Carbon Emissions in the United States fall to levels not seen since 1963

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2014

Week in Review

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report.  And it contained some of the most alarmist language yet used by the IPCC.  So alarmist that an author removed his name from the report.  Not because he disagrees with the underlying science.  But because the “inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.”  And why was the language so alarmist?  Because the fury of global warming was going to rain hellfire down upon us unless we acted immediately to curb our carbon emissions.  For the level of our carbon emissions was growing ever more perilous.  Taking us to the point of no return. Again.  So immediate action was required.  Hence the alarmist nature of the report.

Some of those in the alarmist camp even want to go as far as jailing climate change deniers.  Because it is these people that are allowing the carbon polluters to pollute with abandon.  Because people believe them and their science.  That man isn’t causing global warming.  It’s because of these people that America never signed the Kyoto Protocol.  And because they have not implemented economic strangling carbon reduction policies (such as a carbon tax) the United States is one of the driving forces of manmade global warming.  Because of their carbon emissions.  Of course, the data doesn’t agree with this (see US CO2 Emissions Per Capita Are At Their Lowest Levels In 50 Years by Rob Wile posted 4/14/2014 on Business Insider).

And the following chart from AEI’s Mark Perry shows the U.S. has been making significant gains in carbon dioxide reduction: At about 17 tons per capita, we are at a level not seen in half a century. Perry writes:

CO2 emissions per capita in the US increased slightly last year, but were back to the same level as in 1963 (50 years ago), and 23% below the peak in the early 1970s, thanks to the boom in shale gas, which has displaced coal for electricity generation.

Back to what it was in 1963?  You know what that means?  We are at risk of another ice age.  For on Earth Day in 1970 the climate scientists were warning us to store food to survive the coming ice age.  Which was coming.  For the planet had been cooling for some 20 years.  And if those present trends continued it was death by cold.  Just like they are saying now that if present trends continue it will be death by warm.  Even though there is less carbon in the atmosphere than when they were predicting death by cold.  Which is why there are a lot of climate change deniers.

Then again, perhaps man is causing global warming.  By removing so much carbon from the atmosphere.  For it was cooler when there was more carbon floating around up there.  It would explain why that when a volcano throws up the same stuff a coal-fired power plant does it causes cooling.  While the coal-fired power plant causes warming.  Even though it’s pretty much the same stuff they’re putting into the atmosphere.  Which is another reason why there are so many climate change deniers.  For it appears whether carbon will cause warming or cooling depends on the day that carbon is having.  For it appears carbon has attitude.  And is moody.  Which is the only way it can support such contradicting conclusions.


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

Environmental Certification of Oslo Airport won’t prevent any Carbon Emissions from the Planes using it

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

Some say it’s pointless for the United States to cut back on its carbon emissions.  For whatever we do it won’t change what China and India are doing.  And what are they doing?  They’re building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow.  So it is kind of pointless what we do.  For when it comes to global warming it won’t make a difference what one nation on the globe is doing.  As the massive amounts of carbon emissions produced by China and India will enter the atmosphere surrounding the globe.  Which will affect the United States.  Even if we shrink our carbon footprint to nothing.

In a similar manner it is kind of pointless for an airport to try and minimize its carbon footprint (see Oslo Airport achieves environmental certification by Joacim Vestvik-Lunde posted 3/28/2014 on Sustainable Aviation Newswire).

On Monday, 24 March 2014, Oslo Airport received a certificate showing that it is certified according to the internationally recognised ISO 14001 standard by DNV GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd)…

Developed by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), ISO 14001 is an international standard for environmental management based on two concepts: continuous improvement and regulatory compliance…

OSL has been focused on protecting the external environment ever since the airport was on the drawing boards. OSL is working systematically to reduce the environmental impact of its operations and also uses new technology and innovation to improve its performance. These measures include converting stored winter snow into cooling energy in the summer, the recovery of energy from wastewater and a pilot project to study the use of hydrogen as an energy source for vehicles at the airport. OSL has been certified since 2010 at the highest level of Airport Carbon Accreditation, a voluntary scheme to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions together with the players at the airport.

