Last night as Al Gore was receiving the Oscar for best Documentary, the former vice president declared man-made global warming was a moral issue. Of course, last night was not the first time he has declared such. Since Al Gore believes it to be a moral issue, then this report on his home's energy usage certainly damages any platform from which Gore pretends to speak. Of course, Gore claims to attain carbon neutrality via purchasing carbon offsets from NativeEnergy. Regardless of this claim, paying the modern-day equivalent of indulgences does not relieve Gore of his singular responsibility to provide moral leadership. Besides his palatial home, he rides in private planes and SUV convoys. Moral leadership indeed.
Until people like Al Gore lead by example, it will be hard for me to take the entire effort seriously. Unless he is willing to personally sacrifice for the ideals he wants the rest of us to have, why should we grant him moral standing on this matter?
I have written on the Gore Effect. Somehow, I think I am having the same effect on Colorado. Every time I try to go, it snows. We will see how the end of the week looks. If I have to cancel again, I am going in July.
I found this interesting page about a house in Washington that claims to be self sufficient with regards to energy. It uses solar power to create hydrogen. The hydrogen is then stored and burned for electricity.
I don't know if it is realistic or even cost effective, but it is worth looking at.
Floyd Landis may just get off on a technicality. Amazing.
Embattled Tour de France winner Floyd Landis received a boost in his fight against a positive doping test after French lab records showed a protocol violation.
The the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the French laboratory which found the positive results against Landis had two technicians involved in the original urinalysis and the confirming test, validating their own findings.
Sheldon Richman writes a brilliant piece on free trade here:
What is an export? What is an import? These words are defined in reference to political boundaries of only one kind: national boundaries. If there were no such boundaries, there would be no exports or imports. But political boundaries are just that. They are not economic boundaries. To the extent that they can, people go about their business as though those boundaries weren't there. People cross the Canadian-American and Mexican-American borders to transact business every day. If they give them a thought it is only because governments put up barriers patrolled my armed guards who make them wait in line. People learn early in life that they can gain immensely from trade, and with that understanding comes the insight that it doesn't much matter on which side of a Rand-McNally line your trading partner lives.
So the very concepts imports and exports are founded on an arbitrary construct that has little practical consequence for people's economic activities. Back in the 1980s, when neomercantilists feared Japan's economic success at selling us stuff (seems a little crazy now, no?), I used to ask what would happen to the trade deficit if Japan were made the 51st state. Obviously, the deficit would have disappeared because we don't reckon trade imbalances between states. Why not?
In reality, then, there are no imports and exports. There is only what I make and what everyone else makes. Few people would want to live just on what they themselves could make. Frederic Bastiat pointed out that each of us daily uses products we couldn't make in isolation in a thousand years. Talk about poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short! "What makes this phenomenon stranger still is that the same thing holds true for all men," Bastiat wrote. "Every one of the members of society has consumed a million times more than he could have produced; yet no one has robbed anyone else."
All I can say is "brilliant" again. It goes without saying "read the whole thing".
Well, don't neutralize your cat. Neutralize your cat's flatulence:
Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny ``carbon-neutral'' at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.
I wonder how much they will pay me not to make my famous turkey chili this weekend?
Update and bumped: These people are making it really hard for me to deflate the religion comparison. Heed the "Goracle" indeed. How embarrassing. They are discrediting themselves.
There are those that are starting to use the meme of "The Church of Global Warming" and comparing the human-caused global warming to a religion. They cite the existence of global warming mythology, sin, purgatory, indulgences and apocalyptic scenarios. Even some of its most fevered proponents from outside of the scientific community could be described as fundamentalists, zealots and worse. Trust me, I know a few of them personally.
I first picked up on this meme while, by chance, catching the Rush Limbaugh show while in the car one day. Rush even went so far as to describe the human-caused global warming theory as totally lacking in science while making his comparison to religious doctrine. I had to laugh hearing Rush talk about science in comparison to religion. Rush wouldn't know a scientific principle if The Origin of Species slapped him upside the head.
