I can't think about the insanity of politics today. So instead, I choose to focus on all the favorite sweets in my life.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Sugar is sweet
and I want a LOT of it...
Mike & Ike - My all-time favorite snacker. Like jelly beans, but "jellier". Sweeter. Sour-er. Better shape. Convenient box.
MilkDuds - No other choice for watching a movie, and the ONLY candy worth paying $3.50 a single-serving box for. Chewy. Chocolate & caramel. What's not to like, except that they run out too soon?
Orange Slices - Mmmm. Large, fruity (if you get a good brand), chewy, granulated sugar on the outside, smooth and chewy on the inside. Shaped appropriately. Runner-up: multi-flavor fruit slices.
Sweet Tarts - Woefully misnamed. These little buggers are the bomb! A light dusting of sweetness on first sample, followed by a fruity explosion of tongue-curling sourness that keeps you coming back again and again! Small ones are best, because those gigantic Sweet Tarts get too messy to eat after a few nibbles.
Lik-em-ade - Basically powder-version of Sweet Tarts. This brand was in a paper pouch. Another version - Pixie Sticks - was packaged in thin paper straws. Both allow you to dump quantities of powdered Sweet Tarts directly on your toungue for a sweet/sour sensation. Beware - these are also messy.
Reisen - To die for. Chocolate nougats that start hard and gradually become chewy, and the chocolate keeps getting more intense. Buy a bag for yourself, and you will eat enough at one sitting to make you feel sick.
Candy Corn - I would have traded all the candy in my Halloween collection for Candy Corn, and often tried. What are they - just sugar? I don't know. Corn syrup, 3 colors, and you have to eat them one color at a time. First the white tip, then the orange middle, then the chocolate bottom.
Snickers - An angel visited the designer of this exquisit treat, and inspired the candy bar that will never be beat. Rumor has it that this candy bar may have been alien technology recovered from the Roswell UFO crash site...
Bit-O-Honey - Well, it will pull your fillings out, but it must be experienced. Peanut butter, honey, toffee. Another hard candy that turns chewy and juicy in your mouth, and keeps you reaching for more.
Hershey Kisses - Just good, solid, milk chocolate. Who could ask for anything more?
I may add to this list as I consider all the candy I enjoy. Feel free to add your favorites too.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Stop bailing and man the lifeboats
These were taken from:
http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=606
Production time per vehicle:
GM = 34.3 hours
Toyota= 27.9 hours
Average worker salary:
GM = $31.35 per hour
Toyota = $27 per hour
Health care cost per worker:
GM = $1525
Toyota = $201
Average hourly labor cost:
GM = $73.73
Toyota = $48
END OF CITED SOURCES
Even though GM outsold Toyota in the US in 2008 so far the cost per vehicle prevents GM from winning the economic war with its Eastern rival.
In the first 11 months of 2008 GM sold 2,734,789 cars in the US.
Toyota sold 2,075,709 cars in the same period.
GM sold 640,000 more cars than toyota.
Through September of 2008
Toyota posted $17 billion net income
GM posted $38 billion net loss
So what's our answer? Bail them out. Give them money.
Does anyone remember when Japanese cars first began to get really popular in the US in the 80's, and we were screaming about how unfair it was that the Japanese government subsidized the exports?
What is the real answer?
I suggest letting the market do its work. Will it hurt? Yes.
But as they say, no pain, no gain.
Socialism is not the answer - it is artificial propping up of unsustainable enterprise.
The pain and loss will only be greater in the future if we continue down Obama's road.
You heard my opinion from me first.
http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=606
Production time per vehicle:
GM = 34.3 hours
Toyota= 27.9 hours
Average worker salary:
GM = $31.35 per hour
Toyota = $27 per hour
Health care cost per worker:
GM = $1525
Toyota = $201
Average hourly labor cost:
GM = $73.73
Toyota = $48
END OF CITED SOURCES
Even though GM outsold Toyota in the US in 2008 so far the cost per vehicle prevents GM from winning the economic war with its Eastern rival.
In the first 11 months of 2008 GM sold 2,734,789 cars in the US.
Toyota sold 2,075,709 cars in the same period.
GM sold 640,000 more cars than toyota.
Through September of 2008
Toyota posted $17 billion net income
GM posted $38 billion net loss
So what's our answer? Bail them out. Give them money.
Does anyone remember when Japanese cars first began to get really popular in the US in the 80's, and we were screaming about how unfair it was that the Japanese government subsidized the exports?
What is the real answer?
I suggest letting the market do its work. Will it hurt? Yes.
But as they say, no pain, no gain.
Socialism is not the answer - it is artificial propping up of unsustainable enterprise.
