No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Day by Day cartoon

Archive for the 'Envirowhackos' Category

March 9, 2010

Fishing soon to be banned?

by @ 9:04. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

(H/T – Marcus Wilder)

ESPN reports on what is likely coming down the pike for anglers on virtually every body of water in the United States:

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning….

Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for “marine spatial planning” by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.

Led by NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

As a reminder, fishermen and hunters have done more to protect the environment than the EPA, the environment-enforcement part of the DNR, Greenpeace, the WWF, et al. We have a unique stake in a clean environment. In fact, when I go canoeing, I drink right out of the lake.

Revisions/extensions (6:20 pm 3/9/2010) - Allahpundit tracked down an old campaign promise Obama made to Sport Fishing (emphasis in AP’s post):

My administration would place the emphasis in fishery management where it belongs: in ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of stocks through the use of effective and appropriate conservation measures. Such an approach would not provide a preference for one management tool, such as a marine reserve, over another. Given sufficient management controls and data, a fishery can meet conservation objectives through a variety of catch controls and habitat-protection measures, including gear restrictions, bag limits or closures. In some cases, additional conservation measures may need to be taken to ensure a positive recreational marine-fishing experience for future generations of Americans. Recreational fishermen have not shirked from embracing such measures when needed to achieve long-term stock sustainability, as long as measures are matched to the problem. While marine reserves may be an effective means of achieving important goals, their use and design must be based on an assessment of impacts and balanced by a strong respect for the ability of recreational anglers to practice their sport. In my view, we need to be open to the use of a variety of innovative conservation tools and be prepared to use them if the science justifies their establishment, and if it has been determined that less-restrictive options will not achieve critical goals like rebuilding fish stocks. The decision to establish marine reserves should be made as a result of a transparent, science-based process and be the least intrusive possible to get the job done. Such a process should include outreach to the sport-fishing community to explain both the scientific basis for the action and the expected conservation benefits to future fishing generations if it is to gain the community’s active support.

As AP notes, it is an “official Barack Obama campaign promise”, which means that under the Jim Geraghty Principle, sooner or later, it will reach its expiration date.

It likely won’t happen all at once, but it will happen in bits and pieces, with the ultimate goal of no legal fishing happening if Obama stays in office the full two terms.

February 14, 2010

Snow on the ground. Acting like a fool with all that snow on the ground.

by @ 21:15. Filed under Global "Warming".

(H/Ts for the retreat by the acolytes – Ed Morrissey, and H/T for the sea-level mismeasurement – JammieWearingFool)

There have been three four items of interest over the weekend regarding the implosion of the religion of Gorebal “Warming”:

That first item is significant because it blows up one of the “other” indicators the IPCC is using to justify their warming claims while admitting to the contamination problem in the third item – the amount of snow cover.

Also note that none of the sources are from American media. To be fair, USA Today noted the snowfall that I sourced directly from the NWS (though they excluded Hawaii because the search hadn’t been completed). The other two items both come from British media. Interesting, isn’t it?

Revisions/extensions (9:28 pm 2/14/2010) - And the hits just keep on coming.

February 1, 2010

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth – Number 3,287

by @ 5:57. Filed under Global "Warming".

I told you last week about a new problem that that IPCC had with it’s MMGW “documentation.”  That problem was that they had folks speaking as “experts” when in fact, at least one was a journalist!

WattsUp.com has the latest IPCC gaffe.  It turns out that their claims of ice reductions on mountain tops was based on an article from a climbing magazine!  Yup, again, no scientific measurement.  Again, nothing but anecdotal hearsay by a people who no ability to comprehend that yes, climates do change but that doesn’t mean the change is caused by man.

I’m pretty sure that we are now just days away from finding that the core theory that global warming comes from CO2 emissions, was originally published in a 1930 Buck Rogers episode and in fact, has never been factually examined!

January 26, 2010

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth?

by @ 5:28. Filed under Global "Warming".

First it was the “hockey stick.” Next was the “historical” data.  Following that was the glaciers melting.  Now it appears that all the concern about the horrors of glorebal warmings impact on the Amazon forest was…….wait for it…………….. Also made up!

Watts up has the story.  It’s a story that is beginning to sound vaguely familiar:  Data “gathered” by advocacy groups, the “peer reviewers” had no knowledge of the Amazon, one of the “peer reviewers” was actually a journalist.

Net result of the recent revelation is that no one can find any basis for the IPCC’s claim that “40 percent” of the Amazon is at risk due to global warming.  Is nothing sacred?

A recent Pew poll showed that of 20 potential topics, Americans ranked global warming dead last in importance getting only 30% of those polled to think it had top priority.

In 1996 a Newsweek poll found that 29% of Americans believed that we had made contact by aliens and that the truth was being covered by the government.

If the number of people who are really concerned about global warming are now equal to the number of people who think we’ve been visited by alien, maybe man made global warming has finally reached the point where those who believe in it can show unity by wearing the international symbol of farcical thinking the tinfoil hat!

November 21, 2009

Old Dogs…

by @ 11:05. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

No, I’m not referring to the new movie out starring Robin Williams, Seth Green and John Travolta!