Regardless of what I think of the theory, those that choose to compare it to a religion only do so because of their ignorance (yes, ignorance) of science, the scientific method and the scientific mindset. They hold a view of the world largely dependent upon superstition and faith. Thus, as a result of their own (flawed) thinking process of belief without evidence (faith), their minds are unable to comprehend that the scientific method is the best way to gather knowledge. Period. Bar none.
Make no mistake about it, my skepticism and questioning of human-caused global warming and its proponents is a perfectly legitimate part of the scientific process. Those that forward the theory are responsible for providing the proof of the extraordinary claim. They are responsible for integrating all the data - not just convenient data - into a viable theory that explains the observations. And as new observations are made that contradict the most current theoretical framework, science works even harder to modify and refine the theory such that the best explanation is arrived at. Through this iterative process, science is able to reach conclusions about the world that are far more precise and accurate than a faith-based approach. Science's track record describing and modeling the world in which we live is far stronger than those who fought the notion that the earth rotated around the sun. You owe your life and livelihood to the process of science, not faith.
A final word to those "Global Warming is a Religion" proponents: I find your ignorance-based skepticism as repulsive as those that use the tactics of repression and demonization to throttle legitimate, factual debate. If you want to play in this arena, best learn something about science first. When you learn the rules, you can play. Until then, butt out.
A leading economist this week warned that the world's two leading carbon trading schemes are failing to deliver the expected benefits due to a collapse in the price of carbon credits - and the situation is likely to get far worse before it gets better.
Many politicians have identified carbon emissions trading schemes as the best means of tackling climate change, arguing that by putting a price on carbon emissions firms have a financial incentive to reduce their carbon footprint.
However, speaking to an audience of academics and business leaders at this week's Tyndall Centre conference on investments in low carbon technologies, Professor Catrinus Jepma of the University of Amsterdam warned that both the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme and the UN's Clean Development Mechanism were in danger of failing with prices for the carbon credits used under both schemes predicted to reach just a few cents.
"The Stern Report suggests we need a price for a tonne of carbon emissions of $20, rising to $30, $40 or even $50 to stabilise [the level of CO2 in the atmosphere] at manageable levels," he said. "But there is a good chance that the carbon credits that are meant to provide incentives for reducing emissions will be available for next to nothing."
The carbon credit trading scheme only makes governments and traders richer while the rest of us pay for it. I am glad the price is collapsing. Perhaps they will abandon such folly. Once again, not gonna happen.
After just spending the afternoon celebrating Darwin's 198th birthday, I read this nonsense. Why are people so opposed to teaching and understanding the greatest scientific concept of all time? Don't they understand that the facts of genetic evolution and the long lineage we can claim with the past make us more special, not less?
I'll never understand the opposition to evolution.
Instapundit linked to this interesting article regarding a way to cool the earth.
Benford has a proposal that possesses the advantages of being both one of the simplest planet-cooling technologies so far suggested and being initially testable in a local context. He suggests suspension of tiny, harmless particles (sized at one-third of a micron) at about 80,000 feet up in the stratosphere. These particles could be composed of diatomaceous earth. "That's silicon dioxide, which is chemically inert, cheap as earth, and readily crushable to the size we want," Benford says. This could initially be tested, he says, over the Arctic, where warming is already considerable and where few human beings live. Arctic atmospheric circulation patterns would mostly confine the deployed particles around the North Pole. An initial experiment could occur north of 70 degrees latitude, over the Arctic Sea and outside national boundaries. "The fact that such an experiment is reversible is just as important as the fact that it's regional," says Benford.
Even if Benford's idea worked and it managed to stop climate change (whether you believe it to be a natural or man-made phenomena) and was otherwise benign to the environment and was as relatively cheap and easy as he suggests, it will never happen.
The Global Warming religion is not about the temperature of the planet, ocean levels, melting ice caps and stranded polar bears. Global warming is about control. It is about one group of people acquiring the power to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. An idea that prevents the climate from warming without that transfer of political power is dead on arrival.
