Stupid Environmentalist Links Digest

Planet Gore is chock full of great stuff this week. Here is a digest of the best stuff.

Via PG is a link to Stephen Moore’s Wall Street Journal piece on green authoritarianism

But now the environmental movement has morphed into the most authoritarian philosophy in America. The most glaring example of course is the multitrillion-dollar cap-and-trade anti-global warming scheme that would mandate an entire restructuring of our industrial economy. This plan, endorsed by both presidential candidates, would empower climate-change cops to regulate the energy usage and carbon emissions of every industry in America. If we do this, the best estimates are that we could reduce global temperatures by 0.1 degrees by 2050 and save on average about one polar bear a year from early death. But no burden is too great when it comes to helping the planet — even if the progress to be made is infinitesimal. To weigh costs and benefits is regarded as sacrilege — the refuge of global warming “deniers.”

There are also new federal and state proposals to snoop on citizens in our own homes. California is considering a plan to police the temperature settings on residents’ thermostats. The feds are checking on the flush capacity of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we use. A new game called Climate Crime Cards urges kids to spy on and keep an online record of their family’s environmental faux pas — noting when their parents fail to turn off the TV, plug in too many appliances or use the clothes dryer on a sunny day.

Trending: Candidate Survey: Chris Chaffee for US Senate

Chris Horner reminds us that the greens believe that democracy is insufficient to “solve” the “climate crisis” and should be tossed aside.

The global-warming hysterics increasingly advocate for the idea that their agenda is the perfect excuse to toss aside democracy and impose their desired economic restrictions through supranational bodies. Guardian columnist George “Drown the Airline Executives” Monbiot wrote last month in support of this thesis as set forth in a fellow alarmist’s new book.The argument is that democratic institutions have failed and frankly are ill-suited to the purpose of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in any effective way. So we need international institutions who are unaccountable to the voters of functioning democracies — in this specific instance, central banks coordinated by a higher power — to do it instead. Of course, this ignores the inconvenient truth that the two-decade warming trend stopped in its tracks almost the moment the U.S. merely signed Kyoto in November 1998 — indicating that democratic societies actually do know when to say hold, enough. Regardless, I believe such smiley-face fascism is very helpful to the climate-realist side, and should be broadcast widely.

You read that right, alarmists want to send democracy the way of the dinosaur. In fact, they make the argument that China’s authoritarian system is preferable to Western democracy and its “perceived liberties.”

Speaking of liberties, Horner again bursts one of Obama’s clever conceits in bashing big oil.

I see in today’s “Inside Politics” column in the Washington Times that size is no excuse to Barack Obama, who “complained that Exxon Mobil Corp. makes too much money and should be forced to give some of that profit to the government.” Yeah, the poor government. More on that in a moment.

Specifically, he bemoaned how “The other day we learned that Exxon Mobil made nearly $12 billion last quarter. . . . To put it another way, they made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank of gas.” [To which CEO Rex Tillerson noted in response that the company “paid $4,000 a second in taxes, and (ExxonMobil) spent $15,000 a second in costs.”]

Alright sir. The numbers also indicate that the government — which unlike ExxonMobil relies pretty exclusively on Americans for its take — is reaping about $2.54 trillion in revenue this year. To put it another way, they take in 80,489 every second. That’s more than $16 million bucks in the time it takes you to fill up your gas tank . . . or, ahem, $12,927,771,692 — hey’ there’s that $12 billion again! — in the time it takes the average American to complete their tax return.

Obama may actually be onto something here. That should be returned to taxpayers. We know that the government, unlike Big Oil, isn’t going to bring much energy to market to fuel the economy. So let’s, just for now, take our money back, at least until the government stops standing in the way of others doing so.

Via PG Bishop Hill has a history of the debunked Hockey Stick graph, which alarmists wave as the bloody shirt. RM readers may remember a certain budding energy policy wonk once waved it me, well after it had been exposed as junk science.

Marlo Lewis points out some more bad climate math.

There’s been no net global warming in the 21st century. Although seldom reported by the mainstream media, it’s quite a story, because no climate model predicted it.

This graph, courtesy of atmospheric scientist John Christy, shows how climate models and reality diverge. The red, purple, and orange lines are model forecasts of global temperatures under different emission scenarios. The yellow line shows how much warming we are supposedly “committed to” even if CO2 concentrations don’t change. The blue and green lines are actual temperatures as measured by ground-based (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH LT) monitoring systems.What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated.According to a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s.
Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there’s been no net
warming in the 21st century.
It don’t add up!Skeptics have long said climate models aren’t accurate enough to base policy decisions on. That may be truer now than ever.

Send this to a friend