Of the many reasons that I was opposed to John McCain’s nomination last year, one that stood out towards the top, was McCain’s position on Global Warming.  You may remember that McCain was one of the authors of the Lieberman McCain Climate Stewardship Act, more commonly known as the McCain/Leiberman bill.  The bill assumed that carbon dioxide was the cause for global warming.  It further assumed that by limiting or capping the amount of carbon dioxide released, the earth would cease its warming trend.  The method for “capping” the gas was to provide a series of disincentives for creating the gas through a mechanism known as cap and trade.  Fortunately, the bill was unable to pass the Senate in 2003 and subsequent attempts to pass similar legislation have also failed in the Senate.

Earlier this year the House passed its version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Thus far, the Senate has not offered a bill for debate that would marry with the House bill and allow Cap and Trade to move forward. 

While Cap and Trade is generally not supported by Republicans because they know the global warming science is junk and that Cap and Trade is just one more way for government to regulate significant portions of our liberty, there are a few Republicans who have sided with the alarmists.  Lindsey Graham has always looked to support Can and Trade and until recently, so did John McCain.

Huh?  Until recently you say?  Yup!

Politico is reporting that John McCain has done an about face on Cap and Trade:

McCain has emerged as a vocal opponent of the climate bill — a major reversal for the self-proclaimed maverick who once made defying his party on global warming a signature issue of his career.

Further:

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The Politico article goes on to attempt to figure out why McCain has changed.  Most of the article is focused on McCain’s staff changes, arguing that the new staff doesn’t have the history or passion for the global warming issue.  They get quotes from a professor, lobbyists, former aides and even Graham himself that express their confusion over McCain’s change in position. 

Maybe, just maybe, I was wrong about McCain.  Maybe, John McCain can be the Right’s most notable example of an old dog learning new tricks….maybe.

Most of the piece on the suggestive picture that McCain’s change is the oddity not that other folks who still buy into a theory who’s only truth is that by its perpetuation, Al Gore increases his income, are the oddity. However, in the near middle of the piece, as an almost throw away paragraph, The Politico hits on this:

Arizona politics could be another factor. Republicans hope to use the cap-and-trade bill to attack Democrats on economic issues by saying it will raise electricity costs for businesses and spike electric bills. Those attacks could resonate in Arizona, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

In a poll released by Rasmussen this week, McCain is leading J.D. Hayworth by only 2%, within the margin of error, in an Arizona Republican primary for McCain’s Senate seat.  In an earlier poll, Rasmussen found that 61% of Arizona Republican voters believe that McCain had lost touch with the Republican party.

Learning new tricks?  Probably.  However, I don’t believe for a minute that the “new trick” is a core change in belief of global warming.  

In last year’s Presidential election, McCain saw what happens when the Republican base abandons you.  What was a problem in a Presidential election would be political death to McCain in an Arizona primary.  With the rise of the teaparty movement and the subsequent desire for candidates who are more conservative, McCain has a problem.  In a state where illegal immigration is a significant issue and you supported amnesty, where the independence of the wild west still lives and you supported McCain/Feingold to limit free speech, McCain has a problem.  He can’t undo McCain/Feingold and no legislation is pending to “correct” his position on amnesty.  John McCain has thrown Cap and Trade under the bus in an effort to establish some conservative bona fides and keep the the torches and pitchforks at bay.

Old dog and new tricks?  Nope.  Just the same old dog using the same old political tricks in an attempt to keep his cushy job!

September 29, 2009

Unpatriotic AND Selfish!

It’s been just over a year since Joe Biden called 95% of Americans unpatriotic:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people. It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Apparently, Biden wasn’t the loan wolf that I thought at the time.

In a recent poll, Rasmussen found that 29% of Americans believe that you are selfish if you put the economy ahead of global warming.  Fortunately, there are a whole lot more people, 49% who disagree with this assessment.  Additionally, 65% believe jobs are more important than global warming.  It’s good to know we still have a plurality, if not a majority of sanity yet in this country.

In case you missed it, the $1,761 annually per family that cap and trade will cost us will mostly go back to the government.  While President Obama isn’t able to determine what is or isn’t a tax, I can.  If you pay the government, you can call it what you want but it boils down to a tax.

Don’t like increased taxes?  Want more jobs and a better economy?  Not only are you unpatriotic you’re also selfish!

September 9, 2009

Cap-and-tax would hurt Wisconsin says…Russ Feingold?

WisBusiness.com reports that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) admits at a WisPolitics.com (sister web publication) luncheon that the cap-and-tax (H/T for the term – the muzzled Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI) scheme before the Senate would hurt Wisconsin:

I’m not signing onto any bill that rips off Wisconsin,” Feingold declared, arguing the bill’s mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions could put the coal-dependent Badger State at an economic disadvantage compared to other regions and nations….

At the same time, Feingold said he’s “troubled” by some of his constituents’ refusal to accept the principles of global warming, but agreed with some critics who have said the bill could stifle job growth in the industrial sector and increase energy prices.

“Western Wisconsin is particularly strong in being concerned about this because of their reliance on coal,” Feingold said of the bill, which has already passed the House. “There is a real possibility … that it will be unfair to Wisconsin and Wisconsin ratepayers.”

As the selected excerpt shows, it is not all rainbows and roses. Feingold merely wants to spread the pain of “dealing” with a non-problem around, not remove the pain. There is no such thing as man-caused global “warming”, or even man-caused climate “change”.

August 28, 2009

Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too!

