Rob
How do you include image in your post?
Rob
How do you include image in your post?
Peter,
You misunderstand Progressivism…something most rational people do.
To a Progressive, progress isn’t measured by how many people live and prosper, but by how many people die and live miserable, contracted, brutish lives.
This is progress in the War Against Overpopulation. To a Progressive
killing people to save them IS progress. And sane. It’s War, after all.
A Progressive doesn’t have to be concerned with outcomes, only with
intentions. Haven’t you noticed the Progressive on this blog never
answer the questions put to them about the consequences of
their policy advocacy? Real deaths are always offset by imagined ones.
To a Progressive being concerned about outcomes is gauche. It’s middle class, it’s anti-intellectual and materialistic. A Progressive keeps tune to a
higher drummer, a loftier view, plans and policies made by the angels
themselves.
A Progressive can’t be wrong because a Progressive knows in his heart his policies are ‘best.’ Best doesn’t mean best for humans, those foul, ill-breeding, polluting, despoiling cancers that walk around and in total arrogance demand that life be good regardless of how they might hurt Mother Earth, or some other entirely Mythical, Make Believe person, place or thing, because in the end the only measure a Progressive has and is interested in is how they FEEL about an issue. Imagine what the world would look like if they were unopposed!
Progressives practice a secular religion. Nietzsche announced God was dead and the Progressives have rushed in to fill the void . They behave just like the religious who came before them. Reality isn’t reality, it’s whatever they FEEL it to be at any particular moment. The natural rhythm of a Progressive is authoritarianism. The last six years of Progressive Power offers proof enough of that.
Oh, and if the data doesn’t match the goal, ‘fix’ the data.
They use the Power of Government, the Power of Law to shove down the throats of the cancerous things that are running around them, policies that they sell to the cancers as being good for them but first you have to know what is the GOOD to a Progressive in order to understand what is meant. We have in the White House a shining example of a Progressive and the whole country has been Grubered by him and his fellow travelers which is all for the good, don’t you know because they are the ultimate arbiters of what is GOOD. The only problem is that what is GOOD for a Progressive is rarely good, and most often horrendous, for the rest of us.
Climate, the weather and the control of, are the ultimate grab for power
by people who lust for power the way Tyrants have since we dragged our
butts out of the slime and with a hubris fitting a Tyrant who claims to
control the rise of the seas.
If this weren’t true we’d all be happily adapting our way to the next century relying on intelligence, creativity and technology to solve real world problem instead of relying on the intentions and limited imagination of a self-proclaimed elite to write laws and use force to mold, constrain and otherwise stuff humankind into the ‘Dream’ world of Progressives.
” is actually saying it will make a profit of 5 to 6 billion USD on the portfolio of loans ”
And you believe them? Why?
@jim2
Here a comment from a knowledgeable retired finance guy on an earlier article. Maybe you might be interested :)
Aye, CAPTDALLAS!
First liar doesn’t stand a chance!
“I caught 20 huge fish today”
“How huge?”
“The smallest was over 30 inches long!”
“Ah. We use those for bait”!
Thx for the link
Obama’s problem isn’t constraint. It’s the worst relationship with Congress (even his own party) in the history of the presidency. It’s the utter lack of any input from any advisor other than his Rasputin, Valerie Jarrett. It’s the unprecedented record of dishonesty, corruption and lawlessness. It’s Gruber, on steroids, for the last 6 years.
Arrogant, ignorant, dishonest and corrupt is no way to go through life. Or the presidency.
Tony,
“..although our social safety net seems to be more advanced than in the US.”
Having a well balanced safety net is extremely important. It should recognize that some people need a leg up, but anything more can be harmful.
Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress overhauled welfare in the late 90s and by many accounts it worked well; those on welfare got jobs and poverty went down. Then Obama decided to ignore the law regarding welfare and issued an (unconstitutional) executive order and now the poverty level is far worse.
Richard
You mean Odessa could end up like Detroit?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-01-townhangingon_N.htm
stan, somewhere on a 5 inch floppy I have the first 32 pages of a screenplay titled ‘Rapsutin–The Musical.’ I really wanted DeNiro for the lead. I actually pitched it to Paramount with a friend of mine who knew people there.
Now, if I had put Valerie Jarrett in there instead, I might be rich and famous!
And if DeNiro was advising the President, who knows where we might be?
“Its a wicked problem, with much uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance.”
