The Rise in Global Warming Alarmism coincides with the Decline in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Coal gave us the Industrial Revolution.  And it made America the world’s number one economic power.  But what does it get for transforming the world?  Allowing us to enjoy the air conditioned comfort of surfing the net at our local coffee house?  Those on the Left call it public enemy number one.  Poor coal.  The Rodney Dangerfield of energy.

So we’re building a lot of solar power and wind power to replace coal.  Spending a fortune.  But the only thing really reducing our use of coal has been our burgeoning reserves of domestic natural gas reserves.  That we’ve tapped with hydraulic fracturing.  Something the Left hates perhaps even more than coal.  Now that we’re burning coal cleaner than we’ve ever had before (see Coal Is History. Or Is It? by Christopher Helman posted 3/1/2013 on Forbes)

The good news for the anti-coal crowd, is that we’ve made coal a lot cleaner. Thanks to mandated installation of emissions-reduction technology, since 1990 U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide have dropped from more than 15 million tons per year to less than 4 million tons.

But is this a good thing?  For one way to combat global warming is to mimic a volcano (see How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming by Andrew Moseman  posted 10/1/2009 on Popular Mechanics).

A volcanic eruption can bellow many million tons of sulfur-dioxide gas into the atmosphere, creating a cloud that blocks some of the sun’s radiation. By injecting the atmosphere with sulfur, some scientists believe they could likewise block solar radiation and potentially cool the planet.

Sulfur dioxide reacts with water in the atmosphere to create droplets of sulfuric acid, says Rutgers University environmental scientist Alan Robock. Those droplets are particularly good at scattering the sun’s light back out into space. And because sulfur doesn’t heat the stratosphere as much as other aerosols, it wouldn’t work against the cooling effect…

But while a volcano has intense underground pressure to propel sulfur upwards, human means to do so are limited. “There’s no way to do it today,” Robock says.

It seems like we’ve been trying to solve the wrong problem.  We’ve been trying to reduce sulfur emissions.  Instead of trying to get those sulfur emissions into the stratosphere.  Of course it is curious how the man-made stuff that causes global warming gets to where it needs to be to warm the planet.  But the manmade stuff that cools the planet doesn’t.  And it is coincidental that all the global warming alarms began right around the time we started lowering our sulfur emissions.  Making one to wonder if the climate scientists know what they’re doing.  For it sure seems the more they’ve changed our lives with environmental regulations the worse global warming got.

Trying to reverse global warming, should it exist, is an act of futility.  For the Chinese burn twice as much coal as we do.  Whatever we don’t burn we’re selling to them so they can.  The only one coming out ahead are the Chinese.  They’re getting more reliable electric power.  While the same amount of coal emissions are entering the atmosphere.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

British Doctors want more Alcohol Regulations to reduce the Cost of Alcohol Misuse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Early Americans really had a drinking problem.  Some drank so heavily that they had to crawl home on their hands and knees after a night of drinking in the tavern.  Of course that was to be expected.  For we came from British stock.  Who apparently have a penchant for drinking to great excess (see Doctors: urgent action on alcohol needed by Denis Campbell posted 2/28/2013 on the guardian).

Doctors’ leaders want tough action to limit the sale and promotion of alcohol, including cigarette-style graphic warnings and an end to drinks firms sponsoring sport, to tackle the growing toll of drink-related problems.

A coalition of medical organisations, including those representing GPs, A&E doctors and surgeons, urges ministers in a new report to implement an array of radical measures to reduce the £55bn annual cost of alcohol misuse…

Sir Ian Gilmore, the AHA’s chair, said action was especially urgent given that UK teenagers drink much more than the European average…

But the Department of Health said: “Cigarette-style health warnings are not applicable to alcohol. All levels of smoking are bad for your health, but the same cannot be said for alcohol consumption.”