Is that too harsh? I think not. There has long been a socialist undercurrent to the whole Global Warming debate. The UN is certainly uses it to propose all sorts of bureaucratic solutions and would love to govern every aspect of our economic lives. To them, that is the only solution they will accept.
So, they worry about a backlash against free trade?
Worries about the dark side of free trade are surfacing in the United States in ways that could affect the course of globalization worldwide.
What is this, an episode of Star Wars? ooohhhhhh....the DARK SIDE.
The reason: Free-trade brush fires have recently erupted on economic and political fronts: Democrats are in control of Congress, with new lawmakers in their ranks who are especially eager to do something about what they see as unfair trade practices by China. Bipartisan bills introduced this week could result in retaliatory tariffs or revocation of China's trade status with the US.
Oh yes, let's bring on those Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
Trade has always been always destabilizing for the workers in affected industries. What's new is the unprecedented scale and pace of change worldwide.
Yes, the pace of change is quickening. That just mean we all have to adapt faster and more often. Nothing is going to stop change - you either adapt or die.
Another new bill, the Fair Currency Act of 2007, classified China as a currency manipulator in violation of US trade law.
So what. Let China manipulate its currency. They are pushing things in our favor, not theirs. They are hurting their own citizens, not ours. If you cannot understand that, then you should not be in the Congress. All this act would do is hurt Americans.
"We need to declare a moratorium on new trade agreements until we figure out how to do this right," says Alan Tonelson of the US Business and Industry Council, which represents companies concerned about the erosion of US manufacturing.
Manufacturing productivity is at an all-time high. Yet, it requires less and less people for more and more output. We can, therefore, use our valuable resources for more productive uses. There is nothing wrong with moving from manufacturing to service.
And lastly, the biggest stupidity of all:
It remains unclear whether the advocates of a harder line on trade will gain traction. Some economists believe this will be a better year for US exports - and a narrowing in the trade deficit.
And that deficit, they say, is not in itself a sign of economic decline. But it could be unsustainable if other nations grow less willing to finance that deficit by lending to the US.
Here's the thing. They are not financing our debt, they are investing in America.
This morning I was listening to my favorite business radio station in Houston (1320) and I hear the host, Brent Clanton, interviewing an oil industry analyst. First, he references this parody by the Houston Chronicle's Loren Steffy (yes, the same one I called crap) about ExxonMobil going green. Clanton wondered aloud why ExxonMobil has finally acknowledged global warming and why they are going green.
To me, it is not a shocking development. Here is the video of the probably next President:
That was a message straight to ExxonMobil's management. They are going to face a Democrat in the oval office who is keen on confiscatory taxes on their profits using global warming as a reason. Not that big government politicians need a reason, but it is easier to sell to the populous if they can drum up a reason to take money.
I found myself screaming at the radio station and the oil analyst who did a poor job convincing me of his knowledge of the oil business and reinvestment process. He criticized EM for repurchasing shares as well as being focused on the bottom line. I found his analysis to be strange with a little anti-capitalist language - something like "they are not focused on bringing gas to the market, they are focused on making the most money as possible." Well, EM's business is bringing energy and petroleum based products to the market in the most efficient manner in an effort to make a profit for its owners and shareholders. That is what EM does and it is the best in the world at doing it. That Hillary wants to punish success and the oil analyst wants to prevent the repurchase of company stock in favor of questionable exploration projects betrays some economic muddle-headedness I find unpalatable.
As for Business Radio 1320, I hope they do better with their guests in the future.
The decline of the American auto industry continues.
Over the next three years, the company will cut its work force by 16 percent — including 11,000 hourly jobs and 2,000 salaried jobs.
The Warren Truck Plant in Michigan, which makes Dodge Ram pickups, will lose a shift this year and about 1,000 workers. An assembly plant in Delaware will lose a shift this year and be idled in 2009, and a parts plant in Ohio will be shut this December.
A shift will be reduced at a St. Louis area plant where minivans are made — a surprise to analysts who expected a cut at another St. Louis plant where Dodge Rams are made.
