Saturday, December 5, 2009

Jon Stewart On Climategate

Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 12:34 PM
Wesley J. Smith

It’s sad when Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel does the MSM’s job.  Climategate is a huge and growing scandal, and yet many outlets continue to pretend it is just powdered sugar, while the NYT won’t even report what was in the e-mails based on “policy” (even though it linked directly to the stolen Sarah Palin e-mails).   But Jon Stewart sees clearly that catastrophic has been done to the cause of global warming hysteria.


  1. Of course he had to make sure to make fun of the people who were skeptics. Even though it appears the skeptics had legitimate concerns.

  2. Such a predictable response from the rabid right that want to destroy the planet.

    Actually, what you have is a scientist, Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing thing to do -- I'd go so far as to call it unethical -- and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector -- have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate (I'd include some of the graphics from An Inconvenient Truth in this category, FWIW.)

    But let's be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself. Again, I'm not trying to excuse what he did -- we make a lot of charts here and 538 and make every effort to ensure that they fairly and accurately reflect the underlying data (in addition to being aesthetically appealing.) I wish everybody would abide by that standard.

    Still: I don't know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger. And yet that's literally what some of these bloggers are saying!

    Incidentally, 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th warmest year on record, according to the conspiracists at NASA.

    I suppose NASA is in on the conspiracy too? (I'm being sarcastic, for those of you on this blog that don't know what sarcasm is.)

  3. You are such a sucker Bruce. This must piss you off to no end. You bought into this sham hook line and sinker with all the money you spent on your electric Prius and all. Just ignore the fact that the science used is fake and the planet has actually been in a 9 yr cooling stage. How do you account for that Bruce? I think you just like to spin everything instead of useing Occams Razor. I did a post on Occams razor if anyone doesn't know what it is. Just ask yourself why did all those scientist feel the need to lie about their science? And how much more is out there that we don't know yet. It looks like Europe is getting to the bottom of it without Obamas help. Bruce don't forget the fact that Al Gore the idiots movie is a lie and has been proven to be a lie. And NASA used much of the lieing science in their data. So Bruce quoting other liars doesn't make it true. The liberal house of card(lies) is falling down fast and hard and that is why there are fewer and fewer libewrals posting on this and others blogs. They can't keep covering up for the emocratic party. So keep licking the windows for your answers if you think man made global warming is real. Keep hiding the facts for your dumb ideaology. Bruce do you still think the earth is flat?

  4. Bruce Lib Scientist are like all LIBS, FACTS is just "Inconvenient Truth" but You guys keep on TRYING!

    Iv said this Before Bruce but to those LIB scientists if the FACTS dont FIT you must OMIT!

    India has already said that with out Aide basicly from US they aint BUYING into that Cap and Trade you guys are Selling. China aint buying it either and Copenagen is begining to look like just another PHOTO OP for Nobama.

    I say let the Congressioal Hearing begin into WHAT the Actual Facts are and who be doing all that Magicial Data CHANGING!

  5. I'm all for the hearings too. Then we can shoot down this bullshit faster and we can get on with saving the planet from idiots like you conservatards.

  6. Bruce - Stop stealing. I started the Epic Fail, and you copied me on Pannebecker's blog. Now you are stealing the libertard. Can't you come up with anything original? Lame-O.

    Idiot Bruce, polar bear populations are GROWING, the largest ice field in the world (90% of the ice, 70% of the fresh water in the WORLD) is actually GROWING, and the warmest years on record? Here ya go dipshit:

    According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

    Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

  7. And now, since you bring up NASA, you friggin idiot, here ya go!

    We have our own data buriers at NASA.

    Christopher C. Horner, global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Lies, and Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, appeared on Thursday’s Hannity show to discuss the Climategate scandal.

    Horner and Hannity discussed, among other things, Horner’s Intent to File Suit notices on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he is a senior fellow, prepared in response to NASA’s stonewalling for nearly three years on releasing documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies.

    This information, the ongoing research for which we pay with our taxes, should be a matter of public record. It has influenced the Kyoto Protocol, Cap-and-Trade legislation, efforts by the EPA to regulate emissions, and will likely influence the upcoming Copenhagen conference. Public and international policy has for years been based largely on this data. We deserve to know the basis for these policies.

    Furthermore, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which conducts the climate change studies) is directly implicated in the CRU scandal, as employee Gavin A. Schmidt runs the Tides Foundation-funded Environmental Media Services‘ blog, whose purpose is to defend Michael Mann’s debunked and defrauded “hockey stick” model of global warming. (You knew there just had to be a Soros angle, didn’t you?)

    In addition, we have yet to receive an explanation as to why the GISS has repeatedly had to correct its data going back to the 1930s. Steve McIntyre of caught GISS head and Al Gore crony James Hansen red-handed manipulating data last year to claim that October 2008 (a perfectly average month, climate-wise) was the hottest on record, forcing him to revise it. In 2007, Hansen claimed that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record and had to “revise” his data not once, but twice. Last January, Hansen was busted just flat-out making up numbers.