Yes, UK teenagers have a drinking problem.  Requiring them to spend £55bn ($82.72 billion US) annually due to alcohol misuse.  Which they want to reduce with higher minimum prices, more graphic labeling and lower legal blood-alcohol amounts while driving.  But it’s the labeling that I find most interesting.  For we label our cigarettes in the U.S. with dire warnings about what will happen to you if you smoke.  But teenagers don’t care.  Why?  Because smoking looks cool.  Their Hollywood icons smoke in their favorite movies.  As do their music icons.  And nothing looks cooler to a teenager than a guy playing a low-slung guitar with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth.  So teenagers want to smoke.  Because it makes them look cool.  And grown up.  Despite the horrific labeling on the packaging.

So is labeling on alcohol going to do any good?  When even teenagers know that all smoking is bad for you but not necessarily all drinking?  For their parents may have a drink after work.  A bottle of wine with their dinner.  And they seem to be just fine.  So teenagers aren’t going to worry that much about drinking.  And they may not worry that much about smoking anymore.  For even though we say all smoking is bad for you two states have decriminalized marijuana.  And you smoke that.  Something that many teenagers really enjoy.  And marijuana cigarettes don’t have filters.  All of that smoke goes right into your lungs.  Teenagers know this.  And if two states say that’s okay for you then maybe cigarette smoking isn’t really that bad for you.  After all smoking regular cigarettes isn’t as damaging as smoking marijuana.  Where a lot of smoke, soot and ash make it into your lungs.  Stuff that a filter in a regular cigarette filters out.

Sure, to a wise adult this doesn’t make any sense.  But to a teenager who wants to look cool and grown up it makes a lot of sense.  For teenagers can rationalize away any risky or harmful behavior if it’s something they enjoy.  Or makes them look cool and grown up.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Poor and Middle Class see their Incomes Still Falling in the Obama Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

If you listen to the president, his press secretary, the mainstream media and just about anyone on the political left the economy is doing super.  Sure, we can make improvements.  But over all everything is just swell.  If you’re rich, that is. People with money are doing very well in the Obama recovery.  Those who aren’t as rich aren’t.  No.  All they see is high unemployment, rising prices and falling incomes (see Americans see biggest monthly income drop in 20 years by Annalyn Kurtz posted 3/1/2013 on CNNMoney).

Personal income decreased by $505.5 billion in January, or 3.6%, compared to December (on a seasonally adjusted and annualized basis). That’s the most dramatic decline since January 1993, according to the Commerce Department.

It’s something of a combination of one-time events, though.

Monthly income was unusually high in December because companies paid out early dividends to avoid upcoming tax hikes.

Further proof that people change their behavior when the government increases taxes.  The surge in December that made January look so bad was due to one-time distributions of profits to avoid higher taxes.  So December wasn’t that good, either.  Just an aberration as people tried to avoid the higher taxes coming their way.

The payroll tax cut’s expiration also played a role in January’s drop, because most workers have to pay 2 percentage points more in taxes this year…

Meanwhile, economists are closely watching consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy…

Economists think that rising gas prices in February could cut into consumer spending temporarily. Gas prices rose 10% in February, according to AAA, but are expected to fall in coming weeks…

The Social Security tax break helped consumers at the 2012 election.  Allowing them more disposable income in the year before the election.  And helping them feel things weren’t that bad.  Of course this Social Security tax holiday drew down the Social Security surplus to a dangerous low.  Something they will have to make up for with even higher taxes than the 2% temporary cut used to help the president’s reelection.

Regulatory costs, environmental policies that have shut down oil drilling on public lands and inflation (the incessant quantitative easing of the Fed putting more and more dollars into circulation) are keeping gas prices high.  For you can hide inflation in some consumer goods by reducing package sizes but you can’t do that with gasoline.  Because you sell gas by the gallon.  So the full cost of the Fed’s inflationary policies hit gas prices hard.  And, of course, high gas prices increases prices for everything else that uses fuel.  A large factor in the rise in our grocery bills.  Taking a bigger bite out of family budgets.  Leaving little for other consumer spending.

All of that said, consumers are benefiting from a housing recovery and rising stock prices…

They’re not able to save much, though. On average, people saved about 2.4% of their disposable income in January, down from 6.4% in December. That marks the smallest saving rate since November 2007.

