Program.
I know that in the context of federal spending $34 million is peanuts, but take a minute to think about it. If you assume the average family in Colorado has an income of $50,000 that would mean that this is the equivalent of taking the entire working wage for a whole year of 680 families (assuming they actually netted $50,000) just to pay for this silly scheme. And what will it buy this wonderful $34 million?
“This funding will allow Colorado to make major investments in energy solutions that will strengthen America’s economy and create jobs at the state and local level,”
Without the political baloney please
Part of the money will be used for rebates that will reimburse homeowners for a portion of the cost of activities such as energy audits or the installation of attic insulation, air sealing, duct sealing, and high-efficiency furnace replacements.
Energy audits, insulation, and furnace replacements. Just how many furnace replacements will this buy? At $5000 per for the highly efficient ones they will subsidize – believe me I know since we were forced to replace our furnace – and assuming they took the entire $34 million and paid for the whole thing that would be 6800 furnaces! That would also assume none of this will go to the bureaucrats and bean counters and porn surfers in the state government. So at max 6800 homes affected in this way – with approximately 2 million total homes in the state. A whopping .34% of Colorado homes could be helped with your tax money!
What is that? People will replace their furnaces without government subsidies? Oh you silly goose. People would sit in the homes and freeze to death without the government coming and telling them that their furnace needed to be replaced.
But it isn’t all being spent on furnaces what about all those energy audits and insulation and duct tape – so that .34% overstates the impact a bit. And don’t forget that there’s much more:
It will also be used for incentives for residents and businesses that use onsite renewable energy technology, particularly home heating systems, and the state will also offer $400 rebates for the purchase and installation of efficient biomass-burning stoves that can make use of the state’s wood-pellet resource.
Biomass burning stoves? There is an EPA restriction on the whole of Denver that pretty much outlaws the burning of anything in order not to offend Mother Gaia, so Denver and its surrounding counties don’t get this lovely benefit. And I think the ecoFreaks consider the cutting of any tree as the equivalent of murder. But I know I want to get in line for my $400 stove subsidy. Well, except for the fact that putting it into my house would mean completely redoing the heating system and putting in a chimney and it would probably end up costing me thousands of dollars to actually get my $400 bucks. So I guess I will pass – as will anybody who actually has a brain and thinks will also do.
And there’s even more:
The money will also be used for programs to help state agencies, including public schools, reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. The state says it will promote greater energy efficiency in new and existing homes with programs such as a “whole house tune up” that bundles efficiency incentives.
Note that first sentence there – state agencies will use it. How they will use it is not specified, but it will be used I’m sure. But somehow you just know that when it comes time to actually account for how this money is used (and we all know that will happen when pigs develop the ability to levitate) all these wonderful audits, and insulation programs, and wood pellet stoves, and furnace replacements will be a drop in the ocean. This money is going to help keep your state government running and interfering in your life.
This isn’t about energy or carbon credits or anything. Its just a transfer of your federal tax dollars to the state government for them to pay people to run around piously proclaiming their green credentials. Aren’t you so glad your taxes are being used in this way? Because children unborn will be paying interest on this useless waste of money.
The Denver Depressing Newspaper had a column by Ed Quillan about the recent Town Hall held here in Colorado by King Barry I and a comment that was made by one of the questioners of His Messiahness:
“How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes . . . ? How can a company compete with that?”
Of course The Teleprompter-in-Chief had already given his example of Federal Express and UPS competing profitably with the Post Office – except the law is set that they cannot compete with the Post Office in delivering regular type mail directly to the public. Does anybody think that a) the Post Office will give up this monopoly in order to level the playing field? or b) that the Post Office would stand a chance if Fed Ex and UPS could really compete completely.
What you have with Fed Ex and UPS is a private company that can compete by offering a superior product (actual on-time delivery with the ability to track your packages, etc) which people will pay for in order to get the service they want. I’m sure Ed can remember the time when you were prevented (not that an option didn’t exist, it was against the law) from sending anything other than with the Post Office. And it was a drop off and pray that it might show up sometime and maybe would only be slightly crushed. Track your package? – hear the postal employees laugh at you.