    The GISS responded to Horner yesterday in the Washington Times, saying that NASA has no idea why they have taken nearly three years to not even fulfill Horner’s FOIA request and that they have not even heard about the ClimateGate scandal. (Gregg Knapp at Big Government calls this the “Sgt. Schultz defense.”)

    Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner’s request, though he couldn’t say why they have taken so long.

    “We’re collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests,” Mr. Hess said. “It’s just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that’s responsive.”

    He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn’t say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data.

    Bruce, send in your extra tax dollars to fight global warming you idiot. Just make the check out to Al Gore, I know he'll cash it.

  8. Liberal's narcissism knows no bounds. They think they can control a whole PLANET'S weather?!!? But only with your tax dollars of course.

    (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
    A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

    A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

    Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

    However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

    Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

    The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

    Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
    Don't Miss

    * Briefing: Climate change
    * Paying for climate justice
    * University of Illinois

    "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

    "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

    However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

    "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

    "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran

  10. John, last time I checked 97 is bigger than 3.

    Break-in targets climate scientist

    New incident raises fears of a smear campaign

    Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

    In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

    "The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security.

    Fears of further attacks by climate-change deniers have also put Copenhagen delegates under increased pressure to reach a comprehensive deal to limit carbon emissions, with Britain's chief negotiator, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband, warning last week that there was no certainty that a deal would be reached. "We need to have our foot on the gas all the time," he said on Thursday. "We should not be complacent about getting a deal." It was crucial that Britain, and Europe, showed ambition in setting an agenda for a tough, binding agreement and not let the efforts of climate sceptics derail negotiations, he added. "Our children will hold us in contempt if we fail now."

    Analysts say the key to success at Copenhagen would be the establishment of a treaty in which developed countries agree to make major carbon emission cuts while developing nations make lesser, but nevertheless significant reductions of their own. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that the world's output of CO2 begins to decline by 2020. If this is not achieved, temperatures will rise by more than 2C and take the world into uncontrollable global warming.

    In addition, the Copenhagen summit will also have to establish a mechanism by which the west will pledge to pay billions of pounds in aid to the developing world to introduce renewable technologies and other climate-control measures. So far, there is little sign of rapprochement, particularly over the issue of cash aid from developed countries.

    "Rich nations tell us they are going to Copenhagen to seal a deal, but we say not an unfair deal. We will never give way," said Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed, Sudan's ambassador to the UN. Bangladesh's senior delegate was equally robust, describing the $10bn so far offered by the west as "peanuts".

    However, there was more encouraging news last week when India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, announced he would attend the summit, joining Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama on the final day of the meeting. India is the world's fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has just pledged to cut its carbon emissions by 20-25% by 2020. India had previously been reluctant to commit itself to carbon cuts. Singh's new stance suggests his country is now prepared to be more co-operative.

  11. Chris,
    funny you should mention doing a news organizations job. Stewart's been doing Faux News job for a while.

  12. Bruce Mother Nature will DO 100% of the Time what SHE wants,I DONT beleive shes A LIB!

    JoeC thanks for that Info On Stewart being on FOX,Now I will watch HIM!

  13. Bruce you are like a parrot. bwaaaack save the planet bwaaaaack the world is coming to an end and only liberals can save it bwaaaaaaaaack

  14. Bruce you keep bringing up old news and you forget the fact that the science is FALSE. I know it must be hard when you find out your ideaology is stupid. And that is why your idealogy is the fringe at under 20%. And you libs have made it imposable to get our own natural resorces. If this "Climategate" proves this is all BS then we better start tapping intop our natural gas and oil reserves.

  15. JoeC you do know that if Cap and Tax goes through that will hurt the Big3. Ford truck division wont be very big. The cost to manufacture and just do business will be harmed like no other recession in history. He gave to the unions and then he took away. And now it points to outright fraud. Shamefull. The Democrats are wiping out the middle class with every new tax they add.


    Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. “Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC. In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down.

  17. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.” The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick“; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

  18. This isn't my analysis, but it lays out the facts pretty clearly.

    [Let's assume there is no man-made component to global warming. I'm not saying there isn't, there is still a strong case to address the economic issues of our dependence on fossil fuels.]

    First off, let's consider the economics of our fossil fuel dependence. According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2008 we imported (net of exports) $351 billion worth of crude oil, $37 billion of refined petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.), and $26 billion worth of natural gas. We also exported about about $4 billion worth of coal and coal coke, for a total net fossil fuel trade deficit of $410 billion in 2008. This compares to a merchandise trade deficit for the United States of $821 billion in 2008. In other words, the fossil fuel trade deficit makes up almost exactly half the entire U.S. trade deficit. To put it another way, if we imported no oil and natural gas, our net trade deficit in 2008 would have fallen from $821 billion to just over $400 billion.