Rich people are benefitting from the housing ‘recovery’ and stock prices.  Those who have a lot of money left over after meeting the living expenses.  Who can save a lot of money.  And invest it into housing.  Or stocks.  In fact, that’s why the stock market does well on news of the Fed continuing their quantitative easing.  For the rich are taking advantage of that cheap money to borrow it.  So they can invest it.  Trading on the interest.  Borrowing at low interest rates.  And investing in something that earns a higher rate of return.  People struggling to make their paycheck buy everything it once did as prices rise everywhere aren’t enjoying any benefits from that cheap money.  As they have no money left over to even save up a down payment on a house.  So they can take advantage of those low housing prices.  No.  The poor and middle class are not reaping anything in the current economic ‘recovery’.  Only the rich are.

Under President Obama the rich are getting richer.  And the poor are getting poorer.  Because of his economic policies.  Especially the Keynesian policies.  Keynesians look at personal savings as leaks out of the economy.  For if people aren’t spending money they are wasting money.  Which is the point of low interest rates.  To get people to borrow money to buy things.  Thus stimulating economic activity.  And generating more consumer spending.  But all that quantitative easing has raised prices so much that consumers are left with less and less money to spend.  The poor and middle class aren’t borrowing money to buy new houses.  They’re just trying to get by on what little they have.  Hoping for good economic times to return when their personal incomes rise once again.

Keynesian economics don’t work.  Just as Keynesian stimulus does not stimulate.  If it did we wouldn’t still have fewer jobs in the U.S. economy than when President Obama took office.  And he spent about $8000 billion on a stimulus bill.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Some critics said it failed as an $8000 billion stimulus wasn’t big enough.  Even though the Obama administration declared the summer of 2010 the Recovery Summer.  Proof that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 restored economic prosperity.  Even though it didn’t.  For things still haven’t returned to where they were under George W. Bush.  Despite 4 years of Keynesian policies.  That haven’t raised personal incomes.  The true measure of any economic recovery.  And when personal incomes are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years, there hasn’t been any economic recovery.  Despite $800 billion in stimulus.  And 4 years of President Obama’s Keynesian economic policies.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Taxes of French Governing Socialists are driving French Tax Exiles to London

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

The Left says over and over again people aren’t going to move to escape high tax rates.  Well, as it turns out, they will.  The socialists recently took back the presidency of France.  Basically running on the platform of raising taxes to confiscatory rates.  Assuming that the rich will just smile and say, “Merci.  J’aime être taxés.  Il me fait sentir patriotique.  Vive la France.”  Which translates to “Thank you.  I like to be taxed.  It makes me feel patriotic.  Long live France.”  Which is how governing officials believe rich people should feel about paying higher taxes.  And get righteously peeved when they don’t.  Such as when Gérard Depardieu moved out of France, renounced his French citizenship and became a Russian citizen to avoid paying those confiscatory tax rates.  Becoming a tax exile.  And he wasn’t the only French national to leave France for more friendly tax shores.  As a net migration from Paris to London followed the socialists return to power in France (see Paris mayoral candidate Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet: I want to lure the French back from London posted 3/1/2013 on The Telegraph).

The French Right’s brightest hope to reclaim Paris after a dozen years of Socialist rule wants to woo back London’s burgeoning Gallic population by making the City of Light Europe’s cutting-edge, family-friendly “place to be”.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, 39, warned that Paris must reclaim its “historical role of leading the way” if it wants to stop the “gap widening” with London.

A third French lycée is due to open in London to cope with the rising demand from the city’s French population – estimated at 400,000 as a growing number flee the Socialist government’s tax rises.

This led Boris Johnson to exclaim: “Bienvenue à Londres. If your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do…”

After 10 years of Socialist rule in Paris, NKM hopes to seduce both the city’s conservatives and a chunk of “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), pointing to Boris Johnson as proof that the Right can win major cities.

“I don’t buy the prevailing theory that capitals are becoming increasingly Left-wing,” she said…

Paris was not business-friendly enough, she claimed, as the city was “not an early adopter” in providing new solutions to help them develop.

