Electricity kills animals

At least when done right, as Tim Blair explains:

The New York Times reports the latest evidence of green child abuse, following several recent cases:

The children are all too familiar with the apocalyptic warnings of climate change. “A lot of people are going to die” from global warming, a 9-year-old girl from Harlem announced at one point. And a 7-year-old boy from Park Slope said with a quiet lisp, “When you use too much electricity, it kills animals.”

Well, it does if you hook up the electrodes right.

Carbon Credits... um... not have much credit?

Found an interesting article regarding Carbon credit offsets, and some quick digging led to some very unsurprising though bad news. Seems that carbon credits aren't all they're cracked up to be, do little to actually help the so called carbon dioxide crisis, and that companies who invest in carbon credits are doing so in a high risk, unregulated market. Sounds like some shady business practices afoot. You can guarantee that if this was another business the government would be all over this to nail down those who do it.

read more, here.

Hat tip: Instapundit
Hat tip: Newsbusters

I can't remember why I voted for him.....

Well, well and truly into Arnie's 2nd term and I really have to say I've lost any and all respect for his work as the governator after he's declared that the state will sue the EPA for not acting on the request to allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. While I'm no fan of the EPA of federalism, this practice of suing it so that California gets to regulate an unproven theory the earth going through a warming trend is foolish, and a very bad use of state funds. He's pulled quite a few environmental headline grabbers lately, and I'm wondering if he's always been this way and hidden it, or he's flipped on the environmental agenda. His agenda was to clean up the fiscal mess of California, and bring it back to a well run state. Last I heard it was still in a big mess.

Global Warming... eh, Climate Change hype

In looking for research regarding how the world has been variable and climate has changed for millennia of years, I found this article that talks about how many important data are ignored when it comes to the IPCC's little black book. In short it discusses the possibility that there might be a bigger play in the universe that causes global warming. The Sun. Really, that big mass of constant nuclear fusion creating incomprehensible heat might have more of an effect on global warming than a small insignificant amount of a gas that's a natural byproduct of life on a planet.

Excerpt:

"So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago."

Read the whole thing, here.

Gore Vs. Reality

We're finding a little more skepticism now, or at least calls to calm down a bit to the right environmental Reverend Al Gore, some even saying that the shrill voice of calamity is muddying the waters and not helping matters.

Excerpt:

(The IPCC) estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

(emphasis and insert added)

Read the whole thing, here.

More, here.

and, here.

A scientific petition with 17,000 signatures against Gore's claim of disaster, here.

We're being swindled

Update: Google video moved it, but you have to go through other sites to find it. See it here

Update: Google video has mysteriously disappeared. sorry. I don't know why.

I've been agreeing with the above statement for years, in regards to global warming. What I was reading in the news, and seeing on TV, and seeing on the internet did not add up. The more I looked, the worse it got. I watched this last night, and it answered a lot of questions. Funnily enough, it even said things I'd begun to observe, but I really don't think it has caught on yet, namely that Environmentalism is becoming a religion. Some people even compare Al Gore to Jesus Christ. I'm not even going to go there on the extreme issues with that one. If you can find a way to watch the documentary, watch it. It's very good. Even Patrick Moore, Co founder of GreenPeace, speaks out against it, saying that environmentalism has been flooded with extreme left pro Marxist anti capitalist poltitical activists who learned how to use green language to their advantage. When people like that talk, I start to listen.
Google video, here.

Anyone else worried?

I've been worried for some time that the IPCC's latest report, due out soon, will cause a serious power frenzy by the higher ups. It's begun, and my sentiment is mirrored exactly here. We need to start uniting togther to stop the frenzy from getting further along. Any ideas on what we can do?

I Love Cars

I often get criticized for my views on cars, driving, fuel prices, engine size, fuel mileage, but my views on it are far from based on ignorance. I've often seen trends, and views, and gone to see whether they were true or not. When I was in high school, I took auto shop, and we were asked to present a report on alternative fuel vehicles, and at the time, living in California, Electric cars were the big push by the media and "greenies". My report ended up being in favor of conventional cars, for many reasons, and if anyone asks, I will post them, but this post isn't the right time. I ran across this today, and it really illustrated the falsities of the "conventional" wisdom that gets bandied around the media.

I've always believed that America has a love affair with the car, and that is proven by the fact that there are vast amounts of improvements, upgrades and the like to customize your car practically indefinitly. Living in the UK, a supposed "green" country, with laws to try and "encourage" public transit and get people out of cars, driving is basically catching up to US levels, and customizing and modifications have caught on in a big way. Not like these, where the US essentially dominates, but what I like to call the "boy racer" scene, with many mods also being made to family cars, like the Ford Mondeo, with even a big site dedicated to the car.

This has shown that cars are still the preferred method of travel, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to discover why. It's fast, cheap, easy, and direct to your door. With that in mind, why shouldn't we drive? The article I linked to shows the top 5 myths in regards to pollution and how we're destroying the world. I agree with pretty much every point, and it reflects my own observations in the world.

I especially liked the last point, in regards to what the real impact of driving less means. In the past 10 years I've seen environmentalism shift from a concern for the environment to how much power and influence can they wield. The driving less cars issue, with the resultant burning less fuel issue fails simply because it'd implausible. In myth 5 the author talks about how we would be better off dealing with the effects of global warming (which will most likely be far less severe than scientists have claimed).

This becomes a valid argument because:
A: Global warming will not stop or slow down because we burn less fuel.
B: Developing countries such as China and India would destroy their fragile economies, and that would not be good because historically it is countries with strong economies that have the most environmentally sound policies. In short, they can afford it.
C: If those economies did collapse, any environmental gain would be lost due to billions of people being totally unconcerned for the environment because they are worried about their very survival, though I am sure some people would enjoy that.
D :The solution to bring the world out of the crisis of global warming is to bring the countries who create the most pollution into a stable and positive economy that cares about the envrionment and has the spare cash to do so.

The result of artificially jacking up fuel prices through taxes, and raising the cost of using a car to horrifically high levels does nothing but increase the gap between rich and poor. The poor can't afford a car and are forced to use expensive, inefficient and dirty public transport, and the rich sit happy in their luxury cars burning fuel that they can afford to burn. The real squeeze ends up on the middle class, essentially forcing them to sacrifice other things to run increasingly expensive basic vehicles. And as has been seen in Britain, the amount of cars on the road is rising, not due to a disregard for the environment, but becasue the standard of living is rising and they can afford it. Which basically shows that when we can afford to pay for environmentalism, we are willing to do so.

Which begs the question, what's a better way to spend the funds raised as a result of the increased cost of awareness? Is it through spending in government with no oversight (through high fuel and road taxes) ? Or is it better to funnel the money through private companies who make use of environmental laws to create companies, jobs, and ultimately, a much cleaner and safer environment. I vote the latter.