If there was any place that should get a pass on their carbon footprint it should be an airport.  Because whatever they do will not offset the carbon emissions of the airplanes landing and taking off from that airport.  And they emit a lot of carbon.  So much that the Europeans wanted to extend their emissions trading scheme (ETS) to include airlines.  Making them pay for the amount of carbon they emit when flying in EU airspace.  Something the Chinese are very opposed to.  As are other non-EU members.  So much so that they delayed the inclusion of air travel into the ETS.

The biggest carbon emitters at any airport are the planes.  Nothing even comes close.  So why spend the money for a costly certification when it won’t make any difference?  For the only way to make a real cut in carbon emissions at an airport is to get rid of the planes.  Of course, if they did that then we wouldn’t need any ISO 14001 compliant airports, would we?  But if we did this it wouldn’t stop China and India from building their coal-fired power plants.  Proving how futile any efforts in combating manmade global warming are.  It’s just money that could have been spent on feeding the hungry.  Housing the homeless.  Treating the sick.  Or a myriad of other social spending that actually helps some people.


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

There will be Carbon Emission whether we Power our Cars from Poo or Gasoline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

Hydrogen is very flammable.  It’s why we use helium in our blimps.  Because using hydrogen is just too dangerous.  As the Hindenburg disaster has shown us.

So hydrogen is a pretty dangerous thing to be messing with.  Unlike gasoline.  Which is pretty safe and stable in the liquid form.  You could even put out a cigarette in a puddle of gasoline.  It’s dangerous doing so.  And you shouldn’t try it.  But the most dangerous thing about gasoline is its vapor.  Ignite that and there will be an explosion.  Which is what happens inside our internal combustion engines.  Where our cars first aerosolizes the gasoline, mixes it with air, compresses it and then ignites it.  Of course that explosion is deep within our engines.  Where it can’t harm us.  Still, it isn’t advised to smoke while refueling.  Because there are gas vapors typically where there is gas.  And you don’t want you car exploding like the Hindenburg.

Fuel cells use hydrogen to make electric power.  All you have to do is stop at your hydrogen fueling station and fill up your hydrogen tanks.  Just don’t smoke while doing this.  Because hydrogen in its natural state is an explosive gas.  This danger aside the hydrogen fuel cell is about to give the all-electric car a run for its money.  And last’s night meal may be providing the hydrogen (see POO-power comes to California: Orange County residents to trial SUVs fuelled by human waste by Mark Prigg posted 2/25/2014 on the Daily Mail).

The fuel-cell powered Tucson can drive for 50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen, and its two tanks hold about 5.64 kilograms (12.4 pounds).

Costs of compressed gas in California range from about $5 to $10 per kilogram, depending on the facility, and it takes around three minutes to fill the tank.

Hyundai says it hopes the technology will become popular – and will take on the electric car as the eco-vehicle of choice.

‘Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles represent the next generation of zero-emission vehicle technology, so we’re thrilled to be a leader in offering the mass-produced, federally certified Tucson Fuel Cell to retail customers,’ said John Krafcik of Hyundai Motor America.

‘The superior range and fast-fill refueling speed of our Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle contrast with the lower range and slow-charge characteristics of competing battery electric vehicles.

‘We think fuel cell technology will increase the adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles, and we’ll all share the environmental benefits.’

If you crunch the numbers and compare it to a gasoline-powered Ford Taurus the numbers aren’t so good.  A Ford Taurus gets 29 miles per gallon on the highway.  And has an 18 gallon gas tank.  Which means one tank of gas will take you 522 miles on the highway.  At $3 per gallon for gas that one tank of gas will cost you $54.  By comparison the fuel cell gives you only 282 miles on a full tank.  And costs between $28.20 and $56.40 for a full tank.  Dividing cost per mile that comes to somewhere between $0.10 and $0.20 per mile.  While the gasoline-powered Ford Taurus costs about $0.10 per mile.