So many French are becoming British that they had to open a third French school in London to handle the burgeoning Gallic population.  In fact, the British are welcoming the French invasion.  Any student of history will find the irony in that.  (Here’s a hint. The French and the British were at war with each other for much of their history.)  Swelling the French population in London to about 400,000.  Because of those high socialist tax rates.

Not only are they working and paying taxes in Britain now but they are also doing something else.  They are NOT paying taxes in France.  So raising tax rates in France did what?  It chased jobs out of the country.  As well as taxpayers.  Ultimately reducing tax revenue.  The exact opposite of the intended outcome of their new tax policy.  For when it comes to confiscatory tax rates people will not say, “Merci.  J’aime être taxés.  Il me fait sentir patriotique.  Vive la France.”  But, instead, they’ll simply say, “Au revoir.”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climate ‘Scientists’ have found Proof that Climate Change causes Humanitarian Disasters

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Now we have proof that global warming causes humanitarian disasters.  Well, not proof in a real scientific way.  But in the kind of way that you have to note with asterisk.  With the asterisk denoting that this science is not real science.  But climate science.  Where the science is more politics than science.  As evident by the vast majority (if not all) the climate ‘scientists’ are anti-capitalists and/or favor more restrictive business regulations.  This is the ‘science’ that has found proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster (see Humanitarian disaster blamed on climate change by Michael Marshall posted 3/1/2013 on New Scientist).

For the first time, we have proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster. The East African drought of 2011, which resulted in a famine that killed at least 50,000 people, was partly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

For the first time the climate ‘scientists’ have proof that all the climate doom and gloom they’ve been preaching the last few decades is for real?  That until now it was at best a hunch?  They didn’t say that then.  In fact they spoke then with the same certainty that they now speak with.  So why should we believe this now?  How do we know that they won’t say in the future that they can finally, for the first time, actually prove something?  And it won’t be different from something they told us in the past?

Humanity’s activities had no effect on the short rains – they failed because of a strong La Niña in the Pacific. “That’s natural,” says Stott.

But climate change did affect the long rains, making them more likely to fail (Geophysical Research Letters, The model could only reproduce the scale of the drought if it included greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a model, too.  A formula.  It’s one that predicts the future economy.  Here it is.  EO=If(P=EC, good, bad).  Where P=President, EC=Economically Conservative and EO=Economic Outlook.  And it works as a standard ‘if’ function on a spreadsheet program.  If the president is economically conservative then the economic outlook is good.  If the president is NOT economically conservative then the economic outlook is bad.  And it is a proven formula.

The economy has been bad under President Obama who is not economically conservative.  But good under President George W. Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Ronald Reagan.  Who were all economically conservative.  At least to a certain degree.  It was bad under Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.  Who weren’t economically conservative.  With Republican Richard Nixon even calling himself a Keynesian after he decoupled the dollar from gold.  It went from good to bad under JBJ.  Who wasn’t economically conservative.  It went from bad to good under JFK who was economically conservative.  We call the Fifties Happy Days because the economy was pretty good under Eisenhower.  Who was economically conservative (his foreign policy dwarfed any interest in meddling with the domestic economy).  Truman and FDR were New Dealers.  Who weren’t economically conservative in the least.  And neither was Herbert Hoover.  Whose non-conservative economic policies helped to kick off the recession that FDR transformed into the Great Depression.  Both Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding were economically conservative.  And their policies gave us great economic prosperity.  And so on.

I’d have to modify the formula to account for President Clinton.  For though the economy did well while he was in office it is a little more complicated with him.  Who kind of fell ass-backwards into some good economic times.  First of all he was still riding the wave of Reaganomics.  He had a peace dividend from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War.  Asia was suffering a financial crisis.  Japan was just beginning their Lost Decade.  And after only 2 years in office Clinton lost Congress.  Forcing him to scale back on his liberal agenda.  Also, it was under Clinton that we got the dot-com boom (and irrational exuberance) and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis.  Making a lot of Clinton’s economic growth, then, artificial.  A bubble.  The dot-com bubble bursting just after Clinton left office.  The subprime mortgage housing bubble bursting in 2007.  So Clinton, who was not economically conservative, made a mess of things but was lucky enough to be out of office when the train wreck of his administration’s policies hit.  Especially those initiated by his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending that gave us the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.

