Barack Obama again on why your electricity bill must raise…. to paraphrase him ” uh… if you can convince enough people of that, then…” I have a freaking bridge to sell you. This isn’t what our economy needs, this isn’t what the third world countries need, it isn’t what your children’s future needs. It is what Greenpeace wants. Are we electing Greenpeace, or a president who really cares for the long term future of American, your children, and the world? [ handy reference to what higher energy prices lead to here…. hint: the costs are counted in human lives.] video below the fold
This is a time when I hate being right in these previous articles. This is a night I surely wish I were wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
North Koreans are starving once again, and for now it’s the tyrannies and the slave states that will feel the brunt of hunger. Later, if we do not make energy more plentiful it will spread to poor states, not just the failed ones. Growing, transporting, and storing food is energy intensive, the higher energy goes, the higher food price will go. From Washington Post:
The main U.N. aid agency in North Korea, the World Food Program, will resume emergency operations there in the next two weeks to help feed more than 5 million people over the next 15 months at a cost of $500 million, said Jean-Pierre de Margerie, the agency’s country director in Pyongyang.
“The situation is indeed very serious,” de Margerie said at a news conference in Beijing.
The resumption of emergency operations, which were scaled back in 2005 on a request from the North Korean government, was decided after a U.N. survey last month showed the most severe and widespread hunger among North Koreans in a decade. The survey was taken after the Pyongyang government, in an unusual gesture, officially acknowledged a growing hunger crisis and appealed for international aid.
Here’s a short video of what it was like last time North Korea went through Famine.
Warning: Do not watch if you are weak of heart or spirit.
There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin. — President John F. Kennedy, 1963
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! — President Ronald Reagan, at the Brandenburg Gates 1987
Even powerful speeches and words lose all meaning and effect when they are not backed with clear resolve and firm action. Kennedy’s words were backed up by a large increase in our strategic nuclear forces; Reagan’s words were backed by nuclear missiles stationed in Europe and a missile defense initiative. Because Reagan’s and Kennedy’s words had power, purpose and meaning, and because they backed those words with firm resolve and clear policy the history of our world was changed and freedom expanded.
So here lies the challenge Senator Barack Obama: if you go to the Brandenburg gates and speak it would be without purpose or meaning because those gates are now open and the people past the gates are already free.
Instead why not become a true leader — one who promotes the cause of freedom in this world?
With that in mind I’ve outlined a potential itinerary below: Continue reading “A Travel Agent Challenge for Barack Obama”
Christopher Monckton’s new paper analyzes the math of the IPCC model and 2007 climate report and finds it flawed. As many have asserted his math now proves that carbon forcing effects in the model are exagerated among other things such as:
• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The climate alarmists are sure to be out in force soon to attack these conclusions, watch for some major hysteria as this is a major scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal , the first among many to come. Now that we see demonstrable human suffering as outcome of misguided technocratic policy eyes are beginning to open. Scientists will be fully examining IPCC conclusion and basically fact checking their ass fully which is something the climate alarmists been given a pass on in the past. We undoubtably contribute some extra heat to the planet, to conclude that we must enact draconian measures before we know whether it matters or not is disastrously stupid.
Update: Charles points out that at American Thinker they outline what’s happened since, it appears that the paper might have been invited by APS, and then subsequently slammed due to the reaction that I said would occur.
More Updates: Tim Lambert submits that there might be flaws, Monckton asks for an apology and who reviewed his paper and their findings before the red label warning at APS was applied. It’s a full on science food fight folks.
Please also note that my statement is still firm: there is enough doubt about the extent of MMGW contribution that we should forestall policies based upon the IPCC findings. We should research more and actually fund some contrary studies. To enact more government policy before we know more would be scurrilious, and probably disastrous
UPDATE: It’s a year and six months later, Monckton’s paper has been debunked, and I’ve done much more digging into the data and studies. Anthropogenic Global Warming is something we must address this century, and if we wait until the second half to start it will be too late.
You know thing are bad when the UN calls for Capitalism. Ban Ki Moon called for the end to tariffs, protectionism, and trade barriers in face of mounting food inflation:
“We simply cannot afford to fail,” the UN secretary general told a news conference at the UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) summit on food security. “Hundreds of millions of people expect no less.”
That’s understatement. Millions are hungry right now, and it’s going to get worse before it gets better. The sustained high energy prices the past few years have caught up to food production, and while the lowering of trade barriers will help the problem of “food inflation” quite a bit, lowering barriers alone will not stop the steady creep of hunger and poverty. It takes high energy to farm abundantly and cleanly; a point which is easily proven.