Which is not to say the government can’t learn from competition. The Post Office does give you tracking and delivery times (well, within a day or two – not up to the level of a FedEx or UPS). Ed, do you think the PO would have done this on its own? <gales of laughter>
Then we move on to other examples from Ed:
Water: The cheapest bottled water I saw at the supermarket was the house brand at 99 cents per gallon. The Salida Municipal Utility Department delivers potable water to my kitchen for about 1/6 of a cent per gallon. Private water costs at least 600 times more than public.
So the public was taxed to put in place all the pipelines and infrastructure to deliver water to each house. And after all that fleecing is done, they can deliver water for 1/6 cent per gallon. Is the cost of all the infrastructure included in that price? No – its already paid for. Would any other water provider be given the right of way to install their own infrastructure to compete with what was already in place? Of course not.
So instead they compete on a different playing field – bottling the water, marketing it, transporting it, selling it, and making a profit. The fact that its water in both cases is not really comparing apples to apples. Now, if the Salida Water Department was willing to compete in bottling and marketing and selling their water – then you would be able to see if the public and private can co-exist. Again, my money would be on the private company wiping out the public one should that happen.
Education: Private schools (and home schooling) seem to compete just fine these days, despite all the tax support provided to public schools. Even my backwater county has two, one K-8 and the other K-12.
Here we start getting a little closer to a regular comparison, but there is one little issue. All those people sending their children to private school or doing it at home are FORCED to pay for the public schools that they don’t even use. How about rebating back all the property taxes that they must pay – or be sent to jail – and then see how the public and private areas compete? The public schools would go down the chute – or they would actually have to start educating their students instead of indoctrinating them in ecoNazism and Obama Worship. But I would expect that most of them would simply go out of business if they had to compete on a level playing field.
Transportation: In cities, private taxis, limousines and shuttle vans co-exist with public buses, subways and streetcars.
Again, the public buses, subways, and streetcars (I guess this means Denver light rail) forcibly extract money from everyone – even those who don’t use the buses, subways or streetcars. And then they provide horrible service, at inconvenient times, with an ever rising cost, and are continually complaining about how their budget is insufficient and even more must be beaten out of taxpayers. Most of these “services” are really just pension boondoggles that are run for the convenience of the unions and employees. Again, want to compete on a level playing field? Actually have the people who use these systems pay the full cost of what it would take to transport them back and forth?
Again, the private option if it could compete on a truely level playing field would wipe out “public” transportation. Which is why the government makes sure that a) the costs are hidden by spreading them to the huge number of people who don’t use the service and b) sets monopoly power to ensure there is not competition.
Electricity: Over the years, I have preferred dealing with private providers like Xcel, as opposed to municipal or co-op suppliers. Despite all those scary Reddy Kilowatt ads that I saw in my youth, warning that public power was Bolshevism or worse, the private electrical utilities appear to be thriving.
Can people in Salida actually choose between two different power providers? Can anybody in America? It would be interesting if people actually could choose between a government provider which was mandated to have 25% renewables and all the crap that keeps getting piled on electricity generators and a private company that just worked hard to get your electricity at the lowest price they could make a profit on. Again, want to be who wins?
But the whole false dicotomy set up here, is that in none of these examples mail, transportation, water, electricity is there the government mandate (i.e. do this or go to jail) that is in the health care bills. You MUST have health insurance or the IRS will deduct it out of your bank account. Your employer MUST provide health insurance that meets the standards of some government twit or they will be fined 8% of payroll costs.
The fact that they want to stack the deck so that almost all small businesses will just dump their private insurance and pay the 8% fine and have to leave their employees to the tender mercies of the benevolent government bureaucrats. And that they will then (later of course, the details always come later) tax the crap out of anybody who still has private insurance and force them into the public plan too.
We know that all of the “government” services couldn’t compete with the private sector without the playing field being stacked in the government’s favor. And we also know that the public health option will be exactly the same thing.