    What could we have done with that extra $400 billion in our pockets? [UPDATE: I'm well aware that the economics of this are more complicated; the following is simply illustrative of the scope of what we're spending, and it doesn't even get at the costs of oil related wars - trillions of dollars plus thousands of lives - or global warming] Well, we could have just given every man, woman and child in this country about $1,300. Not too shabby. Or, we could have taken just one fifth of that money - and remember, we'd save it every single year - and paid for high-quality health care for all Americans, including a robust public option tied to Medicare rates (the current Senate health care bill costs $849 billion over 10 years, or $84 billion per year). Or, we could have spent about 2% of that money and started building ourselves a national "clean energy smart grid" (cost: about $8 billion per year over 20 years), allowing us to " use long-distance, extra-high-voltage transmission lines to move remote clean-energy resources to power load centers" while saving ourselves the $100 billion per year we lose because of blackouts and other existing power grid problems. Or, we could have given each of 15.4 million unemployed people in this country a $27,000 per year job (or half of them a $54,000 per year job). Or, we could have nearly funded the entire Department of Defense (2010 budget: $671 billion). Or, we could have paid for the Departments of Education ($47 billion), Transportation ($73 billion), Health and Human Services ($77 billion), Veterans Affairs ($56 billion), Homeland Security ($43 billion), State and other international programs ($52 billion), Energy ($26 billion) plus NASA ($19 billion), and still had $7 billion left over to pay for the National Science Foundation.,-George-Will,-What-If-There-IS-No-Global-Warming

  19. Bruce I must be getting OLD and am not as Educated as YOU cause after Reading your POST several times CLEARLY is not there But that could be just little OLE me!

  20. Drill here drill now baby. It is because of you liberal environmentalist that we couldn't drill here now. According to this new admin CO2 is bad. They really do look like a bunch of lunatics saying the world is ending. And Gore says we all must do what he doesn't.POS. At least Bruce put his money where his mouth is and made an electric Prius and his wifes '91 Buick

  21. From Dr. Roy Spencer
    Climatologist, former NASA Scientist

    December 4th, 2009
    It has been two weeks since Climategate revealed that some of the IPCC’s leading researchers have conspired to manipulate temperature data, hide data from other researchers, and bully those scientists who do not agree with them by interfering with the peer review process.

    (If you haven’t heard about Climategate, it might be because you are still watching ABC, CBS, or NBC. Google ‘Climategate’, though, and you will get 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 web page matches.)

    Supporters have claimed that there is nothing to see there…that the Climategate e-mails released to the world by a whistleblower just show how scientists normally work. This is a particularly bad strategy, and the public knows it. Scientists do NOT behave this way…at least not in my world.

    Others have claimed that a few bad apples do not spoil the whole IPCC barrel. Well, if it wasn’t for the fact that these are the core people who gave us the primary thermometer evidence of 20th Century warming (Phil Jones), and the Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction which conveniently did away with the previous 10 or more centuries of natural climate change (Michael Mann), I might be inclined to agree with them.

    I will admit that it seems unlikely (but not impossible) that a reanalysis of the thermometer data will lead to a much reduced rate of warming in recent decades. But my bigger concern is that the “it’s-OK-to-fudge” attitude pervades the entire IPCC apparatus.

    These e-mails are from the observational side of the IPCC, that is, the research into temperature observations of the past. What I am more concerned about, though, is the manipulation of climate models, which are used to predict the future state of the climate system. Computer models are much easier to manipulate than real data, and one can get just about any answer one wants out of them.

    Now that we have seen that the temperature observation guys ‘wanted’ to get a certain result, it is reasonable to wonder whether the modelers are also incentivized to produce particular results. I’m sure the hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into global warming research – money that would dry up if the threat evaporated — has not influenced their objectivity.

    end of part one

  22. Dr. Roy Spencer part 2

    Now, trillions of dollars in global warming legislation are riding upon these model ‘black boxes’ that relatively few people understand the inner workings of. The models are so complex, with many adjustable parameters which have no known true values, that it is unlikely that they can ever be replicated by other researchers. In case you hadn’t heard, reproducibility is a basic requirement of scientific research.

    The IPCC has gotten around this problem by relying upon many modeling groups running different climate models. The presumption is that the full range of warming estimates produced by 20 different climate models would surely bound the ‘truth’, that is, the true amount of warming that will occur for a given amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions. But do these models really bound the problem?

    I’ve been reminded recently that in science you really can not prove any hypothesis to be true; you can only prove a hypothesis false. How does this help us when it comes to model predictions of future warming? Well, if we can not prove whether a model that produces 2, or 4, or 6 deg. C of warming is correct…can we prove whether a model that produces only 0.5 deg. C of warming is false?

    If we build a model that produces very little warming – less than that produced by any of the IPCC models – is that model any less realistic in its behavior than the models that produce a lot of warming? In other words, how do we know that the IPCC models really do bound the problem? I suspect that one or more modeling groups have already done this, but the IPCC leadership probably nixed the idea of letting the public find out about it.