Do your remember all of those great arguments for support of the Waxman-Markey “let’s rush back to the 1500’s bill?”  We were going to save mother earth, we were going to increase jobs, we were going to be less dependent on foreign oil.

Not so much!

A new study done by Ensys Energy finds that rather than import less oil, if Waxman-Markey is passed, we will actually import MORE oil.  In fact, the study shows that by 2030 we would likely need to DOUBLE the amount of imported oil!

How can that be?  Simple.

If we start taxing production and processing of fossil fuels, less investment will be made into production and processing of fossil fuels.  If less investment is made, less outcome will result.  All of this is pretty much in line with the designs of the Waxman-Markey bill.  The problems comes in that there is no magical product available that can replace fossil fuels in the vast majority of it’s uses.  Thus, we dramatically reduce supply but have little reduction in demand.  Unless we actually do chose to go back to the 1500’s, we’ll need to replace the production that is no longer happening in the US.  According to the study, the shift in production looks like this:

U.S. refining throughput, a measure of productivity, could plummet by as much as 25% (4.4 million barrels per day) and investment in U.S. refining could fall by as much as $90 billion, a decline of 88 percent, by 2030, the EnSys study forecast.

Well, I guess that shoots one of the reasons for the Waxman-Markey bill.  Would you like a quick second?

According to the same study, because no magical new power source will be available, the effect of the Waxman-Markey bill will not reduce carbon emissions.  All Waxman-Markey will do is shift the carbon emissions from the US to other countries around the world.  In other words, only the NIMBY people will get anything out of Waxman-Markey.  Yeah, they’ll get something right up to the point that the US economy is hammered because we have a dramatically increasing negative trade balance because we have to import twice as much energy as we used to!  Oh, and we’ll lose a bunch of jobs too!

 

July 22, 2009

Tom Petri thinks you drink and crap too much, and don’t stink enough

(H/T – Van Helsing)

Tom Petri is an original co-sponsor to an abomination of an act called the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, authored by Earl Blumenauer (D, or is that Moonbat-Oregon). According to the short summary provided by Blumenauer, the various local units of government can’t come up with $534 billion in “needed” drinking water/wastewater infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years without raising taxes incredibly on the locals. So, what’s Blumenauer’s and Petri’s solution? Raise $534 billion in federal taxes over 20 years (or $26.7 billion per year) on those same locals! The dirty details:

  • A 4-cent-a-bottle tax on water-based beverages because, as the summary says, they “rely on drinking water as their major input and result in both increased flows and increased waste in our waters.” Surprisingly, alcoholic beverages, the number one cause of public urination, are not included in this tax. Beverages made from concentrate also escape the tax man.
  • A 3% excise tax on toilet paper, soap, detergent, toothpaste, perfume, sunblock, shaving cream, hairspray, water softener, and cooking oil because they all end up in the water. That’s right, cooking oil is on the list despite every homeowner knowing that simply dumping the oil down the drain only clogs it. Guess Petri hates fish frys.

    Oh, and don’t think you can make your own soap and escape the tax man like “Big Alcohol” and “Big Juice”. They’ll tax you on the estimated retail value of your homemade soap.

  • A 0.5% excise tax on pharmaceutical products because people are too stupid to not throw their pills in the toilet and because Big Pharma is an easy target, but mostly because Big Pharma is an easy target.
  • A 0.15% tax on corporate profits over $4 million because they use water too and because it’s just soooo unfair that the Superfund tax sunsetted, but mostly because the Superfund tax sunsetted.

Is there nobody in east-central Wisconsin that will challenge Petri?

July 21, 2009

The Natives are Even More Restless Than First Thought!

by @ 11:36. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

I gave you a video earlier from a town hall meeting in Delaware hosted by Republican Congressman Mike Castle.  The previous video showed him getting grilled about health care reform.  Here’s another piece from the same meeting.  This time the natives are upset about Cap and Trade. 

Listen as Castle tells the forum that the Cap and Trade bill was really too complicated for anyone to ”absorb” and that he relied on what Democrat leadership told him about the bill. 

Listen as people laugh at Castle as he states that “he reads all legislation.”

Listen as Castle states that he received more calls in opposition to the bill than for it yet he still voted for the bill!

Folks, the August recess will be here in just a couple of weeks.  Many of your Congresscritters and Senators will be holding similar townhall meetings during this recess.  Make sure and attend these.  If you’re folks have been voting properly, make sure and give them positive reinforcement.  If they haven’t, take some notes from the folks in Delaware!

Finally, note to the GOP:  If you think folks are safe just because we’re so pissed off with the Democrats, think again.  We don’t care what party you belong to.  If you are stupid enough to support the government take over of America, whether it be Cap and Trade, health care, auto manufacturers or any of a number of other areas, repent now because you are just as useless to us as any Democrat!

July 2, 2009

Attention outstate Wisconsin residents

by @ 9:45. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - Wisconsin.