Well, color me surprised. Koch Industries buys Huntsman's chemicals and polymers business. These businesses have had a rough go of it in the last 10 years, but the last two or three have seen massive profit improvement. I am wondering if Huntsman is anticipating a downturn and selling at the top. Koch is known for shrewed acquisition and management as well as being cheap. They probably did not pay a premium.
I wonder what the strategy change caused Huntsman to sell and Koch to buy. I also wonder if there were bids by other companies looking to get bigger in chemicals and plastics to leverage economies of scale. If so, why Koch and why not ExxonMobil, ChevronPhillips or BP?
ABC News reports where elitists shelter their money from taxes: The Netherlands.
I dislike this sort of hypocrisy the most. Groups like U2 want debt forgiveness for Africa and more money for AIDS drugs, but don't want to pay their own taxes. Really, it boils down to wanting to save the world, but please use someone else's money. It always seems like do-gooders are really free with "Other People's Money" and want to hold onto their own with both fists.
I can't believe the Houston Chronicle pays for crap like this. Loren Steffy lacks so much writing talent, he could probably sit in for Paul Krugman from time to time. Hey, here's an idea. Make Steffy's columns subscription only - kinda like TimesSelect. I am way too cheap to pay to abuse him. Then again, whatever would I write about?
This item caught my eye on Instapundit today. He linked to this post on the subject of Toyota facing protectionist action for overtaking Ford and eventually GM.
This sort of thing interested me back in Aug, 2006 when I first stated this blog. I found it interesting that Toyota would basically beg Honda not to lower its prices and crush GM and Ford. I posted on the subject here and here.
For once (or twice), I am ahead of the curve on this subject.
So the Chargers fired Schottenheimer even after a 14-2 season. They said they fired him because he had a dysfunctional relationship with the general manager. I say bull. They fired him because he is a loser. He can never win the big one. He has proven that during his entire career. He was a loser with the Browns. He was a loser with the Chiefs. He was a loser with the Chargers.
Of course, I say this as a life-long Denver Bronco fan who has enjoyed much of the Bronco's success against Schottenheimer's teams. Remember The Drive? Remember The Fumble. Yep. Against his teams. 5-13 in playoff history. Sorry bud. There is the door.
While France may be heavily reliant on nuclear power and there are those that wish we would go that way, Germany is all but abandoning nuclear power in favor of renewables:
Five years ago, the government negotiated a Nuclear Exit Law with the power industry, requiring all 19 of its atomic power stations to shut down by 2020. No easy task for a country of 82 million, which currently relies on nuclear for 30 percent of its power. But it's happening: in May, authorities began closing down Obrigheim, a plant near the Rhine River in the area south of Frankfurt, making it the second reactor to go off-line.
With a three-part energy mix set to take nuclear's place -- a short-term increase in cleaner coal- and gas-powered plants, an increase in renewable-fuels production, and an emphasis on domestic energy efficiency -- economists, engineers, and energy specialists consider Germany's decision to phase out nuclear a no-brainer. The strategy not only avoids further costs to human health, the climate, and the economy...
Greenpeace is trumpeting the fact that Spain is joining four other European countries to abandon nuclear.
...renewable energy is now taking the lead, with a single source such as wind energy adding more than 6,000 megawatts to the European grid every year, the equivalent to two large nuclear reactors. In only a few years, wind power in Spain has grown to 8 percent of the national electricity production. In 2005 alone, some 1680 megawatts of new wind power were installed, generating four times as much electricity as the Zorita nuclear power plant which Spain closed last month.
Spain joins Sweden, Germany, Italy and Belgium as the fifth European country to abandon nuclear power.
So, adopting a European policy might not provide the results everyone wishes.
I am a big Norah Jones fan and have purchased her new album. I have listened to the entire thing about 15 times over the last two weeks. I was hoping it would grow on me and it just a little, just not enough for love. I never thought I would say this, but I give this album a 2 on a scale of 3 to 5. Here is why:
-Too many tracks used repetitive, acoustical guitar rifts in the background. It is very annoying to here the same, dull repetitive rhythm sections only to be dominated by Norah's voice. Examples of this are: Wish I Could, The Sun Doesn't Like You, and Not My Friend.
