You could call it a hamstringing. You could call it a neutering. What ever you call it, the road this great country is heading down to combat the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public, i.e. anthropogenic global warming, will result in a mother lode of unintended consequences - or at least the largest set of UC's since President Johnson's Great Society.
Monday was the day that fate became apparent - when John McCain gave his speech here in Oregon on his planned global warming initiatives if he were President. So, now it can be known that whether we have a President McCain, a President Obama, or a President Clinton the country will be neutered, hamstrung, and the results will not be pretty.
Chris Horner over at Planet Gore gives excellent commentary of McCain's proposals:
McCain is wrong on temperatures, wrong on sea level rise (if the implication is that SLR has accelerated; surely he doesn’t mean we can stop the interglacial SLR), and anecdotal about the rest. And throughout his speech, the anecdotes are either exaggerated, inaccurate, or countered by equal and opposite anecdotal evidence.
Anthropogenic global warming will be proven to be a hoax over time, and indeed it already has - some just haven't gotten or refuse to receive that message. But, no matter. It wasn't about solving the so-called problem of anthropogenic global warming. That was just a means to an end. The end? Putting America and other bastions of free markets in their place. Kick them down a few notches. It was the triumph of guilt over common sense. It was about realizing the dream of a planned economy that dictates to its citizens how to live their lives.
Many who have drank this Kool-Aid will live to regret it. They will realize that Al Gore and his surrogates succeeded in snookering them into sacrificing their livelihood for.........what?
Showing posts with label Planet Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planet Gore. Show all posts
5/13/2008
3/20/2008
UW climatologist: "I'm willing to bet large sums of money that we will have a bottom in this cool period and we'll see the long-term trend again."
Here in Oregon it has been a cold winter with snow packs several feet above average in The Cascades. The Oregonian this morning had another masterful spin piece to soothe the worries of the local alarmists that this is just a temporary situation - stay tuned for more anthropogenic global warming.
Of course, the alarmists want global warming. They say they don't, but really, they do. Because, if anthropogenic global warming doesn't really happen, then they would look really foolish - and they really want to be able to say they told us so. Nevermind, that some perfect average cozy temperature is the supposed goal, right? Well, The FDC knows that's not the goal. The real goal is centralized planning of the use of all energy and emmissions, and the redistribution of the wealth to pay for it all. But I digress.
Anyway, Philip Mote is a climate scientist at the University of Washington quoted in today's Oregonian:
"If La Nina goes away and the long-term temperatures are still below average, I'll eat my hat."
We'd like to see that.
He went on to say:
"I'm willing to bet large sums of money that we will have a bottom in this cool period, and we'll see the long-term trend again."
Did you hear that Planet Gore? Did you hear that Rush Limbaugh? That sounds like a man who needs to put his money where his mouth is. This could be fun. El Rushbo would get his buddy Roy Spencer on board, and turn up the hype machine to 11.
Of course, the alarmists want global warming. They say they don't, but really, they do. Because, if anthropogenic global warming doesn't really happen, then they would look really foolish - and they really want to be able to say they told us so. Nevermind, that some perfect average cozy temperature is the supposed goal, right? Well, The FDC knows that's not the goal. The real goal is centralized planning of the use of all energy and emmissions, and the redistribution of the wealth to pay for it all. But I digress.
Anyway, Philip Mote is a climate scientist at the University of Washington quoted in today's Oregonian:
"If La Nina goes away and the long-term temperatures are still below average, I'll eat my hat."
We'd like to see that.
He went on to say:
"I'm willing to bet large sums of money that we will have a bottom in this cool period, and we'll see the long-term trend again."
Did you hear that Planet Gore? Did you hear that Rush Limbaugh? That sounds like a man who needs to put his money where his mouth is. This could be fun. El Rushbo would get his buddy Roy Spencer on board, and turn up the hype machine to 11.
3/13/2008
Al Gore & Big Green
Chris Horner over at Planet Gore:
"...Gore, who left office worth less than $3 million, had just plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” Mr. Gore and his advisors are savvy enough not to place all of his wealth in one fund, it seems — the same sources report this wealth as “well in excess of” $100 million. It’s been a good seven years. Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies."
Now, Gore is always trying to marginalize so-called "global warming deniers" by saying they are supposedly funded by Big Oil. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore trots out an old Upton Sinclair line:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, if his salary depends on him not understanding.”
Gore could have just as easily been talking about himself.
A reader over at Planet Gore makes the same point. Well, actually that reader was yours truly.
"...Gore, who left office worth less than $3 million, had just plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” Mr. Gore and his advisors are savvy enough not to place all of his wealth in one fund, it seems — the same sources report this wealth as “well in excess of” $100 million. It’s been a good seven years. Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies."
Now, Gore is always trying to marginalize so-called "global warming deniers" by saying they are supposedly funded by Big Oil. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore trots out an old Upton Sinclair line:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, if his salary depends on him not understanding.”
Gore could have just as easily been talking about himself.
A reader over at Planet Gore makes the same point. Well, actually that reader was yours truly.
3/03/2008
The Fallacy of Peak Oil
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Planet Gore: Peak Oil.
As The FDC is a student of Julian Simon as well as Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell , and have learned from these teachers that the theory of Peak Oil is...well, a bunch of hooey.