So at best the fuel cell will have a fuel cost equal to the gasoline-powered engine.  But it only has about 54% the range on a full tank.  Meaning you’ll have to stop about twice as often to fuel up with the fuel cell.  And good luck not blowing yourself up playing with hydrogen at the fuel pump.  That is if you can even find hydrogen fueling stations along your drive.  The only real good thing you can say about a fuel cell when comparing it to a gasoline-powered car is at least it’s not as bad as an all-electric car.  And those zero-emissions?  Sorry, that’s not exactly true.  The hydrogen may be zero-emissions but making the hydrogen isn’t.

First, sewage is separated into water and biosolids.

The waste water is cleaned, filtered and treated for reuse, while solid waste is piped into airless tanks filled with microbes.

A byproduct of their digestion is a gas that’s 60 percent methane and about 40 percent carbon dioxide, which is burned at the plant for power generation.

However, some is filtered and piped into a unique, stationary ‘tri-generation’ fuel-cell device, designed by the Irvine team, that produces electricity, heat and hydrogen.

The hydrogen gas is then piped several hundred feet to the public pump where fuel-cell autos are refueled daily.

Almost half of the source gas is carbon dioxide.  And carbon dioxide has carbon in it.  This is the same gas they want to shut down coal-fired power plants for producing.  Oh, and methane?  That’s a greenhouse gas.  This is the gas coming out of the butts of cows and pigs that some are saying are warming the planet.  And when you burn methane guess what you get?  Water and carbon dioxide.  More manmade carbon emissions.  That’s a lot of global warming they’re creating in the effort to prevent global warming.

This is one thing fuel cells share with all-electric cars.  They may be emission free.  But the chemistry to make them emission-free isn’t.  We’re still putting carbon into the atmosphere.  We’re just doing it in different places.  And if we are wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier just to keep using gasoline?


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

Democrats Lie because they Must

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 2nd, 2014

Politics 101

Democrats lie because they have a Track Record of doing things Poorly

Democrats lie.  They have to.  Because they want power.  And they have no good reason for accumulating it.  They lied about Obamacare to pass it into law.  With the top Democrat telling the biggest lie of 2013.  President Obama.  “If you like your insurance plan you can keep it.  Period.”  They lied because they want the power to control one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Even if they reduce the quality of health care.  Which they will.  So they can spend the ensuing years demanding more money (i.e., higher taxes) to fix Obamacare.

They blamed the killing of 4 Americans including our ambassador in Benghazi on a YouTube video.  Even the left-leaning (it leans so far left it has actually fallen over) New York Times is rehashing this story.  Saying it was a spontaneous uprising over that YouTube video that had nothing to do with al Qaeda.  Despite using military armaments like rocket propelled grenades and pre-sighted motors.  Things crowds don’t typically have on them to commit spontaneous mischief.  But President Obama’s 2012 campaign claimed that President Obama had al Qaeda reeling.  And just couldn’t let the American people know that they were negligent in protecting Americans in Benghazi.  Which was so dangerous that the British had pulled out before the anniversary of 9/11.  But they still denied Ambassador Stevens’ request for more security.  Despite the anniversary of 9/11 being around the corner.  Because it wouldn’t look good during a campaign that claimed to have al Qaeda reeling.

So Democrats lie.  Because they have a track record of doing things poorly.  Preventing them from saying “let us do this and that and the other thing because we have a great track record of doing this and that and the other thing.”  When in fact their track record is so poor that no one would ask them to do more so we can enjoy more failure.  So they lie.  To expand the size of government.  So they can reach out and strangle the private sector.  Such as with their lies about global warming that raised the cost of heating our homes.  As well as to light our homes.  Making the incandescent light bulb now illegal.  Forcing us to use more costly lower wattage lamps.  Compact fluorescents.  And LEDs.  So we use less energy.  And put less carbon into the atmosphere.  Because manmade global warming is killing us.

