Monday, December 7, 2009

We are All Polluters, Now!

Did you know that with every breath you take, you are polluting? Yup. It's true. It used to be cow flatulence, and now the United States Environmental Protection Agency is tossing around the idea of recognizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

From today's Wall Street Journal, via wsj.com:

An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.


The Copenhagen climate nazis can't do jack, so we'll stifle our own economy even further in the midst of a crippling recession that is in all actuality bordering on a full-on depression. Genius, I tell you... Genius!

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding.


How about never, you clueless twit?

The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.


Oh, I see. Like the science taking place at the University of East Anglia. Thank you, Anyonymous EPA Spokeswoman, for putting my mind at ease.

Also from the wsj.com article:

The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.

At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.

"There is no agreement without money," says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. "That is clear."


So the worst "polluters" aren't even going to be expected to cripple their own economies first!

In the end, virtually all of the people peddling this so-called "science" have a vested monetary interest in keeping it going. Phill Jones was awarded 13 million British pounds in research grants as recently as December 3 of this year. I haven't been able to find anything recent on the Goracle's shenanigans, but maybe that's because the media has virtually blacked-out Al Gore's ties to blatantly fraudlent cap-and-trade schemes at least as far back as 2007. For the uninitiated, Gore buys his "carbon offsets" from a company he has a vested financial interest in. Put another way, he buys his offsets from himself. Money talks, and I can't discuss what walks in a family blog.

This whole sick sad deception exists to make money for the insiders like Jones and Gore who ought to know better. While they live it up, they have every intention of bleeding the rest of us dry.

Copenhagen is a joke! I have every intention to keep right on enjoying my life. I also intend to keep on exhaling CO2, but that's sort of a biological imperative.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Tools in the News

This week's tool in the news commuted the lengthy 108 year sentence of violent felon Maurice Clemmons. Clemmons was shot dead today, but not before his parole -- made possible by his commuted sentence -- afforded him an opportunity to commit numerous other violent felonies, including child rape and the shooting deaths of four police officers in Seattle, WA.

Mike Huckabee's supporters have been awfully quick to point out that Clemmons was 16 when he was originally sentenced. These are by-and-large the same folks who cry foul at the prosecutor's failure to object to the original commutation (although stories vary in the telling as to his objection to the parole board proceedings).

Ladies and gentlemen, a sixteen-year-old is just as capable of committing violent crime as a fifty-six-year-old is. When Huckabee speaks as though the system failed, he conveniently leaves out the fact that he was part of that system on which most of Maurice Clemmons' crimes hinged.

No one is suggesting that Huckabee "foretell the future." I simply believe that if Huckabee hadn't known that he was opening the door to parole of a violent felonious psychopath, he had failed in one of his most elementary duties as governor: Ensuring the safety of his people.

Neither is anyone suggesting that Huckabee be held criminally liable for this tragedy. Clemmons was ultimately held responsible for his own actions in his own death, and the worst Huckabee will criminally or civilly have to contend with is the death of his political career. That's a lot less than the families of those four slain police officers in Seattle lost.

Phil Jones = Toast

From The Associated Press, dateline London:

Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.


And from The UK Telegraph:

Prof Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he "absolutely" stands by the science produced by the centre - and that suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were "complete rubbish."

He said he would stand aside as director until the completion of the independent review, which is being conducted in the wake of the allegations by climate "sceptics".


To coin a turn-of-phrase, let me be clear: Phil Jones lied. We can not say with scientific certainty what man's influence on worldwide climate is, but you can take it to the bank that Jones doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us do.

Real science depends on four things: Hypothesis, controlled experimentation, definitive conclusion, and repetition. You throw "consensus" into the mix, and it ceases to be science. By any objective measure, you simply can't do controlled experimentation with computer models because they must be programmed, and ergo can not account for random variables. Without that controlled experimentation, your conclusion can not be scientifically definitive. Of course you wouldn't want repetition in the form of "peer review" because you would become a scientific laughingstock. What are we left with? A hypothesis. The conclusion becomes "definitive" before any sort of experimentation is done.

To coin another turn of phrase, Phil Jones just got toally pwned.