    Maybe there is a disgruntled modeler out there who is now willing to spill the beans, just as happened with the Climategate emails. We can call it Climategate II.

    Of course, the IPCC turns the argument around, and shows us a few models which produce huge amounts of warming. But as I’ve said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a couple of their models suggest it is theoretically possible to have catastrophic warming, should I be any more concerned than, say, the possibility that a new particle accelerator used by nuclear physicists will suddenly cause the Earth to explode?

    While it would be easy to simply not build or use the particle accelerator, it is much more difficult to reduce global fossil fuel use by, say, 50% or more.

    In the wake of Climategate, I fully expect a renewed IPCC assault on our common sense using the climate models as their ultimate climate ‘truth’. It will be claimed that the observations involved in Climategate aren’t important anyway…it’s the computer models that are telling us what the future will be.
    Yeah, right.

  23. Climategate is taking global warming theories back to being just a theory and without all the urgency. I remember when all Bruced talked about was the end of the world if we didn't stop. God is in charge dumby.

  24. More Evidence on Why Ethanol Really IS More Than Just Hype, It's "Dangerous, Delusional Bullshit"

    From the NY Times article "U.S. Unlikely to Use the Ethanol Congress Ordered":

    Two years ago, Congress ordered the nation’s gasoline refiners to do something that is turning out to be mathematically impossible. To please the farm lobby and to help wean the nation off oil, Congress mandated that refiners blend a rising volume of ethanol and other biofuels into gasoline. They are supposed to use at least 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, up from less than seven billion gallons in 2007.

    But nobody at the time counted on fuel demand falling in the United States, which is what has happened during the recession (see chart above, data here). And that decline could well continue, as cars become more efficient under other recent government mandates.

    At the maximum allowable blend, in which gasoline at the pump contains 10 percent ethanol, updated projections suggest that the country is unlikely to be able to use all the ethanol that Congress has ordered up. So something has to give. “The market is full,” said Jeff Broin, chief executive of Poet, a company in Sioux Falls, S.D., that produces ethanol.

    When Congress wrote the rules, in 2007, gasoline consumption had been growing for years, and it looked as if the nation would be able to use considerably more ethanol in the future. Gasoline consumption hit a peak of 3.4 billion barrels that year (see chart above). But gasoline demand fell in 2008, after soaring gas prices early in the year were followed by the economic crisis. Consumption was slightly less than 3.3 billion barrels last year, and it could end 2009 at about the same level. With consumers buying more fuel-efficient cars these days, and carmakers rushing to bring even more of those to market, gasoline demand may not recover much in coming years, even as ethanol production soars.

    MP: As I have said before: Anytime you have prominent left-wing economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman agreeing that "demon ethanol" is a "scam" with such a diverse group as the Wall Street Journal, Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, Investor's Business Daily, Rolling Stone Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, John Stossel, The Ecological Society of America, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, George Will and Time Magazine, you know that ethanol has to be one of the most misguided public policies in U.S. history.

    From RollingStone Magazine in August 2007:

    Ethanol is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5% of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World.

    So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time.

  25. Obama Photo Op Air Brushed -- Without PhotoShop

    Posted by The MaryHunter at December 6, 2009 9:57 AM

    Dear Leader Barack Obama, never one to turn down a chance to use his despised military for a photo op, may have offended our armed services more than usual:

    When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

    "White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

    The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day.

    "It's one thing to be against further production; quite another to slight the folks who are flying them in the operational world," one source said, adding that "the F-15 pictured was put into service roughly around the same period when Obama graduated from college. It's vintage."

    Whether or not you agree with the need for additional F-22s, the insult to those brave pilots who fly them every day can't help but cause further ripples of disgust among the military for this anti-military president. It's doubtful that he will ever learn that the United States Armed Forces are NOT to be trifled with.

  26. Climate Change Propogandistic Lockstep, Delusions of Intellectural Adequacy, and Messiah Complexes

    Never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject [climate change].

    A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."

    The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

    Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

    Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

  27. Econ 101: Why Peak Oil is Peak Idiocy

    Related to these two recent CD posts about peak oil and how we never run out of natural resources, Mike Munger provides some excellent commentary on his KPC post "Peak Idiocy":

    Of all the idiotic things that people believe, the whole "peak oil" thing has to be right up there. It is literally impossible for us to run out of oil. We have never run out of anything, and we never will.

    If we did start to use up the oil we have (though, counting shale oil, we still haven't used even 10% of the total KNOWN reserves on earth, and there are lots of places we haven't looked) but suppose we were on our way to using it up. Three things would happen.

    1. Prices would rise, causing people to cut back on use. More fuel effcient cars, better insulation on houses, etc. Quantity demanded goes down.

    2. Prices would rise, causing people to look for more. And they would find more oil, and more ways to get at it. Quantity supplied goes up.