You can irrigate a Desert and grow Grass but you can’t grow Grass where Ice and Snow cover the Soil

One of the iconic images of the American Revolutionary War is our troops freezing at Valley Forge.  The winter was brutal.  And for good reason.  It was part of the Little Ice Age.  A period of cooling from approximately 1350 to about 1850.  Where temperatures fell.  Making the winters colder.  Longer.  And snowier.  Rivers and harbors froze that don’t freeze today.  Glaciers destroyed mountain top villages.  And the shorter and wetter growing seasons caused famines in many countries.  Famines in France, Norway and Sweden killed about 10% of their populations.  Famines in Estonia and Finland killed more.

A cooling climate is dangerous.  It shortens the growing season.  Leaving people hungry, malnourished and sickly.  For you need sun, warmth and moist soil (not mud) through many months to grow food.  If you don’t you have poor harvests.  Providing less food for the people to eat.  And less forage to sustain livestock over the winter.  Which reduces the food supply during the winter further.  Giving you famines.  Like those in the Little Ice Age.

Dubai is a city in a desert.  From May through September they get less than one inch of rain each month.  The average high in July is 105.4 degrees.  The average high in January is 75.2 degrees.  The average annual humidity is 59.8%.  So Dubai is hot and dry.  A city of buildings and sand.  But you know what else Dubai has?  Lush, green, championship golf courses.  Something Greenland doesn’t have.  Because you can irrigate a desert and grow grass.  But you can’t grow grass where ice and snow cover the soil.  And the same holds true for food.  Making a cooling climate far more dangerous than a warming climate.  As those valiant soldiers at Valley Forge could have attested to.

Because of Global Warming Dr. David Viner said in 2000, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The global warming alarmists have been warning that the polar ice caps are melting.  And the poor polar bears have no ice to rest on.  Soon the ice will all melt and flood our coastal regions.  They say this even today.  Interestingly, a ship is retracing the steps of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson in the Antarctic.   Whose expedition suffered horribly during the winter months there about a century earlier.  The current expedition is aboard the MV Akademik Shokalski.  Which has been stuck in the ice since Christmas Eve.  And this during the summer months in the Antarctic.

Noted climate ‘scientist’ at the University of East Anglia, Dr. David Viner, said in 2000 that because of global warming “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”  Currently, the eighth winter storm this year, Winter Storm Hercules, is dumping over a foot of snow from Buffalo to Boston.  With blizzard warnings for Cape Cod and Long Island.  And bitter cold Arctic air will follow the snow.  About as bad as it was at Valley Forge.  With another winter storm following Winter Storm Hercules.  Funny.  Here we are almost 14 years later and there is still snow.  Proving how wrong the global warming alarmists have been.

Still, the global warming alarmists say we must fight global warming.  To allow the climate to cool.  Even though history has shown that a cooling climate leads to hunger, malnourishment and sickness.  And famine.  But the left fights for those things.  Why?  Because there ain’t a damn thing you can do with regulations to warm the planet.  But if you paint manmade global warming as the villain you can blame carbon.  And regulate the hell out of the economy.  And that’s something they will never let go of.  Hence their lying.  Because they just don’t want to give up the power that allowed them to make the incandescent light bulb illegal.


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

Britons lose Interest in Saving the Planet thanks to rising Utility Bills and Green Levies to pay for Wind Farms

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 1st, 2013

Week in Review

Britain is green.  They have made the prevention of manmade global warming a national goal.  They’re gradually doing away with carbon-based energies.  Like coal-fired power plants.  And replacing them with green things like wind farms.  Although one large wind project just got derailed.  The £4bn ($6.6 billion US) Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel.  But just the fact that they were going to spend $6.6 billion to build an offshore wind farm shows you how committed they are in going green.  Of course one might ask where does one get $6.6 billion to build a wind farm?  Simple.  You just add a green levy to everyone’s utility bill (see Energy policies just rob Peter to pay Paul by Telegraph View posted 12/1/2013 on The Telegraph).

Yesterday morning, George Osborne and Ed Balls both graced the sofa of the Andrew Marr Show as part of a pre-Autumn Statement offensive to woo the voters. Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the fate of the green levies on consumers’ bills – a policy that Ed Miliband began as energy secretary and which the Tories embraced in office as a way of proving their environmentalist credentials. Now the consensus that the consumer should be forced to pick up the tab for saving the planet is gone, thanks to sky-rocketing energy costs. But the solutions proposed by Mr Osborne and Mr Balls may not be enough to induce a warm glow in the heart of the hard-pressed voter.

