Igor 2 weeks, 1 day ago on Letter - Perhaps ‘climate change’ talk about creating taxes

Great letter Jerry. Your suggestion that it may be the sun that's responsible for our warming and cooling is spot on. Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has proved beyond any doubt that cosmic rays, which are controlled by the sun's magnetic field, promote the formation of molecules, which create clouds that have a profound effect on temperature. Though CO2 may contribute slightly to warming and cooling, the real "culprit" is unquestionably the sun.

If there were any way the Left could regulate the sun it would. But it can regulate CO2 emissions, which means that it can regulate almost every aspect of our lives right down to what we can eat. Just as gun control has absolutely nothing to do with the public safety, so too do environmental regulations have nothing to do with preserving the environment. Instead they're all about people control.

H. L. Mencken said it best: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and thence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Hitler understood this ("Toten die Juden") and so do Obama and Hillary. 'Help! Help! The polar bears be a drowning."

Well, for you members of the Church of Global Warming, be advised that I still have a few prime beach front lots for sale up at Tollgate. Get 'em while we're hot.

0

Igor 3 weeks, 3 days ago on Letter - Solar and wind energy can power the world

Enacting a carbon fee and divided scheme in tax is a bad idea.

Carbon taxes are job killers. Energy cost is tightly correlated with economic growth, and any increase in the price of energy has negative impacts on job creation, per-capita income, and growth in GDP. Since 80 percent of energy consumed in America comes from fossil fuels, a carbon tax would raise energy costs across the board, hurting every industry and every consumer.

Higher carbon taxes cause environmental harm. Carbon taxes force the substitution of wind and solar power for fossil fuels, but these alternative energy sources cause real and substantial environmental damage. Wind turbines, while providing merely 2 percent of U.S. electricity, kill at least 440,000 birds each year, including many endangered species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wind power kills a similar number of bats and requires the development of vast areas of pristine land. Solar thermal power is similarly land-intensive and utilizes substantially more water than coal and natural gas power.

Reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air causes environmental harm. Plant growth is limited by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and the modest increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past century helped make possible record crop production and the expansion of plant life throughout the planet. Reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause a reduction in crop production, plant growth, and biosphere richness.

Reducing U.S. emissions won’t stop or delay climate change. While U.S. carbon dioxide emissions already are falling, emissions in India, China, and other developing countries are rising rapidly, causing global emissions to rise regardless of what we do in the U.S. In fact, increasing energy costs in the U.S. would simply drive manufacturing (and jobs) to India and China, where energy costs are lower and carbon dioxide emissions per-unit of output are higher. The notion that China and India will reduce their carbon emissions if we impose tariffs on the importation of their goods is absurd. More often than not tariffs hurt both the importing and exporting nations.

Global warming fears are overstated. Real-world temperatures continue to rise much more slowly than predicted by global warming advocates, and real-world weather and climate data reflect few if any of the predicted negative consequences of global warming.

0

Igor 1 month, 1 week ago on Letter - Claims of climate alarmists aren’t facts

Good letter thrifty, but I think that Mr. Singleton's letters have done much to educate. They were certainly an influence on me and made made me take another look at the AGW controversy. Prior to reading his letters I pretty much accepted all the leftist propaganda as fact.

If he ever decides to teach a class at one of our local colleges or universities I'll be the first to enroll. Unfortunately, however, our institutions of higher learning in this area (and most everywhere else) all seem to be dominated by academicians that have drunk the KoolAid.

Having a Ph.D. does not inoculate even the most brilliant against foolishness. So I don't think that he has much of a future as a conventional academician.

I would like to see him team up with some of the zealots on our local campuses and present a seminar or, even better, a debate where he and they get to take on the 97%. Now that would be worth the price of admission.

0

Igor 1 month, 1 week ago on Letter - Claims of climate alarmists aren’t facts

Mr. Singleton:

Excellent letter! The Left gets its “97% of all scientists” mantra from the Doran Survey conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey has long since been debunked and discredited and has no validity whatsoever.

The truth is that there is no consensus in the scientific community that human activity is a significant factor contributing to GW or that if the planet is in a warming phase that there’s any danger to mankind or any of our ecosystems.

I want to thank you for your letters. They've truly opened my eyes. I’ve made a list of the books on your recommended reading list and am slowly working my way through them. Right now I’m reading Evidenced-Based Climate Science (Easterbrook) and am finding it an edifying and enjoyable read.

The fact that the papers by the alarmist scientists have been favorably reviewed by their peers convinces me of nothing. I like to refer to the process as “pal review” and believe that it does little to nothing to confirm the validity of their theories. Especially since most of the reviewers are of the same political persuasion as the authors.

The whole AGW panic reminds me of all the hubbub engendered by Fleischmann’s “cold fusion” that was in the headlines circa 1989. The only difference is that the AGW alarmists will fudge the data and tweak their computer models until they get the result they want. This isn’t science. It’s lying and cheating for political purposes or for financial gain or both and it’s disgusting. But to the Left, the ends have always justified the means. Today the Left is even going so far as to claim that climate change is responsible for ISIS. Gimme a break!

There's a new book out on the subject by Tim Ball entitled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science which exposes the malicious misuse of climate science by dishonest brokers to advance the agenda of the progressive left. Ball holds a Ph.D. in Climatology from Queen Mary College, University of London.

I.

P.S. I am not a shill for the Koch Brothers. I’m just a simple country boy that will remain a skeptic until a genuine consensus emerges. Not a bunch of phony baloney, pseudo-scientific propaganda from the Left. At one time much of the scientific community in our Country endorsed the theory of eugenics.

0

Igor 1 month, 1 week ago on Letter - Nealey overreaches to score a political point

Our State Supreme Court does not have the authority to order our State Legislature to do anything. Separation of powers? Separation of powers? Separation of powers? Anyone? Anyone?

I'm completely disgusted with our State's educational system, which is why I jerked my kids out of public school and sent them to Assumption and DeSales. At least they escaped the global warming and income inequality indoctrinations.

0

Igor 1 month, 3 weeks ago on Letter - Sen. Murray knows nothing about growing economy

Great letter Jerry! Patty Murray, like Hillary and Obama, seems to think that only the government can create jobs. To quote Hillary, "“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly." She made this erudite statement about a year ago when campaigning for Martha Coakley. If she truly believes this then we're in deep trouble.

0

Prev