    3. Prices of oil would rise, making the search for substitutes more profitable. At that point (though not now!) alternative fuels and energy sources would be economical, and would not require gubmint subsidies, because they would pay for themselves. The supply curve for substitutes shifts downward and to the right.

    This is Econ 101.

  28. Now if only those fake news networks would actually cover the news. No wonder why everyone is turning off ABC,NBC,CNN and the other communist networks.

  29. Chris, i understand that Cap and trade has the potential to hurt the company i work for. I haven't chosen a side in that debate, and don't know if i will. I believe roughly in climate change and i believe in anthropogenic climate change, but to what extent i am unsure. I am not a tree hugger.

    While i am not a tree hugger i can't side with the standard thoughtless drill baby drill talking points. there's issues here and they need to be investigated outside of the partisan hack jobs that proliferate the blogs.

  30. That sounds senseable JoeC. At the least we are back at grown zero when it comes to predicting climate change let alone control it. I think it will kill the Big 3 or at best make them all government motors. I think Ford has the best shot at picking up market share and do well in the global market. If Ford does well the UAW does well. Don't hate the hand that feeds you so well. Love it and see if that helps make it grow.

  31. JoeC don't you just hate those "partisan hack jobsthat proliferate the blogs"? Every one of them is a left leaning blame Bush blog. But JoeC have comfort knowing that the right blogs are growing in numbers and readers that surpass those left wing

  32. My god, you cant side with drill here drill now crowd?
    What the hell is so wrong with that?
    Are you from the Pelosi camp who thinks it better to let other countries to drill and use their recources to supply us than to do it ourselves?????
    Sounds like the same logic by lefty loons who tell us everything about living is eventually going to cause us to die and we may as well just end it know.
    I swear you people are insane!!!!!

  33. Wow, Alot of articles posted here? Why not expressed opinion regarding the fraud?

  34. Guess what? Climate-gate is a hoax itself.

    You've been had, Chris. This does deserve investigation, but it's not the conspiracy that you are making it out to be.

  35. Ok Bruce you got us. Some guy with a acsent made a video that says "Climategate" was a fake. Never mind the investigations into this by numerous countries excluding ours. Do you think this $trillion$ to be made on this scam are just going to run and hide or fight back? So what Bruce is saying is that we shouldn't look at the 900lbs. Gorilla in the room just look at his flea. The Golbal Warming House Of Cards Hoax is falling and Bruce thinks he and some dope on youtube will save it for the ailing Democratic Party. Bruce you are no different then the scientist. You are looking for data to support your belief while at the same time throwing away piles of data to get to it.I bet Bruce is praying for the first time in his life. Now we must ask why do the Democrats want this Cap and Tax. It isn't for the environment because even Al Gore wont change his lifestyle for it. We all know it is for the $MONEY$ they will make. And MONEY is power. The Democrats don't hate guns,freedom and Capitalism. They just want to be the only ones with them.

  36. Bruce Lets have those Investigation in Congress and see whats WHAT. The TRUTH will prevail and thats all WE ask!The word FRAUD involved in a World Wide study is a little disconcerning and WE must find out the Truthful Numbers and what was Changed! Man its COLD today!

    Tax and Trade SHOULD be DOA now and Copenhagen will make GREAT Photo OP for Nobama but Congress AINT going to act on it,because some will LOSE their seats in 2010 as it is and MORE will if this BILL even came to the Floor! Almost looks like Nobama is not ONLY after the Country as we KNOW it BUT might also be TRYING to get RID of the Democratic Party,but NOT his LIB AGENDA which evidently is all he is Concerned about.

  37. Chris, lol...I don't read the hacks on either side brother. the same people bitching about "Blame Bush" were the same hacks "Blaming Clinton". It still happens today.

    lol..portraying it as only lefties is disingenuous, brother. I still remember the Black helicopter crowds at Free republic during Clintons term.

  38. Al and Chris, I'm all for an investigation. I'm sure it will show that global wamring is real and needs to be dealt with.

    But ask yourself this question, even it global warming weren't real, the worst that can happen is we wean ourselves off oil, make our country more secure in the process, grow our economy with green jobs and save the planet.

    If you're wrong, and we do nothing, which I presume is your plan, as usual, hundreds of millions of people die.

    I choose the former over the latter scenario.

  39. Joe buddy you are way too sensative. Did you miss the lol? I was being sarcatic because I know you blame the right for everything.

  40. Bruce how can you be "sure it will show that global wamring is real and needs to be dealt with" when we don't know what is fact and what is fiction. You don't believe is God but you do believe in man made climate change? All the "proof" needs to be looked at again to find out the truth. But you believe. Once again proof that liberalism is a religion.