Mr Balls had nothing compelling to say. He made some noises about “value for money” and said that anything the Government could do to reduce costs was welcome. But it was Labour, after all, that introduced the green levies and remains committed to unreasonable decarbonisation targets. The party’s core pledge now is to freeze prices after the 2015 election. It is, as Mr Osborne called it, “back of a fag packet” stuff. Labour can do nothing to control global energy prices; a price freeze could put smaller providers out of business; and the likely outcome is that companies will simply hike bills before the freeze comes into effect. This variety of socialist populism typically ends up hurting the economy in the long run.

However, there are serious flaws in Mr Osborne’s alternative. Although the average bill could fall by £50 under the Government’s plan, some bills are predicted to rise by £120.

First of all, “back of a fag packet” isn’t a gay slur.  A fag is slang for cigarette in the UK.  And a fag packet is a pack of cigarettes.  So “back of a fag packet” stuff is a plan with so little meaningful details that they can write it out on one side of a pack of cigarettes.  It’s sort of like us yanks writing out something on the back of a cocktail napkin.  It’s not detailed stuff.  And probably not stuff thought out well.  Hence the disparaging tone of George Osborne’s criticism of the Labour Party’s idea of a price freeze.

As interesting as this explanation was it’s what is in the following paragraph that is of note.  The rise in the average bill of £120.  This is the green levy on the people’s average utility bill.  Which comes to $197.16 in US dollars.  This is the cost of all those wind turbines they’re building.  A number so painful that Britons everywhere are saying that this manmade global warming?  It isn’t as bad as I once thought it was.  So we can stop building these silly windmills.  Especially those that cost $6.6 billion.  Let’s just leave those beautiful coal-fired power plants on line.  So I can afford to feed my family.  For I know my history.  And my Dickens.  England during the Industrial Revolution was a filthy place.  Where workers—and everything else—were covered in soot and ashes.  And despite all of this manmade carbon it was not warm and balmy during those times.  No.  People struggled to both eat.  And stay warm.  England is cleaner today and yet we are suffering from manmade global warming?  Right, pull the other.


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

Nuclear Power is Green but Governments prefer Wind Power because its More Costly

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

To save the world from global warming we have to go to a low-carbon energy economy.  Say goodbye to coal.  And hello to solar.  And wind (see Energy firm RWE npower axes £4bn UK windfarm amid political uncertainty by Terry Macalister posted 11/25/2013 on The Telegraph).

Britain’s green ambitions have been dealt a blow as a big six energy company has pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest offshore windfarms, with the political storm enveloping the industry threatening the multibillion-pound investments needed to meet emissions targets and head off a looming capacity crunch.

Weeks after warning that the government was treating environmental subsidies as a “political football”, the German-owned RWE npower is pulling out of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel because the economics do not stack up.

The move comes as figures show that energy firms reaped a 77% increase in profits per customer last year, due to bill increases that the big six say are partly due to government green levies…

The Renewable Energy Association (REA), which lobbies for more low-carbon power, said government infighting over subsidies was causing deep uncertainty in the industry…

“We need assurances from George Osborne in the autumn statement about where we stand,” said a spokesman for the REA. “Nick Clegg says one thing about the green levies, Michael Fallon [the energy minister] another…”

RWE indicated that the government might have to raise green subsidies – and thus increase bills or the burden on the taxpayer – after admitting that technical difficulties had pushed the price up so far that it could not be justified under the current subsidy regime.

But RWE has already pulled out of a £350m nuclear-power project, is selling its DEA North Sea oil business and last week disposed of part of its UK gas and electricity supply arm. Developers have been warning for some time that they would need more subsidies from the government if ministers were to realise low-carbon energy targets.