So my model works.  History supports it.  Yet which model will be taken more seriously?  The one that is so complex with so many variables that no one can be sure what’s going on with it.  The one that took a lot of fine-tuning to get it to explain anything the way they wanted it to explain it.  Which is why it took until now to prove something for the first time.  Unlike mine.  Which has been proving things for decades.

The team calculate that climate change is responsible for between 24 per cent and 99 per cent of the risk of long rains failure.

Further proof that climate science is not real science.  Proving something is 24-99% responsible is not scientific.  I know.  I was marked down for something 4 places PAST the decimal point while in college.  When I protested that I was close enough the professor said that isn’t how science works.  Being close enough just doesn’t work.  You may eat food that is 99% salmonella-free.   But you sure aren’t going to eat food that is only 24% salmonella-free.

Although Stott’s findings add to the evidence that East Africa will face more droughts as the climate warms, for now, the region is slowly recovering from 2011. The short rains at the end of 2012 were good, and the latest forecasts suggest that the long rains will be roughly normal, or at least not far below that.

If the climate is warming because of man-made global warming how can the model show East Africa is cooling now?  Climate ‘scientists’ have been saying that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed.  Because it could take decades to reverse the damage we’ve caused.  If so how is it that East Africa is reversing the damage in little over a year?  Despite the world NOT taking urgent measure to reverse global warming?  Or is what happening the normal ebb and flow of warming and cooling periods of climate that has little if anything to do with whatever man is putting into the atmosphere?

In the long run, studies that attribute blame in this way could be used by people attempting to sue for damages relating to climate change. A number of such cases are currently moving through US courts, spearheaded by the Alaskan village of Kivalina. The village is threatened by increased storm surges that may be linked to climate change, and its residents are suing major energy companies for the cost of evacuating.

Such cases still face significant challenges, says environmental lawyer Tracy Hester of the University of Houston in Texas. Anyone trying to bring one to court will have to link the damages they have suffered to a particular source of emissions.

How about that?  The ultimate use for such a model is for someone to sue some business.  Just as an anti-capitalist is wont to do.

I have another model.  This one points to who is responsible for global warming.  And who we should be suing.  Before global warming there was global cooling.  Climate ‘scientists’ were warning us about the coming ice age.  That changed sometime during the late 20th Century.  When the climate ‘scientists’ changed their minds and said the planet was warming.  Without really giving a good reason why they switched from cooling to warming.  But as they warned us they got the politicians to write new environmental laws.  To prevent warming.  And to save the planet.  Adding emission controls on our cars and power plants.  Launching their war on coal.  And what happened?  Temperatures continued to rise.  To the highest they had ever been.  As they continued to urge us to take even more drastic actions.  Before it was too late.

If the temperatures are still rising even after reducing harmful emissions what can one rationally conclude?  This temperature rise must be man-made.  The climate ‘scientists’ caused it.  (And should be the ones we’re suing.)  By forcing us to cut back on the cooling emissions of our coal-fired power plants.  For they put the same things into the atmosphere an erupting volcano does.  And erupting volcanoes cool the planet.  Which brings me to my other model.  It, too, is a simple equation.  CC=If(DIF=L, warming, not warming).  Where DIF=Dominant Influential Force, L=Liberal and CC=Climate Change.  If the dominating influential force is liberal they will restrict cooling emissions that are similar to what volcanoes produce, causing global warming.  If the dominating influential force is not liberal then cooling emissions may increase and not warm the planet.

Noting that people who are economically conservative are not liberal you can combine my two equations into one with some simple substitutions.  Which reduces down to an even simpler formula.  If you want a healthy economy and a healthy planet vote conservative.  Which the empirical data supports.  As President Obama’s policies are doing little to fix the economy or the environment.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,