(H/T – The Lake-Dwelling Paul)

The Lakeland Times reports that the Department of Natural Resources (or as Dad29 aptly calls the agency, “Damn Near Russia”) has submitted the final draft of its rewrite to administrative rule NR115, the “Shoreland Protection Program”, to the Legislature, triggering the 30-day review process before it has the full force of law. For those of you city-slickers who don’t know what this will do to Wisconsin, let’s compare what the DNR is about to do to the current version of NR115:

  • Big item #1 – instead of merely applying to unincorporated areas (i.e. townships) of Wisconsin, it will also apply to those areas annexed by a city or village after May 7, 1982, or incorporated as a city or village after April 30, 1994.
  • Big item #2 – it creates a fresh limitation of a 15% impervious surface limit (including rooftops, i.e. structures, and driveways) without stormwater mitigation and a 30% impervious surface limit with mitigation. That applies to both riparian (shoreline) and nonriparian properties within 1,000 feet of the high-water mark (i.e. shore) of lakes and within 300 feet of the shore of rivers. Routine maintenance of structures, as well as in-kind replacement of walkways, driveways and patios on lots which are in noncompliance, would be allowed.
  • Instead of the boat hoists, piers, and boathouses currently allowed to be constructed within 75 feet of shore, some gazebos/decks/patios/screen houses, fishing rafts only on the Wolf and Wisconsin Rivers, small-diameter antennas, walkways, stairways and rail systems for pedestrian access to the shore, ultility structures that cannot be placed elsewhere can be constructed. While one section of the new rules does allow boathouses without plumbing and entirely above the high-water line, another prohibits all boathouses above the high-water line.
  • Within 35 feet of shore, instead of allowing up to 30 feet out of every 100 feet, regardless of lot lines, to generally be cleared of vegetation, the lesser of 30% of the shore frontage or 200 feet per parcel can generally be cleared. That clearance is now called “access and viewing corridors”.
  • Instead of allowing counties, at their discretion, to prohibit alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming buidings within 75 feet of shore if the cost is more than 50% of the assessed value of the structure, it allows alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming “principal structures” regardless of cost as long as they are at least 35 feet from shore, no expansion towards the shore happens, and the new impervious-surface limit is not exceeded. If any portion of an expansion is within 75 feet of shore, a mitigation plan would be required. Nonconforming “temporary” structures may be orderd to be removed.
  • It also creates a new requirement for the replacement or relocation of a nonconforming “principle structure”, which includes a mitigation plan to be in place, a requriement that the new/relocated structure be no closer to shore than the structure to be replaced, and the removal of all other nonconforming structures.

It isn’t quite the complete fallow prairie shoreline they wanted, but it’s a big step in the wrong direction. Given the Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, and the DNR has been trying to get this done for a decade, we’re going to be stuck with it for a while.

June 26, 2009

Paul Ryan’s reaction to the Cap-and-Tax passage

by @ 19:13. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

The following just came into the comm-box:

House Passes Punitive Cap-and-Tax Bill

New energy tax “demonstrates just how distant and out of touch

Washington is from Wisconsin,” says Ryan

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan today spoke out on behalf of the families and small businesses that would be on the receiving end of a massive new energy tax. Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212, with bipartisan opposition. Ryan voted against this legislation.

The center of the deeply flawed H.R. 2454 is a cap-and-trade scheme aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy costs on all Americans. The complicated cap-and-trade program would require all energy producers to purchase expensive government permits in exchange for the right to produce energy from certain natural resources or to produce certain goods like steel, aluminum, or cement. Without regard for the detrimental economic consequences, the proponents of the legislation believe this unilateral energy tax would help reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree by the end of the century.

Ryan’s vote against the 1,200 page bill came after only three hours of general debate, with Majority rejecting the single amendment they allowed. In addition to the job losses that would result from the smaller economy, Ryan raised concerns with the impact on the budgets of individual households. Families would face increasing costs on not only energy – but all products that require energy to make them (i.e., everything). Various nonpartisan studies have estimated that average annual household cost increases would range from $425 per household to over $4000 per household. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimate that Wisconsin families will pay an extra $230 million in energy tax once the bill is fully implemented in 2012.

Congressman Ryan fought against this draconian energy tax and supports H.R. 2828, the American Energy Innovation Act, a commonsense alternative to promote a cleaner environment without causing further economic devastation in the middle of a painful recession.

Following today’s action of the House floor, Congressman Ryan issued the following statement:

“Today’s vote reminds me of just how distant and out of touch Washington is from Wisconsin. At a time when jobs are increasingly scarce across Southern Wisconsin, Congress passed legislation explicitly designed to shrink our economy and increase energy costs on all Americans. Wisconsin is one of the nation’s top manufacturing States. Wisconsin entrepreneurs, small businesses, and workers shouldn’t need permission from the federal government to produce, grow, and create jobs, yet that is exactly the paternalistic message sent by Congress today.

“The Majority added a 300 page amendment to the 1100 page bill at 3:09am this morning which effectively regulates the national energy sector (8% of the U.S. economy), and no member of Congress has even read it. This bill is the biggest federal power grab of the American economy this year and that’s quite a statement.”

“Should this bill become law, Wisconsin would suffer a disproportionate economic blow. As the legislation’s authors and chief advocate reside far from the Midwest, the cap-and-trade legislation wasn’t primarily concerned with cold-weather, manufacturing States that get most of their energy from coal. Families in Southern Wisconsin don’t have the luxury of turning off the heat in the winter.

“What’s worse, because we are imposing this energy tax unilaterally, the legislation will actually hinder the environmental goals we’ve set out to achieve. By making manufacturing more expensive here in America, this bill would send our manufacturing jobs overseas to our competitors like India and China. For every ton of emissions we reduce, India and China will produce several tons more. Under this bill, we will send our competitors American jobs while they are negating the minimal environmental gains made here at home.