The pain and loss will only be greater in the future if we continue down Obama's road.
You heard my opinion from me first.
Climate Derange
I lifted these quotes entirely from this site - if you want to be accused at all of having an open mind about this looming hoax, you should visit: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
END OF QUOTES
My daughter had a report for 8th grade on "climate change"
I was so disgusted with the text book - but proud of my daughter.
She wrote the expected garbage about the earth soon becoming a ball of fire with no life left on it except for polluting man, and then followed with a paragraph citing dissenting views with references from the scientific world. She couched it in terms of "some scientists disagree with the findings of the UN report..."
She may be a contributor rather than a herd animal in life yet.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
END OF QUOTES
My daughter had a report for 8th grade on "climate change"
I was so disgusted with the text book - but proud of my daughter.
She wrote the expected garbage about the earth soon becoming a ball of fire with no life left on it except for polluting man, and then followed with a paragraph citing dissenting views with references from the scientific world. She couched it in terms of "some scientists disagree with the findings of the UN report..."
She may be a contributor rather than a herd animal in life yet.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Let's have a depression
I think we're about due, don't you?
By now you should be living green, have an organic vegetable garden out back, use alternative transportation for everywhere you go, and be recycling every bit of man-made flotsam that you use.
The politicians keep screaming about the 'crisis' we are in, and the Democrats especially keep telling us it is the "worst economy since the great depression". Well, they have talked us into a self-fulfilling prophesy, with all their gloom and doom, so let's show them what it is really like.
Governments cannot beat the market. None ever has, and I believe that none ever will. Propping up airlines, car makers, banks, et. al, is just another version of the giant train wreck that WAS the Soviet economy, before they discovered capitalism.
Now we appear to have eagerly turned down that old, lame road. Last one to the cul-de-sac please turn out the lights.
If Americans don't want American cars, then there is no need for American carmakers. And let me be first in line to say "screw the labor unions". Take your collectively-bargained wages and pensions that priced you right out of the market and eat them. They will go great with the Kale that you are growing.
If some banks close, others will open. There is money out there, and for the right price, lenders will lend it. The government does not need our hard-earned tax dollars to prop up mismanaged banks.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go under, let them. They are NOT "too big to fail". They dealt in securities markets, badly, as it turns out. If the heaviest of players cannot determine what sensible investing is, then they have no right to continue trying to find out. Get your mortgage the old-fashioned way. Earn a bank's trust. Hold a job. Make timely payments. Only buy what you can afford. Buying a house because you are betting it will increase in value so you can sell it to cover your costs is a terribly risky idea, as so many have found out.
Yep - I think it is time for a hard economic lesson, and a full depression might be just the thing. To match the real deal, where stocks fell from 332 to 42 in '29, we will need to see our market decline to 1,755.
Next, we need job losses. LOTs of job losses. Not this piss-ant 10th of a point here and there, where unemployment "soars" from 5.5 to 5.7 percent. No, we're talking let's see almost half of us out of work. Let's go to 40 percent. If that happens, then a LOT of those high-earners we hate so much will be next to us in the soup lines. I for one, really want to see Bill Clinton trying to figure out how the hell you dig up a potato.
We can stop worrying about how we are going to afford that 72" flat screen, and start worrying about how we are going to feed our kids tonight.
We can stop complaining about global warming and start working to heat our homes through the winter, with wood, oil, or anything else that burns. Maybe our paper money.
We can stop trying to keep up with the Joneses and start looking after our own ass...er...sets.
We can actually GO hungry so we can stop bitching about how obese children in this country are "starving under our own noses".
And we can share a park bench with a homeless person, because many of us will be homelss. And we will quickly come to understand the difference between being in the street by choice and by necessity.
Yes, I think a depression is exactly what we need. And from the ashes of all the liberal crap ideas we have been force-fed during the last hapless century and the dawn of the current one, perhaps will rise once again a moral, hard-working, self-sufficient, competitive, and self-governing society.
As they often say: No pain, no gain.
By now you should be living green, have an organic vegetable garden out back, use alternative transportation for everywhere you go, and be recycling every bit of man-made flotsam that you use.
The politicians keep screaming about the 'crisis' we are in, and the Democrats especially keep telling us it is the "worst economy since the great depression". Well, they have talked us into a self-fulfilling prophesy, with all their gloom and doom, so let's show them what it is really like.
Governments cannot beat the market. None ever has, and I believe that none ever will. Propping up airlines, car makers, banks, et. al, is just another version of the giant train wreck that WAS the Soviet economy, before they discovered capitalism.
Now we appear to have eagerly turned down that old, lame road. Last one to the cul-de-sac please turn out the lights.