-There are two songs that stick out like a sore thumb and, in my opinion, don't belong on the album: Sinkin' Soon (both versions on the album) and the political My Dear Country. While I do not hate Sinkin' Soon, it is just out of place with the other songs. It would be more at home in a New Orleans jazz club or with the Flappers of the 1920's. If the whole album was like that, it would be fine. As to My Dear Country, I prefer my entertainers to keep to music and stay out of politics. One can only guess the target of these lyrics:
But fear's the only thing I saw, And three days later 'twas clear to all, That nothing is as scary as election day.
But the day after is darker, And darker and darker it goes, Who knows, maybe the plans will change, Who knows, maybe he's not deranged.
It's OK to have political opinions, just don't expect me to agree with them nor wish that you would sing about them.
-There is not a single song on the album that could qualify for her best ten songs. That is pretty bad since she has only put out two previous albums and a couple of new live tracks.
Now, to the songs I did like: Until the End, Thinking About You, Broken, Little Room, Rosie's Lullaby and Not Too Late. Little Room makes me wonder just what "there's room enough to do the things we like to do" means. The others are good Norah, just not her best. Too bad it is the fourth song before we get to a song I like.
While I am on the subject of her top ten songs, here is my list:
Come Away with Me Turn Me On Prettiest Thing What Am I to You? Don't Know Why Moon Song (from Live in 2004) Sunrise Lonestar Humble Me She (from Live in 2004)
Those are my top 10 favorites and there are probably five others that come in above any on Never Too Late. Sorry, that is the truth.
Overall, if you love Norah, buy the album, just don't think you will listen to it more than you listen to either Come Away With Me or Feels Like Home. It will grow on you and there will be five songs you will listen to.
Update: (11-Feb-07) and Bumped. Welcome Instapundit readers. My first Insta-launch. Take a look around while you are here.
Grist does a good job of expressing my reluctance on the carbon neutrality issue and how illogical the entire effort seems.
Intuitively, though, it feels like there's something wrong with this picture. When you stop and think about it, the whole idea of driving a car, paying money into a green kitty to offset the CO2 from burning the gas, and then calling the car trip carbon-neutral, is ludicrous.
Exactly and I have been saying here, and here and here it appears the carbon neutrality culture is nothing more than guilt riddance via checkbook matched up with an entrepreneurial opportunity that the Vatican would be proud of exploiting.
But it's worse than padding the books. Carbon offsets are disturbingly redolent of the sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages, by which the wealthy could expiate their sins without prayer or good works by greasing the palms of the Church hierarchy. Leaving aside whether carbon emitting is "sinful," the purchase of carbon offsets smacks of the same corruption that turned indulgences into "get out of Purgatory free" cards and helped set off the Protestant Reformation.
Ouch! Wonder if Al Gore is going to do an interview with Komanoff.
Lastly, Komanoff does a take down on the Moral Authority front:
Americans must move individually toward low-carbon lives -- bicycling instead of driving, replacing watt-wasting incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, and minimizing air travel. This personal commitment is essential, not just to deliver big reductions in carbon emissions but for the sake of moral consistency.
So the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report comes out and the likes of Ellen Goodman think it necessary to compare climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
I don't know why anyone is shocked. This is a regular staple of the climate change proponents. If they want to be a little less shocking, they will compare denial of evolution or plate tectonics with climate change denial. In fact, I was accused of denying evolution for questioning the science of global warming at the very same time I was writing my tribute to Charles Darwin on the occasion of his birthday. How ironic! At various times, there are suggestions of Nuremberg trials or lawsuits against climate change deniers. And you know what, I am prepared to be persuaded by the evidence. But when you threaten those things and make inflammatory comparisons, I question your motive, tactics and the strength of your evidence. Should climate change proponents continue to pour on such attacks and see how far you can push the rhetoric, that will push me farther and farther from their point of view. Stick to science, answer my valid criticisms and I will modify my viewpoint accordingly. Continue with personal attacks, fudge data, ignore contradictory evidence, and I'll be less willing to come to your side.