“There is a better way forward. I was proud to support a substitute energy reform – the American Energy Act – on House floor today, which focused on an all-of-the-above approach to creating a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Rather than lock-up domestic energy supply, we should expand our use of American-made resources as we encourage the use of renewable and alternative energy sources, including nuclear, wind, solar, and more. Environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals, and I will continue to fight for both of behalf of those I serve in Southern Wisconsin.”

For the want of 4…

by @ 18:43. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

The following 8 “Republican” members of the House just enabled passage of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade-Tax bill:

Remember those names well, as had only 4 of them not wished for the largest and costliest intervention in manufacturing and energy production and usage in the history of this country, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, and the interventionists would have failed as 44 Democrats saw this for what it is. Or, at least they would have forced 8 of those 44 to do what Jeff Plale did late last night in the state budget and sell out their principles.

Revisions/extensions (7:00 pm 6/26/2009) - My friends at The Heritage Foundation here’s what those 8 have done to their districts (in Castle’s case, the entire state). Nothing like dooming one’s district/state to billions of lost wages and tens of thousands of lost jobs.

John Boehner reading the entire cap-and-tax amendment

by @ 17:16. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

In case you don’t have C-SPAN on, you might want to turn it on right now. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is reading the entire 300-page amendment to the cap-and-tax Waxman-Markey bill that was introduced at 3:09 am this morning. He’s just over halfway through as I type.

Did you know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made it into this amendment?

In other news,…

I’ve been focused on the state budget almost as much as the national presstitutes have been focused on Michael Jackson’s death, but Ed Morrissey has been keeping eyes on the larger picture. First stop – government-run health care. Our friends at ReasonTV have created a commercial on that…

YouTube Preview Image
Next stop – Iran. Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami called for death to protestors. Things are going to get even bloodier.

Last, but definitely not least, is a familiar battleground, Gorebal “Warming”. The tactics employed by the Dems, including a last-second 300-page amendment to a 1200-page bill, are all-too-familiar. Just as a reminder from Ed, “This bill will lose the US 2.5% of its GDP each and every year in the years after the first decade of implementation.” (emphasis in the original)

June 24, 2009

Must-watch Wednesday – Mary Katharine Ham tries to read Waxman-Markey

by @ 17:38. Filed under Energy, Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

It may no longer be called HamNation, and she doesn’t do videos nearly as often as she used to, but Mary Katharine Ham is back with a vengeance on the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade-Tax bill about to be rammed down our throats…

YouTube Preview Image

The 1,201-page version that just got marked up (as H.R. 2998) isn’t even the final version that will be rammed through on Friday, but it will be at least a not-at-all-reasonable facsimile.

Revisions/extensions (7:22 pm 6/24/2009) - I hope MKH doesn’t get laryngitis reading the bill. So far, she made it through the table of contents. Instead of posting videos, I’ll direct you to her YouTube page.

June 1, 2009

300,000 deaths per year from global warming?

That’s what the United Nations would have us believe, in their continuing campaign to convince us that global warming is real and that something must be done about it NOW. (Said something including crippling the most productive economies in the world and giving national and international bureaucrats more power.) Here’s what Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General and head of the Global Humanitarian Forum, had to say:

A report by the Global Humanitarian Forum, led by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, says that the effects of climate change are growing in such a way that it will have a serious impact on 600 million people, almost ten per cent of the world’s population, within 20 years. Almost all of these will be in developing countries.

“Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide,” Mr Annan said.

“As this report shows, the first hit and worst affected are the world’s poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem.”

What gets buried at the end of the article is this:

Mr Annan said the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study, but said: “We feel it is the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change today.”

Emphasis added. In other words, the report is guesswork – garbage. It is a fraud, the sole purpose of which is to get people to agree to the climate-change alarmists’ agenda either through fear or guilt: “If we don’t do something now, all these deaths will be on our hands!” If global warming is a problem and if it is anthropogenic in origin, both of which leave me gravely skeptical, this “report” contributes no light to the debate, just smoke and heat. It is worse than useless, it is misleading, dishonest, and potentially harmful.

Of course, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the GHF would issue a report that essentially makes up facts to further the agenda of transnationalist bureaucrats. Its head is, let me remind you, Kofi Annan. Yes, that Kofi Annan, under whom the UN was wracked by the Oil-for-Food scandal, scandals involving sexual abuse by peacekeeping troops, and a Human Rights Commission that had become an international farce.

And we’re supposed to trust him now? Not talking

(hat tip: Watt’s Up With That)

(cross-posted at Public Secrets)

May 21, 2009

Daughter of Waxman-Markey even worse

by @ 7:00. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

Last Friday, I gave you the original Heritage Foundation estimates of the economic effects of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade-Tax plan. Because it couldn’t get enough support from rank-and-file ‘Rats, it went back to the drawing board. The Heritage Foundation found that the effects are even worse the second time around:

  • The cumulative GDP reduction through 2035 increases from $7.4 trillion to $9.6 trillion
  • The average yearly job loss increases from 844,000 lost jobs per year to 1,105,000 lost jobs per year
  • The peak yearly job losses increases from 2,000,000 to 2,500,000

Nick Loris explains:

  • Our original economic analysis had the government auctioning off the allowances (rights to emit) carbon dioxide. The auction revenue, the equivalent of tax revenue, went into the hands of the government, which in turn created more government jobs. In the second version of the bill, the government distributed allowances to various businesses in an attempt to mitigate the near-term economic damage done by the bill. As a result, jobs in the private sector fell less than the original but the government jobs decreased more because the government did not receive the allowance revenue from the auction. Overall employment fell.
  • Think of the allowances given away as subsidies to businesses. When these subsidies stop and allowances begin to be auctioned off, the economy is again “shocked” with higher indirect taxes and businesses must make costly adjustments to this new economic condition.
  • Real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion from the bill because investment for businesses is worse under the new bill. Again, the government is not auctioning off the rights for businesses to emit carbon dioxide; they are giving them away in the near-term. These giveaways add to the national debt, crowd out private sector investment and drive up interest rates. Increased interest rates further drive up the debt. This creates a vicious cycle in which businesses significantly reduce their investment. The lack of investment (that drives the overall economy) produces higher real GDP losses and lowers the potential of the overall economy.

But wait, it gets even worse. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) reports that the ‘Rats added, on a party line vote, mandates that all home sales include an energy-efficiency inspection and a study be made in preparation for every product sold in the United States to be labeled as to their CO2 “content” (i.e. how much CO2 is emitted in the manufacture of each product).

Somehow, I think the fine folks at Heritage understated the damage to the economy.

Revisions/extensions (7:42 am 5/21/2009) - (H/T – McQ) I’m suddenly feeling like Billy Mays here. But wait, that’s not all! As part of their Top Ten list, Heritage included this handy graphic showing just how big a bite Cap-and-Trade-Tax will take.

For those of you who missed it, it handily beats food, clothing, furniture, the current cost of household energy, and the average property tax. Of course, those of us in Wisconsin pay a lot more in property tax, but $3,900 even beats that.

May 20, 2009

Unintended consequences, envirowhacko edition

by @ 23:23. Filed under Envirowhackos, Health.

(H/T – The Lid, who is now on the roll of bloat)

Yes, I believe that this particular consequence of the envirowhackos’ agenda, unlike most of the consequences, is unintended. The National Post reports that a lot of reusable cloth bags, currently in vogue among the envirowhacko set, have bacterial, yeast, or mold contamination in tests conducted for the Environment and Plastics Industry Council in Canada. Specifically:

- 64% of the bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria
- 30% had bacterial levels higher than what Ontario considers safe for drinking water
- 40% had yeast or mold infection
- The most troubling – some bags had fecal bacteria on them.

Given that it takes hot water (or bleach) to disinfect the bags, and a heated clothes dryer to quickly dry the bags before contaminants that survive the laundering process can really take hold in the dampness left by the water, I’m waiting for the envirowhacko screams when they realize, like corn-a-hole, the “solution” is at least as bad as the problem.

May 19, 2009

Live-blogging the death of useful, roomy cars

by @ 11:06. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

I’ve got Fox News on now, and in the pre-show, Major Garrett noted that additional standards will be based on specific types of cars (i.e. bigger cars won’t quite be required to get 39 mpg). Unspoken, but assumed, is that smaller cars would be required to get more than 39 mpg.

It’s been a while since I did a live-blog the old-fastioned way. I don’t feel like firing up the CiL for this. Do hit refresh for the latest, as things are expected to kick off a bit after 11:15 am Central. BTW, I’m taking bets on how late Obama and company will be. I’ve got 9:13 after the appointed time.

11:19 – The captive and greedy automotive execs and the Gorebal “Warming” crowd is waiting. Tick. Tock.

11:20 – That was not a slip of the tongue by Jon Scott – Government Motors indeed.

11:22:44 – Obama finally shows up. Time for intros.

11:23 – First one is a shout-out to Plastic Pelosi (she’s going nowhere, folks). EPA chair, a near-snub of Ahnold in the governor’s intros (Granholm first). Senators missing because they’re screwing those that pay credit card bills on time.

11:24 – First “industry” shout-out to the head of the UAW. The rest of the cabinet now. Since when is HUD part of the “Green Team”? Oh, and where’s LaHood, the RepubicRAT who’s in charge of implementing CAFE?

11:26 – Another shoutout to the UAW before a general one to the cowed and craven. We are setting a national screw-industry-and-motorists standard.

11:27 – Amazing what a little Chicago Way Muscle can do to titans of industry. Oil is Teh Eeeeevil (side note – why not drill here, drill now, drill everywhere, dumbass?)

11:28 – “We’ve known since the oil crises of the 1970s” (and your fellow ‘Rats have been blocking all of the domestic production solutions since then).

11:29 – This is a harbringer of change – “We will not longer accept that government is too small”. (Them’s fighting words)

11:30 – Because of the tyrrany of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, each seeking to implement its own policy, we’re taking the worst of all possible policies. Because we’re giving in to the envirowhackos, they’re dropping their lawsuits.

11:32 – At a time when the domestic auto industry is in painful flux, we’re going to give it the certainty that it’s getting shoved off the cliff and under my bus.

11:33 – You can’t save money if you don’t spend (er, hybrids still don’t make sense).

11:34 – We’ll save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, equivalent to taking 58 million cars off the road (money says they’ll try to take 58 million cars off the road anyway).

11:35 – Mo’ spending money. Plug-in hybrids get a shoutout, as does electrical transmission (er, what about electrical production?)

