Give Us More Global Warming

Bio-Fuel and Global Hunger

Bob Marshall is not the only official that recognizes the increase of food prices is directly related to the mandate for bio-fuel. The UN of all places has been reported in the British news service the Telegraph that it will lead to world hunger.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.

The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.

This of course is in contrast to their programs that support bio-fuel as the answer to global warming.

Likewise, combustion of fossil fuels can lead to outdoor air pollution, acidification of land and water and emissions of greenhouse gases. In all these cases, the environmental damage and its harmful effects can be reduced by increasing energy efficiency, introducing modern technologies for energy production and use, substituting cleaner fuels for polluting fuels, and introducing renewable energy.
814 World Health
Organization. 2002.
The World Health Report
2002. Geneva.

Is it any wonder that people are skeptical of the whole global warming nonsense? While Our political leaders are all stumping for ethanol while standing in the way of oil field production and refining capacity the rest of us have to suffer the unintended consequences of their ignorance.

The New York Times of all places has an article that reveals how some politicians are waking up to the problem yet lack the backbone to do anything about it.

Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he had come to realize that Congress made a mistake in backing biofuels, not anticipating the impact on food costs. He said Congress needed to reconsider its policy, though he acknowledged that would be difficult.

"If there was a secret vote, there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing," he said.

Nit wits such as Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and Ron Litterer, President of the National Corn Growers Association pass off the complaints as scapegoating despite the fact that farmers have decreased the acreage of other crops to plant additional corn acreage to take advantage of the dramatic upward move in the price for corn because of the new demand. Unlike oil, bio-fuel is subject to the real possibility of wide spread crop failure from drought and flooding.

The government has conducted the war on poverty only to see generations of families trapped in the welfare rolls. It instituted public education and millions of parents have to put their children in homeschool or privet school to ensure they get a real education. It punishes companies that move jobs overseas while letting tens of millions of foreigners to work here illegally. Now they are promising energy independence by driving the cost of everything including fuel to levels never seen before. Bob Marshall is not the only one who knows that bio-fuel is doing more harm than good but he seems to be one of the only one who holds public office that can see the damage that politics is causing the citizens.







Technorati tags
Politics, Virginia, Economics, UN, Environment,

More help from Washington DC

Today we live under the curse Plato warned of.

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."

Congress has passed an energy bill that will ban the incandescent light bulb by 2014. They great sages of Washington who brought us toilets that almost flush, compact cars that almost survive a collision and protected wetlands that are almost wet now want to make us use light bulbs that almost light a room. They have decided that those squiggly CFL bulbs that give off a weak unnatural light are just the thing for our homes.

I shouldn't complain. They do save on energy just like the toilets we have to flush twice save water. It will decrease our dependence on foreign oil just like the ethanol that is produced from corn, and has caused the cost of all foods to increase.

No mention of the problems of disposing of these silly looking things that contain mercury. They are not toxic until you break five of them according to Dr. David Ray, from the University of Nottingham.

"Mercury accumulates in the body – especially the brain," Dr. David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, told the BBC. "The biggest danger is repeated exposure – a one off exposure is not as potentially dangerous compared to working in a light bulb factory.

"If you smash one bulb then that is not too much of a hazard. However, if you broke five bulbs in a small unventilated room then you might be in short term danger."

"I don't think it makes them dangerous to the domestic user. They just have to take some reasonable precautions if they happen to break one."

Lightbulbs containing mercury should be disposed of separately from the rest of the household waste, in the same way as batteries containing mercury, and should not be incinerated, he added.

Great, so how many bins do we have to separate our trash into now? Didn't they ban lead paint because it accumulated in the brain? That is not the best part. Just like with asbestos, when people start to get sick the lawyers will pile on and the politicians will get all indignant. Laws and lawsuits will cost us all dearly.

Maybe the next thing will be a health care system that almost gives us health care.

Just think of the money we will save.






Technorati tags
Economics, Politics, Global_warming, oil,

The Environmentalists are Winning

We are about to become toast because of global warming. Not because the temperature will fry us but because the cost of paying for it will. The hysteria has overcome enough people that the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is willing to sue the EPA because they have not come up with the regulations on greenhouse gases or allowed the State of California to make them up themselves. The Governor is in a panic. He feels if something isn't done now the planet will explode or some such thing. On the same day as this the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, weighed in on the subject.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

Just like with the "War on Poverty" and "Preserving Wetlands" we have politicians picking our pockets to pay for something that is better left alone. We have dumped Trillions of dollars in fighting poverty and reaped a whole underclass of people who for generations known nothing but government checks. Yet compared to most of the world our "poor" enjoy a greater standard of living. Huge tracts of land have been protected from development or even from any use at all to save wetlands, i.e. swamps, to protest the environment yet these same swamps generate the very methane that the global warming gurus are claiming are causing the climate change! The fact is they have no more clue about greenhouse gases and their effect on the environment than they do about any other subject.

Let John Colemen sum up what is going on here.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

Sorry to say but his words will fall on deaf ears. There is nothing that will stop the fear mongers and politicians from making a good living at our expense.







Technorati tags
Global_warming, politics, California, Economics

Nobel PeaCe Prize

How does making a movie about global warming advance peace or improve the lot of humanity?

It doesn't. Just like I'm hard pressed to find any justification for Yasser Arafat as a recipient. Take a look at the list. Kofi Annan?
where on God's earth has anyone at the NU brought peace? Last I checked
they show up and stand around while everyone gets killed.

It is of no consequence. The Nobel committee has been handing out gifts to their ideological fiends for the last couple of decades trying to convince the rest of us they they matter. Like the Oscars, Globes and Emmy's the Nobel's are a joke.

The Nobel PC Prize. Do you think anyone would notice the change?

Czech President Calls Global Warming What It IS

Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, has put the issue of global warming into perspective in a concise manner.

Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Read more at the Drudge report.








Technorati tags
Global_warming, Economics, politics