RWE was in partnership to build that nuclear project.  Which cost in total £696m.  Or 17% of the cost of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel.  Which they say will power one million homes.  Of course, that would be only when the wind is blowing.  But not blowing too fast.  For there is a small window for safe wind speeds these turbines can generate power at.  Giving them a low capacity factor (the amount of power they could produce over a period of time at full nameplate capacity and the actual power they produced over that period).  About 30% in Britain.  Whereas nuclear power is about 90%.  Which is why we use it for baseload power.  Because it’s always there.  Even when the wind is blowing too slow.  Or too fast.  So that Atlantic Array wasn’t going to provide reliable power for a million homes.  In fact, on a calm day it will provide no power to any home.  Which begs the question why spend £4bn for unreliable power when you can spend £696m for reliable power?

Worse, wind power requires government subsidies.  So much that companies won’t build wind farms unless they get government subsidies.  Something you don’t need to build a nuclear power plant.  And to rub salt in an open wound those subsidies are paid for with levies on the family utility bill.  Or higher taxes.  Forcing these families to get by on less.  While these green energy firms are seeing rising profits.  Because of the money the government takes from the households and gives to the green energy firms in the form of subsidies.  Which begs another question.  Why charge the British people so much more for clean energy when they can get it for far less from nuclear power?  At 17% of the cost for the Atlantic Array project?

When it comes down to it renewable energy is crony capitalism at its worst.  Huge transfers of money from the private sector to the public sector.  Where they turn around and give to their friends in green energy companies in the form of lucrative contracts and fat subsidies.  After taking some off the top for their expenses, of course.  If it wasn’t they’d be building less costly and more reliable nuclear power plants to be green.  Instead of building these green elephants all over the place.


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

Global Warming Alarmists ignore Historical Record and claim Cooling is Better than Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

Do you know why it was so cold at Valley Forge during the American Revolution?  We were in a mini ice age at the time. The Little Ice Age (from about 1350 to 1850).  Introduced by the Black Death.  The greatest plague in human history.  As the earth continued to cool we got shorter growing seasons.  And wetter growing seasons.  Leading to a little famine.  And war.  As nations struggled to feed themselves with shorter, colder and wetter growing seasons.  Plunging the world into centuries of world war.  Including the previously noted American Revolution.  Which followed the Seven Years’ War.  And was a prelude to the Napoleonic Wars.  And there were plenty more wars before, after and in between.

Disease, famine and war.  No, cold isn’t good.  Warm is good.  Just ask Napoleon.  Who was beaten by the brutal Russian winter.  Or those who died from cold, famine and disease at Valley Forge.  Yet there are those who believe that cold is better than warm (see Warming report sees violent, sicker, poorer future by Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, posted 11/8/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

Actually, history has shown all of these things are worse during times of global cooling.  When disease, famine and war were the norm.  Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for Lebensraum.  Living space.  Which meant taking the breadbasket of Europe for the German people.  The Ukraine.  A lot of wars have been fought over food.  And the less food there is the more frequent and brutal the wars.  For those who have no food suffer famine and die.

We’ve been putting carbon in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (1760ish).  We’ve been burning coal in our steam engines, locomotives, ships, steel plants, and our home furnaces for centuries.  The smoke, soot and ash was so thick and heavy that we made our city trains electric.  Because they don’t block out the sun when they run like our steam locomotives did.  Then coal gave way to petroleum products.  And the glorious internal combustion engine.  The greatest game changer in the history of man.

We’ve just been putting more and more carbon in the air since 1760.  And in those 250 or so years has any of the global warming doom and gloom come to pass?  No.  The world population has grown.  Because our food supply has grown.  And life expectancies have grown longer throughout this period because there have been fewer plagues, famines and wars.  The Pax Britannica (the British Peace) lasted about a century (1815–1914).  And the Pax Americana (the American Peace) has been going on since the end of World War II (1945).  We suffered some horrendous wars during these periods of peace but they were the exception not the rule.  In large part because the Little Ice Age had ended.  And the world was warming once again.


