February 2010

CNN says it’s so, so it must be true. Good move by Palin.

My wife and I fit the profile of classic liberals: Urban, Educated, Professional, Opera lovers etc etc.

But we are NRA members. And Tea Party patriots.  We were there in DC on 9/12/2009.

When Sarah speaks, she’ll be speaking for us.

There is a theory going around that doomed Democrats in the house will support Obamacare to leave a legacy, even though they know they will lose their seats. Assuming they haven’t received offers they can’t refuse from the Chicago thugocracy (aka the Obama administration), would they still walk the plank? I suspect not. Politicians have more lives than cats, but only if they don’t commit suicide. A Democrat in a swing state has a chance of coming back in two year’s time if their GOP competitor screws up. But having a vote for Obamacare MK II on your record would be a killer for any Democrat.

Facebook is her weapon of choice. She doesn’t mince her words:

The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controlsThat’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.

Unlike really smart columnists in the Washington Post, Palin sprinkles her Facebook posts with links to MSM articles that confirm her points. That’s the sort of thing bloggers do;  it is just so distracting. It practically invites the reader to check her work.

The AGW case continues to implode. The problem for the AGW alarmists is the fact that all their “settled science” is being unsettled. There is also the PR problem of trying to explain to the common folk that the world is heating catastrophically when residents in all 49 continental states are still digging out from under record snow falls. Meanwhile, giant energy corporations continue to pander to the AGW alarmists.

Here’s Exxon on climate change:

With increased global energy demand, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by an average of 1 percent per year through the year 2030. As was recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting the enormous energy demand growth and managing the risk of GHG emissions are the twin challenges of our time.

We all must engage in the search for solutions if we are to succeed at mitigating these risks. Progress can be achieved through climate change policy frameworks that enable countries to pursue economic progress while promoting the development of technologies necessary to generate and use energy more efficiently. As the largest publicly traded international energy company, the energy ExxonMobil produces meets 2 percent of the world’s needs. We share the responsibility to take action with scientists, citizens, and governments around the world and are doing so in several substantive ways. Over the years, we have supported major climate research projects, and we contribute to an array of public policy organizations that research and promote discussion on climate change and other domestic and international issues.

Priority issues
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations as well as from energy use by consumers.

Policy Engagement. Help shape energy policies that support long-range thinking, encourage long-term investment, and allow for an integrated set of solutions.

Flare Reduction. Employ a combination of technology, processes, and engagement with host governments to address operational and regional barriers to natural gas flaring reduction.

Hint to Exxon. Taking the IPCC seriously exposes you to ridicule. Every alarmist claim made by the IPCC has proven to be ridiculous. You end up looking like the drug companies that lined with Obamacare, only to see proposed legislation that screwed them, followed by said legislation going down in flames.

Here’s Shell Oil, taking an IPCC member seriously, because the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize:

Q: Is this year’s extreme rainfall in many parts of the world a sign that climate change has begun?

A: Yes, climate change is happening. Our latest report confirms that. Temperatures have gone up, rainfall on average has increased. There is a simple explanation. When the atmosphere gets warmer there is more moisture and more “moisture turnover”, with more cloud formation and rainfall as a result. This does not mean that there is more rainfall everywhere. Weather patterns are changing, and in some places it is getting dryer instead of wetter. But there’s no doubt that climate change has begun.

Q:   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its fourth Assessment Report this year. What is its most important message?

A: As far as the report on mitigation is concerned, the message is two-fold. We have become more optimistic that mankind possesses the technologies to greatly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and limit climate change, but we have become more pessimistic about the time left to do that. Once CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere they don’t disappear quickly. There’s an accumulation of gases. At this moment our emissions are continually increasing, so the amount in the atmosphere is increasing as well. To stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we have to reduce our emissions very steeply. The lower we want to keep the level of greenhouse gases, the earlier this steep reduction has to happen.

Q:   At which level should the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere stabilise?

A: Of course it depends on what level of climate change you think is acceptable. That’s a political decision. The latest scientific insights are that a doubling of greenhouse gas levels compared to levels before the industrial revolution would lead to a temperature rise of approximately 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). That is more than we had assumed in earlier reports. At that level of warming many negative impacts can be expected, such as droughts, flooding, loss of ecosystems, coastal erosion and flooding, declining productivity of food crops, and the effects on health.

The European Union has repeatedly stated that the global temperature should not rise by more than 2˚C (3.6˚F), given the risks of climate change. Today, the temperature is already 0.7˚C (1.3˚F) above pre-industrial revolution times. So the 2˚C is a very stringent goal, and while some countries and non-governmental organisations support that goal, other countries don’t support it because they think it is not feasible. But if we take the European goal as the yardstick, we should stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases at a level of 450 parts per million (ppm), measured as CO2 equivalent. Today, we are at 375 ppm CO2 equivalent. We have only around 10 years — and certainly no more than 20 years — to stop the increase of emissions, after which they should begin to decline sharply. It will require a lot of decisive policy action and timely investment.

BP is also buying the IPCC propaganda:

Carbon on the rise

With governments and scientists grappling with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and the possible link to climate change, BP is backing precautionary action to help curb the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Terry Knott talks to BP’s chief scientist Steve Koonin about some of the facts and perceptions surrounding the debate

Long gone are the days when discussions on greenhouse gases, global warming and climate change were normally only encountered within the preserves of erudite academic researchers. Today it is hard to imagine any citizen of the industrialised world – and increasingly those in developing nations too – not being aware of these issues, following their rapid rise up the agendas of inter-governmental conferences, leading to global protocols and national policies, action and calls for further action, increased coverage in the media, and a significant growth in research programmes among the world’s leading academic institutions as they try to clarify our understanding of both the questions and the answers.

The debate over whether emissions of greenhouse gases created by human activities are causing the earth’s climate to change – and what to do about it – has moved beyond academic and government circles to become a public one; widespread, expanding and sometimes contentious.

So much for big oil fighting the AGW theory with all their massive resources. It looks like they bought the IPCC pseudo-science hook, line and sinker. But, since they were painted as opponents, they will probably not pay much of a price for their opportunistic stupidity.

Sean Duffy is the GOP contender in David Obey’s Wisconsin seat. Obey was integral to the writing of the failed stimulus bill, better known as Porkulus. Sean sounds like the sort of guy that Palin would endorse. Lumberjack and all that manly stuff you can’t do in DC without the Green Police arresting you. Oh, she did endorse him in one of her low-key Facebook posts blasting Obama.

Maybe this.

Nice op, whoever did it.

Powerline notes the debate on whether it is better to kill or capture terrorist leaders. Leaving aside the issue that the Obama administration’s policy would be to treat a terrorist leader with kid gloves, the question is which strategy does the most to save innocent lives. Capturing terrorists in the wild entails obvious risks to the highly trained operatives tasked to do the job. Blasting them from on high, by remote control, is much less risky. Obviously, we lose any information the terrorist had about current plots. The terrorist lost any future plots, but that is a side benefit. unless you get a really smart terrorist like KSM. But the spectacular loss of a leader by a blast from the sky has got to give those charged with carrying out the plots second thoughts. “If they got Muhammad”, thinks Mohammed, “when are they going to get me?”. It’s also somewhat obvious that terrorist leaders are far happier to send off acolytes to die on their behalf than to die themselves. If we target the leaders, what are the next rung to think? “If I get to replace Mohammed, I’m going to join him in paradise real soon now”.

What would Michael Corleone do? Kill them. Over and over again.

Next Page »