If Americans don't want American cars, then there is no need for American carmakers. And let me be first in line to say "screw the labor unions". Take your collectively-bargained wages and pensions that priced you right out of the market and eat them. They will go great with the Kale that you are growing.
If some banks close, others will open. There is money out there, and for the right price, lenders will lend it. The government does not need our hard-earned tax dollars to prop up mismanaged banks.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go under, let them. They are NOT "too big to fail". They dealt in securities markets, badly, as it turns out. If the heaviest of players cannot determine what sensible investing is, then they have no right to continue trying to find out. Get your mortgage the old-fashioned way. Earn a bank's trust. Hold a job. Make timely payments. Only buy what you can afford. Buying a house because you are betting it will increase in value so you can sell it to cover your costs is a terribly risky idea, as so many have found out.
Yep - I think it is time for a hard economic lesson, and a full depression might be just the thing. To match the real deal, where stocks fell from 332 to 42 in '29, we will need to see our market decline to 1,755.
Next, we need job losses. LOTs of job losses. Not this piss-ant 10th of a point here and there, where unemployment "soars" from 5.5 to 5.7 percent. No, we're talking let's see almost half of us out of work. Let's go to 40 percent. If that happens, then a LOT of those high-earners we hate so much will be next to us in the soup lines. I for one, really want to see Bill Clinton trying to figure out how the hell you dig up a potato.
We can stop worrying about how we are going to afford that 72" flat screen, and start worrying about how we are going to feed our kids tonight.
We can stop complaining about global warming and start working to heat our homes through the winter, with wood, oil, or anything else that burns. Maybe our paper money.
We can stop trying to keep up with the Joneses and start looking after our own ass...er...sets.
We can actually GO hungry so we can stop bitching about how obese children in this country are "starving under our own noses".
And we can share a park bench with a homeless person, because many of us will be homelss. And we will quickly come to understand the difference between being in the street by choice and by necessity.
Yes, I think a depression is exactly what we need. And from the ashes of all the liberal crap ideas we have been force-fed during the last hapless century and the dawn of the current one, perhaps will rise once again a moral, hard-working, self-sufficient, competitive, and self-governing society.
As they often say: No pain, no gain.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
America is no more
Today we welcome the transformation to a Marxist society.
It's the change we voted for.
It's been a wonderful experiment for 200 years, this "freedom" thing.
But reality had to take hold sometime. It's far better to be protected by the state than to actually have to exercise personal responsibility.
Now I just need to get on this gravy train and demand my share. It's only fair, right?
It's the change we voted for.
It's been a wonderful experiment for 200 years, this "freedom" thing.
But reality had to take hold sometime. It's far better to be protected by the state than to actually have to exercise personal responsibility.
Now I just need to get on this gravy train and demand my share. It's only fair, right?
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Crash
OK folks, this one is short.
I thought the economy was in the toilet. I thought the crash had come. I thought the bottom fell out, and that we were entering the next Great Depression.
I guess all these things may yet come to pass.
But to gain perspective, I looked back at conditions during the first Great Depression.
The market fell from a high of 333 to a low of 42.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=19281023,20081023;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Unemployment reached 25 percent at its peak.
http://www.thegreatdepression.co.uk/unemployment-during-the-great-depression/
Today the market would have to go down to 1,754 to reach an equivalent decline.
Unemployment is hovering around 6 percent. I remember 8 1/2 percent under famed Democrat Jimmy Carter. That wasn't so long ago, now was it?
Well now that we are about to put a true Marxist into office and majority support for him into both houses of Congress, we shall finally see what a red America will look like.
I can't wait, can you?
I thought the economy was in the toilet. I thought the crash had come. I thought the bottom fell out, and that we were entering the next Great Depression.
I guess all these things may yet come to pass.
But to gain perspective, I looked back at conditions during the first Great Depression.
The market fell from a high of 333 to a low of 42.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=19281023,20081023;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Unemployment reached 25 percent at its peak.
http://www.thegreatdepression.co.uk/unemployment-during-the-great-depression/
Today the market would have to go down to 1,754 to reach an equivalent decline.
Unemployment is hovering around 6 percent. I remember 8 1/2 percent under famed Democrat Jimmy Carter. That wasn't so long ago, now was it?
Well now that we are about to put a true Marxist into office and majority support for him into both houses of Congress, we shall finally see what a red America will look like.
I can't wait, can you?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Global Warming Anti-Science
Hello all,
I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.
For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:
A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?
B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?
C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?
F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.
For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?
G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."
The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."
U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.
If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.
I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.
For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:
A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?
B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?
C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?
F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.
For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?
G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."
The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."
U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.
If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