And putting the actual control of life and death in the hands of a government–any government–isn’t freedom. Its serfdom.
P.S. Being a good liberal Ed had to snark at the start and end of his article about the guy who asked the question:
The student, Zach Lahn, was an aide to state Sen. Greg Brophy, a Wray Republican, although he did not so identify himself.
Apparently only Democrat aides and plants and ACORN members get to identify themselves as they wish (and he is a college student), not Republicans. And then the lovely hit at religion:
To address Zach Lahn’s question, private companies do find profitable ways to compete with public options. Now here’s a question for him. On Twitter, he identifies himself as a “determined Christian conservative.” So where in the Bible does the Gospel-writer Luke, a physician, criticize Jesus for unfairly competing by healing a woman who “had suffered under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse,” as well as the blind, lame and leprous, all at no charge?
Jesus also didn’t demand that 50% of your money which is what we know “free” healthcare will cost us through the government. You know they are down to the bottom of the barrel when liberals start talking about Jesus. I mean as a positive thing.
Here’s an apparently award-winning ad campaign for the World Wildlife Fund:
If you can’t read the tagline up there it is:
“The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”
Absolutely no respect for the people who were trapped and had to choose between burning to death or jumping 105 floors down. No respect for all the firemen and policemen who responded and ended up crushed under tons of rubble. No respect for anything other than their trivialization of a major terrorist attack.
Thanks to AdFreak for noting this.
And if you’d like to tell the World Wildlife Fund what you think of their ad campaign, its http://www.wwf.org
Yeah, but shouldn’t the first clue of failure have been the very idea of building an 800 square-foot house in Troy, MI that cost $900,000 — that is, $1,125 per square foot? The median price of homes in Troy is about $159,000 and that’s for an 1,800 sq. ft home — about $88 per square foot.
Even if the solar system hadn’t malfunctioned, who in their right mind would consider the house a success?
I suppose it’s fitting that this tragi-comedy occurred in a place called Troy — the greens are trying to deceive us in adopting their nutty policies and goofy technologies with a Trojan House.
Beware of greens bearing grifts.
Every once in a while somebody in Europe actually has to confront reality. In this case, it is Sweden realizing that if they decommission all their nuclear power stations they will either a) freeze or b) open lots of nice coal-fired power plants. They have been able to pretend since 1980–when they first passed their law outlawing new nuclear power plants–that they will phase out all nuclear power plants. But now its coming down to the time when they are supposed to actually shut them down.
In 1980, Sweden was on the vanguard. In that year, a referendum passed calling for a ban on the construction of new nuclear reactors in the country and the ultimate phase out of existing reactors. It was a model that was eventually emulated by Germany and seen as the way of the future.
On Thursday, the country once again took a step into the future — by abandoning the ban on new nuclear power plants. Stockholm said the move was necessary to avoid energy sources that produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases. While Sweden has been a leader in developing alternative energy sources, they still have not been enough to completely replace nuclear power, which supplies half the country’s energy.
The new proposal, presented by the country’s center-right coalition, calls for the construction of new reactors as the old ones are taken out of service. Parliament will vote on the bill on March 17.
Its always interesting how the prospect of freezing to death concentrates the mind wonderfully. Of course, the ecoNazis are going ballistic:
The decision has angered the Swedish opposition as well as environmentalists around the world. “To rely on nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions,” Greenpeace spokeswoman Martina Kruger said, “is like smoking to lose weight. It’s not a good idea.”
There are no ideas from the ecoFreaks about how to replace 50% of your country’s energy (the amount now provided by nuclear power). Sweden subsidizes the ever-lovin’ snot out of every “renewable” energy source they can think of, and it only amounts to 14% of their energy use. And no matter how much the ecoCrazies yell, people still want things like electricity and heat and cars and food and medicine and all the things that are part of civilization today.
I have an idea. Perhaps they could breed lots and lots of little hamsters and then put them on cages and have them run around and around. And just connect generators to them and you will have non-nuclear power.