11:36 – We’re going to break in 8 years what took 80 to build. Call to the ‘Rat version of bipartisanship (bull-fucking-shit)

11:37 – A third specific shoutout to the UAW. They bought the office.

11:39 – We’re not quite out – a shout-out for the only domestic SUV to make the 30 mpg grade – the Ford Escape Hybrid.

11:40 – Major Garrett pointing out that Congress has no role. Translation – the Goron won, and he’s going to ram it straight up the backside. Oh, and whatever we do will be overwhelmed by Red Chinese and Indian pollution.

NOW we’re done.

RIP useful, roomy vehicles

by @ 6:00. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

(H/T – Sister Toldjah)

The Detroit News reports that, under a proposal by the Obama administration to be unveiled later today, not only will the CAFE standards increase above the 2020 mandate 4 years early, but that the proposed California emission standards will become the new nationwide standards. Specifically with regard to the CAFE standards, passenger cars (which will, as of 2011, include most 2WD SUVs) will be required to get 39 mpg by 2016 (up from 27.5 mpg this year), light trucks will be required to get 30 mpg by 2016 (up from 23.1 mpg this year), and the combined fleet will be required to hit 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Before I continue, I need to explain CAFE a bit, and deliver a good news-bad news combo. First, the good news is it is not based on the EPA estimates you see on the sticker. Rather, it is a laboratory number using testing methods set in the 1970s.

In fact, there is not a “CAFE mileage” number available from either the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (the entity that lords over the CAFE numbers) or the EPA. However, based on published reports that the CAFE mileage is roughly 30% higher than the EPA numbers, the unadjusted combined mileage in the datasets from the EPA appear to be close enough to the CAFE numbers for my purposes.

The bad news is that the average uses the harmonic mean based on the CAFE mileage and the number of each type of vehicle produced. That is because what is actually being measured is the number of gallons being burned over a set distance.

So, what 2009 models would cut it in a 2016 world? That’s the ugly news. Here are the 34 passenger car models (which, effective 2011, will include most 2WD SUVs/CUVs) and 12 light-truck models that will meet the standards:

  • Toyota Prius
  • Honda Civic – hybrid, 1.8L manual, and 1.8L gas automatic only
  • Nissan Altima – hybrid only
  • Toyota Camry – hybrid only
  • Volkswagen Jetta – TDI manual and TDI 6-speed automatic only
  • Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen – TDI 6-speed manual and TDI 6-speed automatic only
  • Ford Escape – hybrid 2WD (car) and hybrid 4WD (light truck) only
  • Mazda Tribute (corporate twin to the Escape) – hybrid 2WD (car) and hybrid 4WD (light truck) only
  • Mercury Mariner (corporate twin to the Escape) – hybrid 2WD (car) and hybrid 4WD (light truck) only
  • Mini Cooper – naturally-aspirated manual only
  • Mini Cooper Clubman – naturally-aspirated manual only
  • Toyota Yaris – both manual and automatic
  • Toyota Corolla – 1.8L manual and 1.8L automatic only
  • Honda Fit – all three engine/transmission combinations
  • Kia Rio – both manual and automatic
  • Hyundai Accent – manual only
  • Chevrolet Aveo – manual only
  • Pontiac G3 (corporate twin to the Aveo) – manual only
  • Chevrolet Aveo 5 – manual only
  • Pontiac G3 5 (corporate twin to the Aveo 5) – manual only
  • Chevrolet Cobalt – XFE only
  • Pontiac G5 (corporate twin to the Cobalt) – base manual, XFE, and GT manual only
  • Scion XD – manual only
  • Toyota Highlander – Hybrid 4WD only (light truck)
  • Jeep Compass – 4WD manual only (light truck)
  • Jeep Patriot – 4WD manual only (light truck)
  • Mazda 5 – both manual (light truck) and automatic (light truck)
  • Toyota RAV4 – 2.5L 4WD only (light truck)
  • Nissan Rogue – AWD only (light truck)
  • Ford Ranger – 2.3L 2WD manual only (light truck)
  • Mazda B2300 (corporate twin to the Ranger) – 2.3L 2WD manual only (light truck)

I remember Car and Driver doing a 40-mpg CAFE special way back when. I wonder if they’re ready to revisit that.

Revisions/extensions (6:50 am 5/18/2009) - I did the post last night, so there were a few typos. Also, there’s a couple of additional thoughts.

If one takes out the different engine/transmission combinations (which I did above) and the corporate twin duplicates, there are 25 distinct models. That leaves three midsized cars (the Prius, Altima and Camry), five different compact cars (Jetta, Corolla, Aveo/G3, Rio and Accent), two small station wagons (Jetta Sportwagen and Fit, though the latter probably fits better into the subcompact category), six different subcompact cars (Civic, Yaris, Clubman, Aveo 5/G3 5, Cobalt/G5, and XD), a minicompact (Mini), five SUVs (Escape/Tribute/Mariner in both 2WD and 4WD form, Highlander 4WD, Compass 4WD, Patriot 4WD, RAV4 4WD and Rogue AWD, with all but the Highlander compactl-to-micro-sized), one micro-minivan (Mazda 5), and one compact pickup (Ranger/B2300). That also leaves only 15 automatics in the bunch.

All I can say is I’m glad I’m single and know how to drive a stick.

R&E part 2 (8:41 am 5/19/2009) - Welcome readers of The Other McCain.

R&E part 3 (11:00 am 5/19/2009) - Truesoldier asked a very good question over at Michelle Malkin’s post on this:

Ok that is on new vehicles, but what about the cost of retrofitting old vehicles to meet the “California” emission standards? I know when I used to live in California back in the 90’s if you brought a car from out of state you had to pay a fee , I believe it was around $500, if your car did not meet California’s emmision standards to get your car retrofitted. So is there going to be forced retrofit to meet the testing standards?

I believe that requirement is to retrofit out-of-state cars to the level of emissions required of that model year in California, not to retrofit older cars to current standards. Still, I wouldn’t put it past Obama’s EPA to pull that stunt to get the current crop of cars off the road.

Housekeeping item – I will be liveblogging the self-congratulatoin up above, so if you came directly to this post, please click the big “No Runny Eggs” at the top of the blog to get there.

May 8, 2009

Here comes the annual Algore/Whitman Memorial RFG Price Hike

by @ 7:28. Filed under Energy, Envirowhackos.

In case you haven’t noticed gas prices in the Milwaukee area lately, they’ve begun their annual winter-blend-to-summer-blend price spike. According to our friends at GasBuddy.com (which runs both MilwaukeeGasPrices.com and MadisonGasPrices.com), Milwaukee-area gas prices went up from an average of $2.088/gallon this time last month to $2.367/gallon as of this morning. Meanwhile, Madison-area gas prices from an average of $2.088/gallon this time last month to $2.196/gallon as of this morning.

One can’t even blame corn-a-hole this time, as to meet the federal mandates for minimum corn-a-hole content, most stations have chosen to put 10% ethanol in regular unleaded outstate. That leaves the RFG as the sole remaining difference, and I could’ve swore that, back when it was crammed down our fuel injectors, it wasn’t supposed to be more than a couple cents per gallon more expensive.

March 28, 2009

Let there be light

by @ 20:11. Filed under Envirowhackos.

In case you’re new to this place, I mock the envirowhackos on a regular basis. They have an utterly-stupid idea tonight – they want everybody to practice living like North Koreans by turning off their lights between 20:30 and 21:30 local. Naturally, I will have every last light-producing item on at the bunker during that time.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the following picture, which the whackos want to duplicate worldwide on a nightly basis, perfectly…


Click for the full-sized image

“If you look at a picture from the sky of the Korean Peninsula at night, South Korea is filled with lights and energy and vitality and a booming economy; North Korea is dark. It is a tragedy what’s being done in that country.”

We are not North Fucking Korea.

March 17, 2009

Ruh Ro!

by @ 5:32. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

Per President Obama:

But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. (emphasis mine)

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift

“The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”

And

8 Dems oppose quick debate on global warming bill

Again I’ll ask, whose science will we be using?

March 11, 2009

Whose Science Will It Be?

by @ 5:16. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

You may not be aware of it but there is a global warming conference going on this week.   The International Conference on Climate Change is in New York.   You probably haven’t heard about the conference because it is specifically for skeptics of global warming.   You know, the folks who also believe that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe?

Ronald Bailey from Reason magazine is covering the conference and has a recap of the presentations here.   Included in yesterday’s presentations was the following scientific data:

  • According to Indur Goklany, assuming the worse case scenario for global warming, income in both developed and undeveloped countries would be higher, worldwide deaths would increase by less than 1/2% and the amount of land required for agriculture would drop by 1/2.
  • According to Paul Reiter, head of the insects and infectious disease unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, 150 EDEN studies have been published so far and that “none of them support the notion that disease is increasing because of climate change.”   In fact,

Reiter pointed out that many of the claims that climate change will increase disease can be attributed to an incestuous network of just nine authors who write scientific reviews and cite each other’s work. None are actual on-the-ground disease researchers and many of them write the IPCC disease analyses. “These are people who know absolutely bugger about dengue, malaria or anything else,” said Reiter.

  • Finally, Stanley Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division in Miami presented evidence refuting the notion that hurricanes have become more prevalent due to global warming.   Goldenberg showed evidence that hurricanes increase and decrease over decadal cycles he provided this synopsis:

Tropical North Atlantic SST [sea surface temperature] has exhibited a warming trend of [about] ) 0.3 °C over the last 100 years; whereas Atlantic hurricane activity has not exhibited trend-like variability, but rather distinct multidecadal cycles….The possibility exists that the unprecedented activity since 1995 is the result of a combination of the multidecadal-scale changes in the Atlantic SSTs (and vertical shear) along with the additional increase in SSTs resulting from the long-term warming trend. It is, however, equally possible that the current active period (1995-2000) only appears more active than the previous active period (1926-1970) due to the better observational network in place.

Goldenberg completed his remarks with:

“Not a single scientist at the hurricane center believes that global warming has had any measurable impact on hurricane numbers and strength,”

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would be lifting the ban on Federal funding for stem cell research that had been implemented by President Bush.   In his statement describing the reason for his decision, President Obama said:

But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.   (emphasis mine)

I have to say, this is the first statement I can completely get behind President Obama on.   We should allow science to operate “free from manipulation or coercion.”   We should follow the facts and findings and “listen to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient.”   That leaves me with just two questions for President Obama:

  1. Free from manipulation or coercion by whom?
  2. Even when it’s inconvenient for whom?

All animals created equally?

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]