A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)

Political Correctness in the Republican party consists of denying that global warming exists, or that it’s man made, or that it’s impact to our children’s futures and our nation won’t be monumental. These denials come in the face of science that states unequivocally otherwise.

Political correctness in the GOP demands knee jerk adamant opposition to clean energy because they’ve wrongly become convinced that environmentalism and capitalism are mutually exclusive isms… It means that all GOP pundits must regularly spout myths that most of world knows are not true, and it means that China will be the world energy leader and have the world energy markets dominated within 30 years.

All of this is clearly and concisely covered in Peter Hadfield’s video below.

Obama’s Nuclear Energy Limbo

Obama’s Nuclear Energy Limbo

A good post is up at NEI discussing the ambiguity of the Obama Adminstration’s stance on new nuclear energy plants in the face of the push for cap and tax:

If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, [nuclear] plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.

That’s from the New York Times, borrowing a story from Climate Wire, which while noting the nuclear plants achieve the goal of carbon emission reduction rather well, runs though the tough sledding it faces.

For example, President Obama is overly ambiguous in his support:

“The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy,” said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. “He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer.”

We’re not absolutely sure this is the right way to put it – Congress weighs in, too, and we’ve seen an EPA report that basically shows that carbon emission reduction goals are unattainable without nuclear energy. The nibbling around the edges is happening from both ends.

Tales of Brave Ulysses II – Solar Wind at Lowest Pressure Since Measurement Began

276531main_mccomas-2ndimage-full
Tales of Brave Ulysses II – Solar Wind at Lowest Pressure Since Measurement Began
 

The Ulysses satellite Solar Wind Observations Over the Poles (SWOOPS) solar wind sensors are reporting a 20 percent drop in pressure, with only a 3 percent drop in speed. Dave McComas, the principle investigator for the project, states  this as the lowest solar wind pressure observed since the early sixties when we began measuring it.

“What we’re seeing is a long term trend, a steady decrease in pressure that began sometime in the mid-1990s,” explains Arik Posner, NASA’s Ulysses Program Scientist in Washington DC.

How unusual is this event?

“It’s hard to say. We’ve only been monitoring solar wind since the early years of the Space Age—from the early 60s to the present,” says Posner. “Over that period of time, it’s unique. How the event stands out over centuries or millennia, however, is anybody’s guess. We don’t have data going back that far.” 

What this bodes longer term is unknown, we don’t have a long history of solar wind measurements to judge by. Here’s a link to the positve Ion measurements half of the data if you want to take a look at it yourself, and I’ve also included a McComas jpg visual above, click the thumbnail to enlarge. On Earth we aren’t going to be affected short term, but Space Travel has become slightly more dangerous due to increased Cosmic Ray penetration of the Heliosphere.

“The solar wind isn’t inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to,” says McComas. “That means less shielding against cosmic rays.” Dave McComas

To picture this think of the solar wind pressure emanating from the sun as part of the atmosphere of the sun (no, it really isn’t, but bear with me a moment;) a huge bubble around the solar system called the Heliosphere. Then picture that heliosphere zooming through a dense sea of Cosmic rays. Still can’t picture it? Take a look here.

Anecdotal but truth as I know it: People living near the poles will also be exposed to more cosmic rays, which could lead to some effects. One of the visible effects I’ve observed is higher incidence of gray hair at earlier ages in populations living near the Northern pole. Earth’s magnetic shield is the backstop for the heliosphere in stopping cosmic rays from affecting life on Earth, and the shape of the magnetic field allows entry to more Cosmic rays at the poles.

Another effect could be on Clouds and climate, which the linked story speaks of.

Obama’s Budget is a Giveaway Grab Bag; You Don’t Know What Will Come Out of It

We’ve already seen how Barack manages large programs, under the Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers he gave away a total of 150 million to gaggle of community activist groups to improve schools. Some of those groups were radical, but putting that aside a moment you can see that the vague “feel good” instead of results-oriented direction under Obama just created monumental waste with zero results. The other cities given these grants saw improvement, Chicago stands alone with zero improvement.

His proposed budget for the country should give everyone pause, especially with Annenberg as the only real executive track record to judge by. Traditional media has ignored this because of the Ayers weather underground terror connection and Marxist ideology, but it’s essential to examine Annenberg because it’s the only executive “achievement” that Barack Obama has. The MSM failure to examine the results and goals of Annenberg in detail is journalistic and moral bankruptcy.

