There is more evidence of his existence than there is for global warming
The Wall Street Journal ran a story Friday reporting that the EPA is preparing to issue “tough new standards” to cut pollution from cars. The agency wants to reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline by 65%. Refiners say that the standards would cost $10 billion in upfront costs and $2.4 billion in annual compliance costs, raising gas prices at the pump by 10 cents a gallon. Naturally, the EPA disputes that and claims an increase of just a penny while environmentalists claim it would “save lives” (why of course).
Now here’s the money shot: It took 12 paragraphs in the 16 paragraph story to note that the EPA had been working on the proposal for well over a year but because of the “sensitive politics of gasoline prices,” the agency “put off any move until after the 2012 elections.” No doubt our “so likeable” president felt that, having won reelection, he would have “more flexibility.” DLH
Related to our Senior Editor’s Good Friday report above, we see the following today, all sourced via Drudge. Behold —
This story, reports on comments by Bjorn Lomborg, a well known environmental writer and enthusiast for green technology, albiet with a head for economics and concern for human progress. Lomborg’s website states:
Germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for solar panels. The net effect of all of Germany’s heavy investments in the first generation of ineffective renewables will postpone global warming by 37 hours until the end of the century.
More: Global warming — much ado about nothing? — as far as CO2 and global warming is concerned, that is basically our position, however do not interpret our position as if we think CO-2 regulations are innocuous. That is decidedly not our position.
Here we have a report from The Australian, sourced to The Economist, hardly a publication known for any “denier” proclivities.
” . . . climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. . . . “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says. Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions . . .
This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says. “The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010 . . . “Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period.”
More evidence that “global warming hysteria” is the greatest fraud in modern history, promoted by opportunistic big government controllers, parasites and misanthropes
More still – The idea that CO2 regulations are harmless “just in case” or “better safe than sorry” regulations that economies can adapt to with no harm, passes for wisdom and is pervasive with comfortable but economically ignorant voters, often pensioned, who hale the beneficence of big government. Well dear readers, we are not making this up. Here are a few excerpts from a story in The Telegraph UK (bold typography not in original)
It is the cold not global warming that we should be worried about . . .
The reaction to the 2003 heatwave was extraordinary. It was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and taken as a warning that Britain was horribly unprepared for the coming era of snowless winters and barbecue summers. The government’s chief scientific officer, Sir David King, later declared that climate change was “more serious even than the threat of terrorism” in terms of the number of lives that could be lost. Such language is never used about the cold, which kills at least 10 times as many people every winter. Before long, every political party had signed up to the green agenda . . .
Since Sir David’s exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food – and government has found itself a major part of the problem . . .
A few weeks ago, scientists at the University of Washington found that man’s contribution to global warming may have been exaggerated – by a factor of two. The natural cycle of heating and cooling, they discovered, plays a far bigger role than they had imagined. Mr Davey’s fuel bill taxes may do nothing for the planet. But they will certainly lead to poorer, colder homes and shorter lives . . .
Our understanding of climate science may be weak, but our understanding of basic medicine is not. Low temperatures increase blood pressure and weaken the immune system, making everyone more vulnerable to bugs. For the elderly, this can be fatal. People don’t actually die of frostbite, . . . They die of flu, or thrombosis, or other conditions they would not have acquired if their house had been warmer. Far fewer Scandinavians die in winter, because they have worked out how to defeat the cold: keep the heating on; insulate houses. It really is that simple.
And so it goes– reference as well our earlier post from Alan Caruba regarding the carbon tax plans being made by Democrats. R Mall