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

Melting Glacier reveals life it Previously Killed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2013

Week in Review

Once upon a time the glaciers nearly reached down from the poles to the equator.  Then they retreated back towards the poles.  And they moved these great distances before man was adding any carbon to the atmosphere.  Which means glaciers were melting more before man started adding carbon to the atmosphere.  Pretty much debunking the theory of manmade global warming.  Yet when a glacier moves a fraction of what they once did people believe it’s global warming Armageddon (see Ancient forest revealed 1,000 years after being ‘entombed’ in gravel as Alaskan glacier melts by Steve Nolan posted 10/10/2013 on Mail Online).

An ancient forest which is thought to have been hidden for at least 1,000 years has been discovered beneath a melting glacier…

The forest is said to have been shielded from the ice by a tomb of gravel which most likely encased the forest as Initial carbon dating tests suggest that the gravel tomb, which is around 5ft high, may have been formed at least 1,000 years ago.

As glaciers develop they often emit summer meltwater streams which produce aprons of gravel…

But while the find has excited scientists, locals are concerned about the prospect of glacial melting.

They are worried about the threat of rising sea levels and the loss of freshwater sources relied upon for drinking water.

If you go back 1,000 years you are in the era of the Eastern Roman Empire.  Or the Byzantine Empire.  With its capital Constantinople on the Bosporus.  Modern day Istanbul.  The Western Roman Empire may have fallen by then but the Eastern half was still around.  So there were Romans walking the earth the last time these trees saw the light of day.

Now, interesting thing about the Roman Empire was that they did not have the internal combustion engine.  They did not have jet planes flying across the globe.  They did not have coal-fired power plants.  They did not even have the steam engine.  So the Romans were putting little carbon into the atmosphere.  In fact, manmade carbon during the Roman Empire was little different than it was for all of time before the Roman Empire.  Yet the glaciers moved down from the poles towards the equator and retreated numerous times.  All without the help of manmade global warming.

Another way to look at this is this life-killing glacier entombed a forest.  Killing all forest life.  And forcing what life remained fleeing in front of this life-killing glacier as it advanced down from the poles.  Now this killer is retreating.  Allowing life to return where it once had killed it.  Funny we don’t celebrate that.  We celebrate the end of winter.  When life returns after a few months of winter.  But when a glacier gives up its dead people feel sorry for the glacier.  Not its victims.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT189: “The problem with lying is that you can’t keep everyone ignorant forever.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 27th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Global Warming Activists are Anti-Capitalists who want the US to be a European Social Democracy

Democrats lie.  It’s the only way they can advance a liberal agenda the people don’t want.  In the Nineties they warned us about impending doom from manmade global warming.  They said their science told them that within a decade global temperatures would rise so much that the polar icecaps would melt.  And the rising oceans would flood our coastlines.  While the hotter temperatures would turn our fertile farmland into desert.  The left wasn’t saying this could happen.  They were saying it was going to happen.

Well, it didn’t.  Every dire prediction they made didn’t happen.  The polar icecaps are still there.  Our coastlines are still there.  Our farmlands are still fertile.  In fact, they’re so fertile that America has an obesity problem.  Because we’re eating too much food.  And we’re eating too much food because we are growing so much food thanks to those fertile farmlands.  Why, we’re growing so much food that we’re using a large portion of our corn crop to make ethanol to burn in our cars.

So either the global warming crowd was so very wrong.  Or they were lying the whole time.  Why would they lie?  Well, who exactly are the global warming activists?  They’re not Republicans.  They’re not conservatives.  They’re liberals.  And it just so happens that they want the same thing liberal democrats want.  An ever growing regulatory environment strangling our businesses.  For these people are, generally, anti-capitalists.  Who want the United States to become a European social democracy.  Where there is fairness.  Egalitarianism.  And no rich people.  Other than those in government.

The Climate Scientists were wrong about Manmade Global Warming and their Hurricane Predictions

Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest and costliest hurricane to hit the United States.  And the left said, “See?  Global warming.”  Not only that they said this was only the beginning.  And because of manmade global warming we could expect a lot more Hurricane Katrinas.  In fact, it was a sure thing.  Manmade global warming was going to fill the hurricane season with a lot more hurricanes.  And a lot of them would be Hurricane Katrina bad.  Or worse.  And you could take that to the bank.  Because their mathematical models proved this.