The McCain-Palin campaign has critized his tax plans as welfare, so Barack’s campaign has come back and tweaked it to add a work requirement. (They will materialize things out of thin air as needed to get elected.) This comes from the New Hampshire Union Leader in reply:

“Facing criticism from John McCain that his tax plan constitutes ‘welfare,’ Barack Obama recently added a work requirement to one of his proposals. ‘They started saying this was welfare,’ said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. “So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we’ll simply add a work requirement.’ …’When did this change? I’m just curious,’ an incredulous Holtz-Eakin asked Goolsbee. ‘About two weeks ago,’ replied Goolsbee, adding that when the proposal was announced in September 2007, 98 percent of its benefits went to workers.” — ABC News

“The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible — impossible! — for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that. If you think you are going to avoid a tax increase on Obama’s watch because you aren’t ‘rich,’ remember this: A government that arbitrarily picks $250,000 as a dividing line can, using the same purely political considerations, pick any number as a dividing line.” — New Hampshire Union Leader

 

Kudos to the NH Union Leader for pinning down the specifics on this, as we know Obama prefers to be vague — he puts forth sweeping general statements that sound good, and we are not supposed to question. Barack is running for president however, and it’s every journalist’s duty to question.

So once again you see that the Obama campaign is a weather vane moving in the wind, and as everyone knows you don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows…

Wind Builds Dependency on Gas

NEI has an update on what happens when you build wind turbines — you end up using gas. I’m an “all of the above” guy, it’s blue sky for all forms of energy for the next two decades, I don’t know why the pundits aren’t seeing that. 50-70 Petawatt hours of electricity will be needed worldwide by 2050, and who fills that need will be the leading economy of the future. So the T. Boone Pickens plan is ok as long as they aren’t opposing nuclear, which both the wind and natural gas lobbies tend to do.

The energy and environmental lobbies need to all put the knives away and work together to meet that growing demand as robustly and cleanly as possible, this isn’t simple and there’s not one solution. That’s why a great deal more nuclear energy capacity needs to brought online pronto.

From the study NEI cites:

Wind power is clearly not reducing the dependence on imported fuel, contrary to the frequent claims of its proponents. In fact the experience from Germany and Spain shows that it is increasing the dependence of imported natural gas. And that’s not energy security.

Say What Barack?

This is hilarious.

[editor: Well it was hilarious, but now they’ve pulled the air gauge vid. Here’s the latest McCain ad as a poor substitute.]

McCain Calls on Congress

John McCain is a realist – he has the foresight to look ahead at the nine billion souls who will soon populate this planet, and what they will need. They will need energy in quantities undreamt of, and the only way to solve that dilemma is an “All of the Above” approach. We need every energy source working if we would not have the planet plunged into poverty, misery, filth and despair. The first step on that path is making energy cheaper and more abundant in America so that we may continue to feed the world.

In this video you see Senator McCain call on Congress to come back and work on the energy problem.

Gore Lied People Died III

I’ve been picking on Al Gore and the disciples of warming because they are the most visible face of last-century’s eco-luddite movement, however to solve the real problems everyone must realize that Al’s not the only person causing starvation and stasis in the world.

The other factors creating hunger are also incumbent with eco-luddism, global warming is just the latest stalking-horse for the real goal of making energy too expensive and scarce to use. The environmental approach of using less and conserving is laudable, but… if it’s not working now for six billion people, it will never work in 42 years when the population is 9 Billion.

When looking at the environmental movements from a distance en-masse you have to be careful or you understate the real problem and the needs; e.g. as this article seems to want to pin current hunger all on corn ethanol, and that’s not the entire case. Other articles also question the need for global policy based on the suspect data, as this article points out. 

Collectively the intermeshed muddle of environmental movements have ensured that the dirtiest source of power (coal) is still the most heavily used for the past thirty years. They’ve done this by opposition to new oil and gas exploration, drilling, and refineries. They’ve done this through tax and regulation of fuel standards. They’ve done it through intense opposition and regulation of new nuclear plants, and NIMBY oppostion to large scale wind and solar farms. They’ve opposed hydro-power wherever it’s been attempted. It seems that the only power that’s good or green is that used specifically for their house, and none other.

They’ve opposed all forms of new energy but it isn’t a vast plot – instead it fits with their general blurry vision and strategy. As stated above they just muddle their way towards a low-energy world, often working at cross-purpose without understanding the ultimate evil effect. That vision and strategy is to make energy scare and expensive, in hopes of stopping environmental degradation. Instead they insure not only environmental degradation, but also hunger and poverty in third world nations, and the eventual destruction of wealth in the US.

Is it a mistake that the high-guru of Global Warming comes from a coal mining state where the coal boom is once again on and the attempts to stop it are being fought in the state Legislature? Is it a mistake that a supposedly “environmental” Senator, Ted Kennedy, opposes windmill farms in his neighborhood.
Continue reading “Gore Lied People Died III”