I have finally figured out why the Houston Chronicle allows Loren Steffy to despoil the pages of the business pages: He is Pop Economist. In his roll, he spreads populous economic myths that fan the flames of class warfare all the while serving to undermine capitalism and the free market. In his latest piece (of doggy doo-doo), Steffy thanks Asians for lending us cash. Of course, that is less than half the story. Asians and others should be thanking us for providing excellent investment opportunities with low risks that they, apparently, cannot get in their own countries. They are willing to purchase Treasuries, we are willing to pay very small interest rates, and both parties are happy. Foreign investors come here for safety and stability; they get what they want. We want to take their money and pay next to nothing to get it. Foreign investors also find American stocks a viable investment option. Another reason for us to stay competitive. Of course, Steffy doesn't think it important to make our capital markets attractive preferring instead that capital investment go elsewhere. Yet another indication he does not know what he is talking about.
What Steffy also fails to realize is that Americans invest in foreign economies with much higher rates of return. This return differential partially explains the sustainable, 30 year trade deficit. I am afraid that is the subject of another post. I'll have to dumb in down for Steffy so he can understanding. However, it is likely the Pop Economist filters won't allow facts to counter the populous agenda. His loss.
This is the age-old story of big government and socialism: "You have it, I want it, hand it over." That is the bottom line. Here is how a politician (John Edwards) puts the same concept:
"The bottom line is we're asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country. Employers, those who are in the medical insurance business, employees, the American people — everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Edwards said he would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes.
Well, I have a statement for all those big government politicians of either party: Keep your hands off my health care choices. You have no authority, moral, ethical, constitutional, legal or otherwise to tax anyone, regardless of income level, to run a government-sponsored health insurance program. The populous is not some serf class who lives to serve your socialist agenda. We are individuals born free who demand freedom. We give you and your lot no claim on our economic freedom, so keep your hands off! If you want it, you pay for it.
Well. Today's Superbowl was just a big blah! Six turnovers in the first half and eight total showed the sloppy nature of both teams.
Payton Manning was his usual whinny self, questioning the coaches calls, receivers' routes and referees' decisions. If he could just play the game and not be such a little baby, I would root for him. If he could blame his poor decisions for interceptions rather than receivers, I would have more respect for him. Now that has won a Superbowl and won the MVP award, the only question left is how many more commercials do we have to see him in?
In the end, I had to carefully consider my vote for MVP. The MVP had to have the most impact on the game. And you know what, I vote for no one, especially Manning (the whinny little baby). If had to vote, I would have voted for Rhodes or Hayden. At the end of it all, what a forgettable Superbowl.
France's President Jacque Chirac is now threatening to impose a carbon tax if the US does not sign the Kyoto Accord when it runs out in 2012:
[Chirac] warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.
“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”
Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.
Since most nations who signed the Kyoto protocol are failing to live up to the agreement, I wonder what basis there will be for this tax. Of course, I doubt a trade war will be sparked in 2012 by this proposal. It would further cripple the EU's economy and cause consumers to pay more for everything. In effect, Chirac proposes punishing his own citizens with his tax. I wonder how they will like it?
And here I thought climate change caused terrorism, but Turkish author Harun Yahya maintains that Darwinists are terrorists and that Charles Darwin's theories are "the true source of terrorism". Wow! I am not sure how this impacts my Global Warming Theory of Everything as I must now factor this into the theoretical framework. I knew attributing everything to Global Warming would be difficult, but someone has to do it.
The Bayport terminal in Houston has been needed for a long, long time. Now, as the Chronicle puts it, it is time to delivery. Man that is clever.
Regardless, this is good for Houston as needed container volume is ramped up at Bayport. What the Chronicle misses is the impact of hurricane Rita's devastation had on the port of New Orleans and Biloxi. Who knows if the disruption caused by that hurricane has been repaired.
Anyway, I personally welcome the new Bayport facility opening. It is a good thing.