Well, it turned out these mathematical models were wrong.  Since Katrina we’ve had nothing but mild hurricane seasons.  Exactly the opposite of what the climate scientists said we would have.  In fact, it took 7 years before we experienced another storm nearly as destructive as Katrina.  Hurricane Sandy.  Or Superstorm Sandy.  As it wasn’t quite a hurricane.  Though it was destructive.  It wasn’t Hurricane Katrina destructive.  Like the climate scientists said most hurricanes would be like following Katrina.

So either the climate scientists were just very bad at science.  Or they’ve been lying.  Or both.  During the Seventies these same brilliant scientists were upset that the world’s governments wouldn’t heed their warnings and start storing food for the coming ice age.  For they said it was a sure thing.  And there was nothing we could do about it. Then another decade or so later these same climate scientists were warning us about global warming.  Which was then a sure thing.  As global cooling and ice ages was so yesterday’s climate.

The Left is Good at Lying because they keep the People Ignorant and Gullible

Today business is strangled by environmental regulations.  The government is waging war against inexpensive and reliable coal-fired power plants.  While spending our tax dollars on costly and unreliable renewable energy.  Australia has a carbon tax.  And Europe has an emissions trading scheme.  To charge power plants, businesses, airlines, etc., for the carbon they exhaust into the atmosphere.  Adding layers and layers of costs to everything we buy.  All because the climate scientists said we were causing global warming.  Warming the same planet they said was cooling a few decades earlier.

They were wrong.  As they are on most things.  In fact, they are some of the most ignorant smart people in the world.  The political left.  Who want to run our lives because they are so much smarter than we are.  Yet their track record shows that they are not smarter than us.  Or that they’re just very good liars.  Who can tell the same lie over and over again and people will believe it.  Like global warming.  Or their Keynesian economic policies.  Policies that have given us the Great Depression.  The stagflation of the Seventies.  Japan’s Lost Decade.  The dot-com bubble and recession.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And, of course, the European sovereign debt crisis.

Yet the left is very good at winning elections.  And that’s because they are such good liars.  For all of their policies are politically driven.  They don’t care about manmade global warming.  They just want to control the economy.  So they can pick winners and losers.  And enrich themselves.  Which is why they will tell the same lie over and over again.  Because they are so good at lying.  And the people are so gullible.  Because they are so ignorant.  Thanks to our public schools.  Which are controlled by the left (the teacher unions aren’t filling Republican campaign coffers).  The problem with lying to advance your agenda, though, is that you can’t keep everyone ignorant forever.  Eventually people grow up.  They raise families and feel the direct result of the left’s costly policies.  They live through 2 decades where there was no warming.  They see few hurricanes despite predictions of record hurricane seasons.  That’s why the left works so hard for the youth vote.  Because they are just too young to have experienced these things.  Young and dumb.  The ideal Democrat voter.  Who vote for the party that says sex is okay.  And drugs aren’t that bad.  Unlike their parents.  Who are old enough to have experienced the left being so wrong for so long.


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

Redwoods and Sequoias love Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2013

Week in Review

Trees love carbon dioxide.  They breathe it in.  And exhale oxygen.  Allowing us to breathe.  The more carbon dioxide they breathe the more oxygen we get.  The happier the trees are.  And the happier we are.  So this is no surprise (see Redwoods and sequoias thrive despite climate change posted 8/26/2013 on CBS News).

A four-year study by the Save the Redwoods League called “the Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative” found that due to changing environmental conditions, California’s coastal redwoods and giant sequoias are experiencing an unprecedented growth surge and have produced more wood over the past century than any other time in their lives.

Imagine that.  Man made the trees grow faster.  And here the global warming alarmists were wringing their hands over the deforestation of the rain forest.  When there is nothing to worry about.  For we are planting trees.  And now we know we can make those trees grow faster.  All we have to do is burn more fossil fuels.

The global warming alarmists can rest easy tonight.  For man’s carbon footprint isn’t killing the planet.  It’s making it grow like a son of a bitch.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries