This is absolutely insane (global warming cult wants to wreck the environment)

When it comes to the environment, I deal with the what is, not maybes. I'm not a climatologist, but I do know how to read numbers and I do understand history. If the doomsday CO2 global warming folks want to try to get me on board, get me good measurements for a long period in more areas than a pole, show the causes, and a real solution outside of some bullshit carbon tax/credits that do nothing but make guys like Al Gore and RFK Jr rich while they and their 'environmentally conscientious'
Hollywood buddies live in their mansions and fly on their private jets polluting much more than we do with our 4x4s.

I read this guest USA Today column in the Argus. Frankly, if people actually start doing this stuff in the name of the environment, then they need to be stopped by any means necessary. I've heard similar talk before, including those who want to blow up another Mt Pinatubo type of volcano to promote 'global cooling'. This is modern human arrogance at its worst with the cult of global warming (or 'climate change' as the propagandists use today) which ignores the scientific method. This needs to be stopped by any means necessary. Global warming - caused by CO2, MIGHT be real, and MIGHT be a problem (I'm not convinced it's a bad thing or can be stopped if it is a bad thing). This climate geoengineering plan IS a problem.

From the Argus

Climate geoengineering is the name for the most audacious idea to master nature. Right now, energy companies, scientists, policymakers and even some environmentalists around the world are considering the possibility of attempting to manually override the Earth’s thermostat to counter the effects of global warming.

Geoengineering covers a range of technologies. Some are apparently quite benign, such as painting roofs white so as to reflect solar energy back into space. But, such schemes are also unlikely to have a significant impact on the climate. Those with the greatest current potential also tend to present the greatest risk. The two most often discussed strategies are stratospheric aerosol spraying and oceanic iron fertilization.

The former option would entail spraying sulfur or a similarly reflective compound into the stratosphere via planes or balloons to reflect solar radiation back into space. The projected cost of stratospheric spraying is relatively cheap, in the billions to tens of billions of dollars a year. Proponents argue that scientists could distribute enough reflective particles in the air to return temperatures back to preindustrial levels if we wished.
Oceanic iron fertilization takes its inspiration from the knowledge that algae (which absorb carbon) feed on iron. Consequently, dump iron filings in iron-poor parts of the ocean, and soon you have carbon-absorbing algae blooms. Again, the cost is low.
However, both of these options pose substantial known risks to humans and ecosystems. Stratospheric spraying could substantially reduce precipitation in South and Southeast Asia, potentially shutting down seasonal monsoons that more than a billion people rely upon for growing crops, or imperil replenishment of the ozone layer. Oceanic iron fertilization could result in the proliferation of algae species that won’t support higher order predators, or prove toxic in the marine environment. Moreover, the Earth’s ecology is vastly complex, and both of these technologies may also pose significant unknown risks that are impossible to assess before it is too late.

I'll call this exactly what it is. Dumping on a grand scale.  

You don't master nature. It masters you. History has shown consequences over and over what happens when people try and master nature. It doesn't often work as planned and has unintended consequences. When you build in a floodplain, there's consequences. When you have too many people in the desert (insert Sam Kinison joke), it alters the water supply. When you kill all the predators, the prey are overpopulation, and what they eat is declined, as do other animals dependent on them. When you release a bunch of 20 ft pythons in the Everglades, it causes trouble.

Even so, previous attempts mostly dealt with the what is and not the what ifs. The Erie Canal was a boon to shipping. Ocean ships had access to the Great Lakes in a time of no cars. It also gave us Zebra Mussels in some ship's ballast water 100 years later. Asian carp are threatening the Great Lakes. They were introduced to eat algae in the central US. Unintended consequences occurred. This is what is, not what might be.

Earth is estimated to be 6 billion years old. It has warmed and cooled many times over that period. Humans/proto humans have been a part of earth for about 2.3 million years (if you include 'homo habilis' which not all do), modern humans (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, and civilization has been around for around 10000 years largely starting at the end of the last major ice age. Yet, based on temperature reading from 25 years, or even 125 years, our planet is doomed to fry because of supposed man made 'global warming'. 125 years is a drop in the bucket, even if you are a Young Earth Creationist (which I am not) that believes the earth is 6000 years old.

During the dinosaur era, the earth was much warmer than today. Obviously that wasn't human caused since only on the TV cartoon Flintstones did Dino and Fred walk the earth at the same time. It was a different earth then as continents weren't in the same position as today (and they still are moving slowly with plate tectonics - felt as earthquakes). The continental plates have been roughly in similar positions for the last 23 million years, so that's a good measuring point for 'climate change'.

Has climate changed significantly in the last 23 million years? Yes. Does that predate humans? Yes. All forms by 21 million years. There were heavy aquatic extinctions around 14 million years ago with coincided with growth of Antarctic ice sheets. Under the 'current' 'Quaternary' era of the past 2.5 million years, there has been several 'ice ages' and 'warming periods'. One started 2.5 million years ago as ice caps formed grew during that period (remnants of those are still around today at the poles).

There was a heavy warm period around 125k ago warmer than today. Forests were on the North cape of Norway. That's tundra today. Trees were on southern Baffin island (tundra) which is now above the tree line for that area (Northern Quebec currently). Humans were alive then, but as far as we know, mostly hunter gatherers. Following that was the last glacial period of about 100,000 years (until about 10,000 years ago) where the Laurentide Ice Sheet extended to Wisconsin. In the modern period, there was a warm medieval period (900-1250AD - time of Viking movements) and followed by the 'little ice age' (glaciers moved) which ended around 1850 - ironically right before most of the global warming measurements begin. The late 1700's and early 1800's period had some real cold periods, partly due to volcanoes.

I remember Mt Pinatubo. It showed how quickly nature can change weather and potentially climate. A long dormant volcano (500 years) erupted with one of the biggest blasts in the 20th century - much bigger than Mt St Helens in 1980. The next summer was cool. Temperatures barely hit the 70's most of the summer and it was always cloudy.  Other major volcanos have had the same or in some cases more drastic effects.

This geoengineering is bad news, especially over a 'might' and not a what is. It shows an incredible ignorance of history and an arrogance that often backfires.

Energy Policy needs to be America first

I agree with 70% of this article in New Geography, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite policy journals. I don't agree with it on nuclear policy, but I can see its argument. I still think we need to pursue nuclear energy as long as our reactors aren't on fault lines and subduction zones. We need an all the above energy policy.

From New Geography

The two largest crises today — the Japanese nuclear disaster and the widening unrest in the Middle East — prove it’s time to de-fetishize energy policy. These serious problems also demonstrate why we must expand the nation’s ample oil and gas supplies — urgently.

The worsening Japanese nuclear crisis means, for all intents and purposes, that atomic power is, if not dead, certainly on a respirator.

Some experts may still make the case that nuclear power remains relatively safe. Some green advocates still tout its virtues for emitting virtually no greenhouse gases.

But the strongest case against nuclear power is now rooted in grave public fears about radiation. Imagine trying to site or revamp a nuclear plant today anywhere remotely close to an earthquake fault or a major city.

Right now, I'm sure nuclear energy's popularity is dipping.

The other shoe dropping relates to the growing chaos in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Gulf. The price of oil is likely to continue climbing, unless the world economy slides back into recession — and perhaps even then. The governments that emerge from the current Mideast upheavals are likely to be far less pliable to Western interests than the authoritarian potentates that Washington long supported. Disruptions in supply, higher energy taxes and emergent environmental movements could constrain markets for months, even years, to come.

These realities upset all the “best” obsessions of our rival political classes. Much of the progressive community, for example, had embraced nuclear fuel as key to ultimately replacing fossil fuels as a source of electricity — including the long-awaited electric cars. Green advocates often overestimated the readiness of renewable fuels — still far more expensive than fossil fuels and highly dependent on subsidies.

Wind power, for example, produces, at best, some 2.3 percent of the nation’s electricity. But in addition to wiping out whole flocks of birds, it receives subsidies many times higher per megawatt hour than fossil fuels. In contrast, the dirtiest fuel, coal, still produces close to 50 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Meanwhile, solar panel production, touted as a wellspring of job creation, seems to be shifting inexorably to China. Algae-based biofuels and other types look promising — but could take decades to become practical.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, have espoused the nuclear option — in part, because the industry has powerful corporate backing, which is always an influential factor to Republicans. But even red-state denizens are probably looking at the scenes of Fukushima with understandable horror.

So if the “best” agendas of both parties are flawed, it may be time to look at the “good.” The pragmatic way out of this emerging energy mess means focusing on our increasingly abundant supplies of oil and gas.

“Peak oil” enthusiasts may not have noticed, but recent discoveries and improvements in technology have greatly expanded the scope of U.S. energy resources. New finds are occurring around the world, but some of the biggest are in the United States.

Shale oil deposits in the northern Great Plains, Texas, California and Colorado could yield more oil annually by 2015 than the Gulf of Mexico. Within 10 years, these finds have the potential to reduce U.S. oil imports by more than half.

Even more promising, from the environmental standpoint, are huge natural gas finds. Discoveries in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania could satisfy 100 years of use at current demand levels.

What is great about American energy? Jobs. Money not going to the Middle East. Control.

Producing domestic energy also creates the potential for hundreds of thousands of new U.S. jobs — everything from engineering to high-paying blue-collar work in the fields.

A new gas-led energy boom would also spark increases in demand for manufactured goods like oil rig equipment, tractors, pipelines and refineries. And those are sectors that the United States still dominates.

Would we rather this economic growth take place in Iran, Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

The time has come for both political parties to give up their “best” energy options for the good. A green economy that produces millions of new jobs is a laudable goal. But the renewable sector cannot develop rapidly without massive expenditures of scarce public dollars. To fully develop these technologies, we need lots of money and time.

Republicans, too, need to give up their “bests” — including the notion that no policy is always the best, usually a convenient cover for the narrow interests of large energy corporations. Allowing private corporations to unilaterally determine our energy policy makes little sense. After all, most of our key competitors — China, Brazil and India — approach energy not as an ideological hobby horse but as a national priority.

I know that oil has a "world price" but this goes beyond economics. We need to look at reality and control what we can control here at home. Global warming may or may not be happening (Certainly not happening in Michigan last few years - and I've seen nothing like 1988 or even 1996 lately), and may not be a concern. There is no consensus there, and those who say there is forget science 101 about testing.

Reality however consists of rising gas prices, rising shipping costs and inflation, unrest in the Middle East, China and India industrializing, and more pain, partly directly caused by the government. We need an all of the above energy policy here, and it starts by taking advantage of our own resources.

Global Warming Hypocracy

If you can't live what you believe and preach, sit down and shut the hell up.

From the London Telegraph. The headline says it all. 1200 limos. 140 private planes.

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

If they care about the environment so much, they can fly coach, ride bikes. I'm sure that's too low class for the RFK Jr snobs who don't practice what they preach.


And there's more....

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

All to make policy for the little people of course....

This thing needs to crash and burn. Our world depends on this. Our freedoms depend on this. Our economy depends on this. Let's get out of the UN as well for that matter.

Government's war on the auto industry

Right now, the biggest enemy to our auto industry is the government. First of all, I titled this "Government's war on the auto industry." I did not title this the Obama Chicago Mob war on the auto industry, or even the democrat war on the auto industry. They are some of the biggest villans, but they are one of many.

The first Bush was not a friend of the industry. Clinton was not either. He signed NAFTA and GATT. Ross Perot warned us of a giant sucking sound of jobs with the passage of those two trade agreements. He was right. Al Gore wanted to outlaw the internal combustable engine. Bush basically sat on his hands and then bailed out Wall Street along with his parters McCain and Obama on this. Both McCain and Obama lectured us about manufacturing and threw the auto industry under the bus. Obama was the only reason I voted for McCain. Only reason.

Right now the auto industry is double flanked by a significant number of pols in both parties. On the Democrat side, our industry's best ally is John Dingell. Dingell did his best, but the CULT of global warming, knocked him out for a radical in Henry Waxman. They also knocked out Joe Knollenberg, one of the two best friends of the industry on the Republican side. The other one is being targetted. Thad McCotter. McCotter is one of the few true friends of the auto industry left.

The Republicans have their own jerks. McCain was one. Bob Corker and Richard Shelby the party switcher is another. Corker got his wish with a GM bankruptcy. Guess what. Saturn's gone. Where's Saturn based? Spring Hill, TN. Great job standing up for your state, son. With "friends" like those two, we don't need any enemies. I hope both of these individuals get a nice primary challenge when they are next up for election.

The doubleflank is the global warming left like Pelosi, Waxman, Gore and Obama and anti-UAW right like Corker, Bush, and Shelby. One wants to punish the industry because they want cars banned except for the rich elite, and the other wants to unionbust at the cost of the entire company. I have mixed views on unions but I damn well don't want to see my industry destroyed.

The biggest threat is this cult of global warming. This global warming cult based on temperature data of 150 years (1860-today - and keep in mind we are coming out of a 500 year mini ige age from around 1300-1850), a microsecond of time by earth standards that is billions of years old. I'm not going to debate global warming here, except that any 150 year data set is worthless). It may exist. It may not. I'm not convinced that it is a problem even if it does exist, and I damn well am not buying any doomsday crap based on what we breathe out - CO2.

Regardless of the truth of fiction of global warming, I have a hard time with supporting government regulation over every aspect of our lives, and the rapid destruction and dismantling of our state's industry that built the middle class in our country.


What we have today and in the future was a long time coming. Many dominoes have fallen so far in the government war on the auto industry. Unless you've tuned out the news, today GM, once the largest company in the world, has filed for bankruptcy. Some of you here reading may not care. You will, when this affects your state, and your city, and it will. Believe me, it will.

Plants are closing, in Michigan and elsewhere. These people need to find work. They have families. Many are moving away to find work. Some are going on welfare. Many will take early retirement and look for other work. Dealers will close. Suppliers will close. The ripple effect will follow. Schools will have lower enrollment. Less money. Less tax money is collected because of lost jobs and at the local and state levels, relocation. The much ballyhooed services industry is losing money too. Auto workers and their families won't be spending as much money on tourism and luxuries.

In the Chrysler case, the government forced it to go under a large part of foreign ownership because Obama likes the Fiat. With its bankruptcy, so far, they are losing 25% of its dealerships. That's a lot of jobs. The UAW and the Government combined owned 65%.

In the case of General Motors, to begin with, 2100 dealers will be closed or placed on standby, as will 14 plants, seven in Michigan, including the Lake Orion plant which hits close to home in this family. GM's also off the NYSE and Dow.

This is supposed to "save" the industry? Thousands of dealers, dozens of plants, God knows how many suppliers, and all that this supports? What about the Mexico or foreign plants? GM's plant closings alone will cost 21,000 jobs.

All of that is subject to change by the courts as well. It could be worse.

Now as for the government dicates, here's a question. When has big government run anything top notch? Look at the US Senate. You will not find a bigger group of jokes on the face of the earth. From Levin and Stabenow doing nothing for Michigan, to Durbin, Obama, McCain, (formerly) Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd the pork king, Corker, Shelby, Specter, Feinstein, Boxer, Biden, and 1/2 of Obama's cabinent that came from that joke of a political body. Now the government and Obama want even higher CAFE standards, and are pushing the Big 3 away from what they do best. Trucks and SUV's.

Some of the inside stories I have heard are leaking what the Obama people have been yapping about. I am paraphrasing this to protect this individual who doesn't want his name out there. People with 30 years of auto experience in both foreign and domestic cars are being dictated to by government bureaucrats from Obama's admin, people with no manufacturing experience, no auto industry experience, no business experience, no finance experience, and no engineering experience. Big government at work.

One was telling the auto industry to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles to reduce the number of gas stations. They were quoting BTU's (energy measurement) of natural gas and battery life that they had looked up by some advocacy group.

This was nearly impossible based on the laws of physics due to the size of the car needed for that. Common sense. The number of batteries and natural gas tank would be gigantic. We'd have to drive busses. The individual mentioned the laws of phyics, and the Obama bureaucrat said that they needed to tell Congress to change that law or use an executive order. Good luck with that.

Lastly, I'm hearing a lot of preaching by Granholm and the others in both parties about diversifying the economy. Yeah, I support that. Who doesn't. However, diversifying the economy should not mean that we throw manufacturing under the bus. We need to protect our manufacturing. We need to keep these jobs home, not in China. We need to stop throwing our blue collar heritage, culture, and manufacturing under the bus. The next person who runs his mouth about these jobs not coming back needs to be forced to drink soup for a week.

When it comes to the auto industry, the government has failed this country. It has failed with big regulations, trade agreements, micromanagement, and its jihad with the cult of global warming. The best thing the government can do is reduce the regulations, enact fair trade agreements so our manufacturing isn't dead, stop the heavy taxes and red tape, and work for energy independence in a proper fashion, by an all of the above policy including drilling and refining, as well as nuclear technology.

Who cares about the possibility of global warming if your state is being turned into an economic depresssion. It's time to put Michigan first.

Updates, news and comment

It's a day off for me right now, so I will be catching up on some posts I planned out, but didn't have time to cover. From the Old News section:

First, I got over to melonfest yesterday up in Howell. I missed the parade however, and from what I've heard 2nd hand, the dems took a page out of the "Communications Guru" playbook. They were marching down Grand River in the non political parade with picket signs telling us how bad the other guy sucks (Rogers votes against Children, etc etc) - nothing about the several candidates on their side of the isle. If that is true (qualified statement), that's a good way to piss off the apolitical people and turn away potential converts. As the Motorhead song goes, "No class." As a republican, all I have to say is "Thanks, guys for your help!"

Second, John Dingell awhile back introduced a "Put up or Shut up" bill on this global warming hysteria going on out there. I like that the smug spoiled rich kid Robert Kennedy Junior and his crowd getting a target on his back for once. Dingell's bill taxes gasoline 50 cents, takes off mortgage deductions on 3,000 foot homes. I don't like the bill, nor agree with it, it's a dose of reality for those who think global warming is this dire threat, but just want to target American cars.

Third, Dan Meisler of the Argus had a good editorial about the light rail project between Ann Arbor and Howell. I've posted several items on that previously giving my opposition to subsidizing a project I do not believe will work due to the routes and low population of the area.