  41. Bruce and his flat earth millions of people will die theory based on fake evidence. Bruce do you still believe aliens are on this planet after finding out that War Of The Words was a fake? What is going to kill these "hundreds of millions of people"? We know it aint global warming since we are in a 9 year global cool down stage. Why are you pushing so hard for this "Climategate"? Are you pushing for the Tax so that you don't look like and evironmental fearmonger? Bruce how much of your own wealth are you willing to bet that there is global warming and that we are the cause? Put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is. How much are you willing to bet that global warming is real and man made? The money can go to a charity.

  42. Oh, Chris, because I believe in science and the science is good.

    I do believe in god. Liberalism is NOT a religion, just a way of believing in the world.

  43. The December 2007 issue of International Journal of Climatology has a comparing available climate data with the models used by the IPCC for dire predictions of global warming:

    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    As put by Dr. Fred S. Singer, a co-author of the study:

    “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

    "The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.

    "In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface­ and thus the climate.

    "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."

    Forrest M. Mims III reports on a talk given at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, 3-5 March 2006, by a University of Texas evolutionary biologist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka. "One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, 'What good are you?' Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, 'We're no better than bacteria!' ... Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. ... Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets. AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, 'We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.' With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious."

    A Tech Central Station article here interviews 3 top experts on meteorology and hurricanes, who unanimously conclude that global warming has no relationship to the number of hurricanes or their intensity.

    A CNN article here describes how the FBI sees a new threat: "The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement," said John Lewis, an FBI deputy assistant director and top official in charge of domestic terrorism.

  44. Science magazine published a blatantly false report (N. Oreskes (2004),"The scientific consensus on climate change", Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004) purporting to show, via literature search engine, a unanimous support for man-made global climate change. Science refused to publish this letter , showing the complete falsity of the claim (and using the same search method.)
    "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

    —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

    —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

    "I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (source: "Mother Nature as a hothouse flower," Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22, 1989, p. 10.)

    —David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

  45. Bruce - Your quoted article said: "The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role ...

    "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

    "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran"

    Well Bruce, I would expect those people to agree 100% that global warming in anthropomorphic. Without that claim, where are their grants?!?! That is the problem with you libertard "tree-huggers" as Joey so eloquently put it. Those people get their big $$$ from pushing AGW. They make a claim, the sky is falling the sky is falling, and then they create their science to back up their theories. This AGW is your religion Bruce. NASA and CRU are your churches, and people like Mann and Jones are your priests.

    Bruce, I too believe science can be good, but science can be twisted just like religion. These people are preventing others from reviewing their data, among other things, just telling you to "trust them". Well I don't trust you libertards any further than I can throw you (let me mention here that I have two blown rotator cuffs). You are total suckers. Thank God we have people willing to speak truth to power and try to shut down this boondoggle.

    Bruce, need I remind you that back in the 70's you idiot libertards thought we would have glaciers bearing down on us by this decade? I'm sure the debate was over on that one too. Stupid stupid stupid.

  46. Oh, Bruce, what climate do you think is perfect for us? Because it's going to affect other climates, we all can't be Maui you know. In fact, they used to grow wine grapes in England; think we should get the ol' climate back to there? Then you'd better put away your Prius and start driving an old beater truck that gets 10 mpg. Idiot.

    And by the way, I'm all for less emissions. I enjoy the great outdoors as much or more than anyone. But government cannot force it. You and Jenny G. can claim your green jobs until the cows come home, but it's all a load of B.S. Just like MJ and Freeman's comments show.

    Boy Bruce, you are a true sucker. Did you see who Al Gore has on his team to write this cap and tax boondoggle? BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... and now Obama is going to make two huge CARBON FOOTPRINT-MAKING trips; one to pick up his Nobel War Prize and back, and then another trip, what, a week later?, to Copenhagen for the Climate Boondoggle! Maybe he'll plant a tree to cover it. Or maybe us taxpayers will foot the bill for some carbon tax credits from Al Gore. I can save B.O. some $$, here is a site where you can get FREE carbon credits!

    It's great, I already got a bunch so that I can just pump gasoline directly onto the ground and then light a match. I would encourage everyone to do their part to save the world and print these out. Check out the FAQ's if you have any questions.

  47. bruce needs to learn how to properly use the shift key on his keyboard - capitalizing liberalism and NOT capitalizing God.

    So, from now on, if you see me reference bruce in any of my posts, and his name is capitalized, know that it is a typo.

    And remember, the fact that liberal is an anagram of braille is not an accident.

  48. Global warming is a convenient way for liberals to practice racism under the guise of science. Making sure the large percentage of Africans who do not enjoy the benefits of electricity remain that way.

  49. Craven, I really don't care whether you capitalize my name or not.

    You folks are out of touch with reality. I just don't know how you sleep at night.

    Wow, you really have to go some to connect electricity and racism. Actually, Africa could benefit from solar energy. You want to build polluting power plants in Africa. That's what I thought.

  50. The Copenhagen Circle Jerk 2009 has begun.

    Using 1200 limos, 140 private jets it is estimated that the conference will have the same carbon footprint as the yearly output of 60 underdeveloped countries - COMBINED.

  51. bruce, the US could benefit from nuclear power, but you liberals want no part of that clean, proven technology. So it is not really about saving the planet, is it?

  52. Craven - You are spot-on. Just like the liberals shut down DDT so hundreds of millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa could have the privilege of dying from malaria. Now the same liberals want to shut down proven cheap energy in those same countries. Give 'em some solar panels, that's Bruce's answer. What a total MORON.

  53. Craven, they can't make money of of natural gas or nuclear power. Remember how they hate capitalism. They make their money off of carbon credits,wind,solar,wave,geothermal energy.

  54. Bruce If Climate Change is a HOAKS when do we START Drilling in OUR Country for OIL? When do WE Start with NUCLEAR Energy as a Primary Fuel Source! LIBS answer will be Windmills and Solar Energy! BOTH have been around for a while and what is there COST Benifit over Coal,Oil and Nuclear Energy!

    If there is NO Climate change Bruce what will we be saving OUR Planet from? I beleive LIBS is the Answer.How can we make OUR Country more Secure than by HAVING OUR Own Stateside Energy Producers. Green JOBS sounds GOOD but I was under the Impression that other Counties that have GONE GREEN have actually LOST jobs in the Proccess!

  55. Al, if nuclear power didn't produce nuclear waste, I'd be all for it. We still haven't figured what to do with the waste and no one wants it in their backyard. If you will take all the waste in your backyard, I'm all for it.

    Show me the source for other countries that are more advance in alternative energy losing jobs. And don't cite Rush Limbaugh or some other source that is just not credible.

    Green Jobs could spark explosive growth

    Green jobs are real and closed auto plants all over Michigan are being converted to manufacturing plants for windmill parts, etc.

    Nuclear energy is not cheap and it is getting more expensive in order to build safe plants that won't cause cataclysmic problems.

    Liberals do not hate capitalism, as long as it is well regulated to protect consumers.


    The "green jobs" hoax has been a fiasco wherever governments have tried to implement it. Most recently, the German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung has published a report titled Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience. The report is well worth reading in its entirety. It points out that the "green jobs" that have been created through government subsidies are more than offset by the inefficiency of the resulting energy production:

    While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers' overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

    I have often written that no government can create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient production of energy. The German think tank puts it in more official language:

    Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred.

    The "green jobs" that have been produced in Germany are almost unbelievably expensive:

    In the end, Germany's PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

    The think tank also evaluated the claim that subsidizing "green jobs" is good because it leads to innovation:

    Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany's first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.

    Because the "green jobs" produced by government subsidies are absurdly inefficient--as noted above, up to $240,000 per job!--the report says that should subsidies be ended, nearly all of them would quickly disappear. There is one hope, though--the United States might be dumb enough to take this inefficient energy production off the German government's hands:

    It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany's export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

    The Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung's conclusion is sobering:

    Although Germany's promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a "shining example in providing a harvest for the world" (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country's experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.

    The facts, of course, won't deter the Obama administration from making the subsidization of massively inefficient energy production a centerpiece of its economic policy. The effect will be to impoverish us all.

  57. Spain’s green jobs boondoggle

    By Michelle Malkin • April 13, 2009

    Ay caramba. Look what the green job boondoggle in Spain bodes for the porkulus green jobs here in the U.S. Confirmation of what we already knew, but extremely useful nonetheless:

    Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

    President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

    But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

    “Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.

  58. "Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) ‘green jobs' policies ... Spain has created a surprisingly low number of jobs."

    "Since 2000 Spain has spent €571,138 ($800K) to create each ‘green job', including subsidies of more than €1million ($1.4million) per wind industry job."

    "The programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy or 2.2. jobs destroyed for every ‘green job' created."

    "Each ‘green' megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics (solar), 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro."

    The report also notes that according to Spain's energy regulator, "The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31 percent to repay the historic debt generated by the subsidies to renewables."

    The report cites key examples of resulting "massive unemployment, loss of capital, dismantlement of productive facilities and perpetuation of inefficient ones" the direct result of, "the arbitrary, state-established price systems inherent in ‘green energy' schemes." The report concludes, "Policymakers must recognize that because of government action, other jobs are not created." And, most significantly for international consumption, "These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain's approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources."

    President Obama maintains his planned 5 million new jobs will cost the taxpayer $30,000 per job. Bad enough, we might think. But The Center for American Progress, whose CEO headed-up Obama's transition team, calculates it would take government spending of $100 billion to create 2 million green jobs. That's a cost to the taxpayer of $50,000 to create a single "green job". The Apollo Alliance, whose founder served on Obama's campaign, calculates it would take $500 billion to create 5 million jobs. That's a mere $100,000 per green job created.

    Worrying about others "surging ahead" no longer matters once you realize it's along the fast-track to economic suicide. Green jobs? It's not good for the economy, stupid.