I suppose that there is some finite amount of oil in the earth, but from an economic standpoint that is totally irrelevant. The idea of Peak Oil and that someday the gasoline pumps will just run dry is a popular concept among those with a casual understanding of supply and demand. But, casual knowledge of supply and demand doesn’t cut it. Casual obeservers don’t quite understand the miraculous role that prices play in the supply and demand equation – not to mention the role prices play in the incentives created to go out and discover more oil when higher prices dictate that it is needed. Low oil prices will dictate that lots of oil is not discovered – yet. Just as I have no need to have a lifetime supply of groceries available to me at all times, the world doesn’t need to acually discover now a well there is no economic need for - yet. When will this unknown well be discovered? If you guessed when the Central Planning Committee decides we need it, move to the back of the class. If you guessed when prices dictate and create incentives for further oil exploration(AKA, the Invisible Hand), move the front of the class.
The grocery example again: I’ll probably need to buy some groceries to feed myself for the second week in May of 2023. Why don’t I go out and buy them now? The easy answer is that I don’t need them now, because I’ll go out and buy them when I need them in 15 years. Right now, I’ve made the rational decision to apply my monetary resources to other goods and services that I’ve deemed are more important to me and my family in the nearer future. The groceries that I’ll need 15 years and three months from now is irrelevant. I am, however, applying some of my resources to more long-term needs, i.e. my retirement and my kids college education – because that is not irrelevant even at this time. But, as far as my groceries are concerned, I’ll just keep buying them about a week or so before I need them. But, of course, if the store has a real good sale on some items that are not perishable, I’ll probably stock up. There’s that miracle of prices again. Oil supply isn’t much different.
As I said, a casual knowledge of supply and demand won’t cut it here – the Peak Oil nuts are just going to have to read a few serious economics books to wrap their brain around this concept.
Julian Simon:
More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.
A column by Nansen G. Salerit on tomorrow's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page agrees:
In fact, we are nowhere close to reaching a peak in global oil supplies.
Given a set of assumptions, forecasting the peak-oil-point -- defined as the onset of global production decline -- is a relatively trivial problem.
As The FDC is a student of Julian Simon as well as Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell , and have learned from these teachers that the theory of Peak Oil is...well, a bunch of hooey.
I suppose that there is some finite amount of oil in the earth, but from an economic standpoint that is totally irrelevant. The idea of Peak Oil and that someday the gasoline pumps will just run dry is a popular concept among those with a casual understanding of supply and demand. But, casual knowledge of supply and demand doesn’t cut it. Casual obeservers don’t quite understand the miraculous role that prices play in the supply and demand equation – not to mention the role prices play in the incentives created to go out and discover more oil when higher prices dictate that it is needed. Low oil prices will dictate that lots of oil is not discovered – yet. Just as I have no need to have a lifetime supply of groceries available to me at all times, the world doesn’t need to acually discover now a well there is no economic need for - yet. When will this unknown well be discovered? If you guessed when the Central Planning Committee decides we need it, move to the back of the class. If you guessed when prices dictate and create incentives for further oil exploration(AKA, the Invisible Hand), move the front of the class.
The grocery example again: I’ll probably need to buy some groceries to feed myself for the second week in May of 2023. Why don’t I go out and buy them now? The easy answer is that I don’t need them now, because I’ll go out and buy them when I need them in 15 years. Right now, I’ve made the rational decision to apply my monetary resources to other goods and services that I’ve deemed are more important to me and my family in the nearer future. The groceries that I’ll need 15 years and three months from now is irrelevant. I am, however, applying some of my resources to more long-term needs, i.e. my retirement and my kids college education – because that is not irrelevant even at this time. But, as far as my groceries are concerned, I’ll just keep buying them about a week or so before I need them. But, of course, if the store has a real good sale on some items that are not perishable, I’ll probably stock up. There’s that miracle of prices again. Oil supply isn’t much different.
As I said, a casual knowledge of supply and demand won’t cut it here – the Peak Oil nuts are just going to have to read a few serious economics books to wrap their brain around this concept.
Julian Simon:
More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.
A column by Nansen G. Salerit on tomorrow's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page agrees:
In fact, we are nowhere close to reaching a peak in global oil supplies.
Given a set of assumptions, forecasting the peak-oil-point -- defined as the onset of global production decline -- is a relatively trivial problem.
2/20/2008
"Readin', Writin', and Warmin'"
According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, a bill that would require that children be taught about global warming, and more importantly that it is caused by man, is "child-abuse".IBD:
"Turning our public schools into Gore re-education camps and sending children to bed thinking we're all going to die is child abuse."
The FDC agrees.
h/t: Planet Gore
2/01/2008
Oil is a "fossil fuel"? Maybe not.
The National Review's Planet Gore blog points out today that an article in this month's Science Magazine (which The FDC points out is a "peer-reviewed general-science journal"), shows that oil may not be made up of dead dinosaurs as most of us believed.Unbeknownst to many (excluding The FDC) there are two competing theories about how oil and natural gas is created:
- Biogenic (the "fossil fuel" theory): Oil is created by the compression and chemical changes in the remains of biological organisms over centuries or millenia.
- Abiogenic: Oil is created by chemical changes in carbon in the earth's mantle.
Although both theories have been around a long time, the biogenic theory became CW.
The Science Mag article concludes that:
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat."
This article will doubtless inspire more study, and if it is found to be fact will likely drastically change where oil exploration is taking place. The Peak Oil movement will be nervously looking on, and preparing their spin. The FDC believes that the Peak Oil theory is a bunch of hooey, and that subject will be covered here in future posts.
Who knows? Maybe an oil rig will be coming to your backyard, and help you send your kids to college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