  59. Bruce - Your articles are pie-in-the-sky. Let me know when you are ready to join us here in the REAL world.

    Oh, and you liberals DO hate capitalism. Do you forget your Michael Moore's movie so soon!?!? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... God Bruce, you really ARE dumb as a box of rocks.

    Not to mention, you want the government to take over the health care industry. You have admitted it. If that isn't hating capitalism, I don't know what is. You think the government can do it better than capitalism. Admit it! Or at least tell me what is so bad about Cuba. After all, Cuba is your ideal, right? If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. You love their health care system, you love wealth-redistribution... what isn't to love about Cuba in your mind?

  60. Green Jobs: Fast-tracking Economic Suicide
    By Michael Economides and Peter Glover

    Creating ex nihilo -- literally, out of nothing -- used to be a theological concept, God's prerogative. Today it seems, President Barack Obama and certain Western politicians claim to possess the ability to do it. Against all the laws of economics and the marketplace, they believe they can create millions of ‘green' real jobs, out of thin air, or at least air without carbon dioxide, via cap and trade.

    If Obama & Co. were to remove their green-tinted glasses for just a moment and take a long hard look at the European experience they profess to cite as ‘proven', they would discover those glasses have been rose-tinted all along.

    The basic assumption is that technology per se generates jobs. Mostly, it does not. Rather, technology enables jobs -- real and sustainable jobs -- based on how useful the technology is to the marketplace. To generate real industrial jobs, however, one needs a basic commodity to trade, and in the energy business this has meant oil, gas or coal. Yet ‘green' politicians and eco-lobbyists expect to create a revolution in green jobs based on ... alternative energy sources. The trouble is that alternative energy sources remain and will continue to be appallingly inefficient, offering a very poor to mostly negative return on investment. Cut off the flow of massive public subsidies and the alternative energy industrial revolution would grind to a halt tomorrow -- as the European experience already bears out.

    What the EU experience shows is that for every green job created per installed MW power, a real job is destroyed elsewhere in the economy. Not to mention, it aids the reduction of competitiveness, investment in expansion and, ultimately, promotes the relocation of major companies to countries without draconian carbon regimes that cause energy price hikes.

    It's a shame that members of the US Congress that voted for the recent Cap and Trade Climate Bill did not bother to check up on the economic realities which are causing European states to back away from expensive alternative energy commitments and the ‘green job' creation schemes associated with them by inserting all manner of substance-emptying ‘get-out' clauses into EU cap and trade plans.

    Germany's Angela Merkel has already insisted on major exemptions for German heavy industry come December's ‘definitive' global climate summit in Copenhagen. Bizarrely, for a so-called ‘Green Chancellor', Merkel's government is also supporting the building of 26 new coal-fired power plants across Germany. Hardly the domestic agenda of a low-carbon ‘green jobs' economy. Italy also rocked the EU climate boat by insisting on exemptions for its own energy-intensive industries at the turn of the year. Most significantly, it is an exemption that requires the EU to renegotiate Europe's entire climate policy after the UN summit in December -- effectively, giving Italy a veto. A veto it will use if, as expected, China and India and others exempt themselves from binding targets. In June, deputy head of Poland's Solidarity trade union, Jaroslaw Grzesik, estimated that the EU's climate policy would cost 800,000 European jobs. The think-tank Open Europe has already estimated that the same policies will cost the UK $9 billion a year, leaving an extra 1 million people in fuel poverty by 2020.

  61. Bruce, if they were such a great idea it would have occurred NATURALLY via our capitalist system. It wouldn't need the government to subsidize and keep subsidizing to nurse it along.

    I noticed you are all big for windmills. Guess you wouldn't mind throwing one of those up in your backyard. Like Teddy Kennedy, who was all gung-ho for windpower, as long as it wasn't located 6 miles off the coast of his house. Seems they spoiled the view for the richie-rich sailboaters. Or then there was the Democrat Senator, I forget her name but I can look it up if you like, who was all for solar power unless it was put in a desert in her part of town, then she was against it. Can you believe that, some DESERT, the best place for solar power, and she was against it?!?!

    You are the biggest bunch of HYPOCRITES I have EVER seen. You should just change the name of your party from Democrats to Hypocrats.

  62. John Thanks for all those References!

    Bruce Yes I have NO problem with Nuclear Power waste being NEAR if Private Sector is Allowed to Refine it and Make it Safe. The Wasted time we have spent on the Windmills of your MIND and Solar Power would have been better SPENT on Nuclear Power,cause it IS going to COST a BOAT load MORE now. We spent to much Time/Money waiting for WIND and SUN!

    Bruce we have such a WEALTH of Natural Resourses in this COUNTRY and yet WE Depend on Middle East oil for a large portion of OUR Energy and Eventually they will CUT us Off and then What Bruce Windmill/Solar Furnaces. Im just kidding Bruce I dont think Government would fund something like that DO you?


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.