1. There have been a number of deadlines for action, after which it would be “too late” starting with 2000. If these deadlines are indeed correct it is too late and we shouldn’t bother. If the deadlines weren’t correct and were simply presented to force political action favored by some, the advocates were were being dishonest and should be ignored.
2. There were a number of levels 400, 600, etc. that were predicted to cause excessive warming, mostly based on ignoring the historic effect of geography on climate. We have reached 400 and nothing bad has happened so far.
3. The IPCC “100+” year CO2 lifetime is just fantasy. The average CO2 lifetime is about 5.6 years and the “excess manmade CO2 lifetime” – particularly to get back to the proven safe 400 PPM level is less than 40.
Overall there hasn’t been a good track record on CO2 climate predictions.
This doesn’t prove that the strong forcing advocates are wrong… yet. But it does mean that we probably have the time to get a better understanding of climate system before we take what could be meaningless and counter productive actions.
No one (who is sensible) believes we will be relying mostly on fossil fuel energy in 2100. Transitioning away from fossil fuels prematurely will be enormously expensive for little or no gain.
AGW is being used to force politically driven economic and energy policy favored by a small activist cadre with scant real evidence of the drastic outcomes they are predicting.
We do need to get a better understanding of clouds, natural cycles, and other climate features which have been ignored in the rush to overstudy GHG and make alarmist projections based on bad information.
What bothers me is that the artificially induced panic over GHG may be leading us to ignore some more serious climate issues that may be more problematic and urgent.
Richard
From Hansard in 2005
‘David Blunkett has said that welfare payments—he may not have been talking about pensions, but it is a good analogy—should be not a safety net but a trampoline or an escalator. As far as pensioners are concerned, they do not want a trampoline. They need a much stronger safety net from the state with far fewer holes in it for them to fall through. ”
Generally welfare should be a trampoline but there are instances, the old and the vulnerable who might need a safety net.
tonyb
Brent
The plan would simply invite China into the IEA. Problem is, the IEA accomplishes nothing. It is a place where people do studies, collect existing data, write plans and pathways, have meetings, and work on nonbinding agreements.
It also publishes an annual report that lists its accomplishments; all about work it’s doing, nothing about results. Your dollars hard at work.
Richard
Prof. Curry and All,
The election results are likely to have only a marginal impact on US Govt conduct. The R’s have had blocking power since the 2010 elections gave them control of the House of Representatives. The increase in R seats in the Senate is not enough to overcome determined D opposition.
The R’s have majorities in both the House and Senate, but no serious observer of US politics believes they have a sufficiently large number in the Senate on climate issues (even if 54-46 after the Louisiana run-off in December) to succeed on a 60-vote cloture motion to prevent a D filibuster. Given the composition of the Senate, there is no realistic prospect of obtain 6 D votes to override Administration policy on climate change or environmental issues.
The President and EPA have regulatory authority under existing legislation to promulgate new regulations addressing environment and climate issues. When exercised, that will trigger a court fight, with concomittant delays in implementation. The Administration’s track record on those court fights so far has been pretty good, with the courts showing deferrence to the President and EPA. If course, the result will depend on the specifics of the proposed regulatory measure and whether the regulatory process comported with Due Process and the Administrative Procedures Act. Hence, the slow and deliberate regulatory process.
The R’s retain blocking power with respect to the budget, but will no longer use it to shut down the Govt. That means a delayed and difficult budget negotiation, and eventual marginal changes (the pattern for the last several years, since the R’s have had blocking power over the budget in the House of Representatives since the 2010 elections).
The R’s control the investigative powers of the Senate and the House, including hearings and subpoena power. Expect the R’s to use that power liberally with respect to environmental matters, as well as many other matters.
Overall, expect sturm & drang, regulatory initiatives under existing legislation, painful budget negotiations likely resolved by means of yet another continuing budget resolution different only at the margins from today’s budget, and not much else until after the 2016 elections, if at all.
I hope this is useful regardless of your individual political perspectives.
Regards,
MK
Tony
I tend to agree, not from experience but from respected sources and anecdotal evidence.
Richard
I imagine one of the first orders of business in January would be for both the House and Senate to take votes on Obama’s $3B climate justice proposal.
You better be in the safest of safe districts before you vote to transfer wealth to unidentified developing countries for vague social justice reasons. Good luck defending this vote in light of struggling schools in your district and other underfunded areas.
Dr. Clayson,
I was also suprised by the assertion that CO2 uptake by the ocean has declined.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
What is the evidence? What is the nature of the decline in uptake (e.g. what time frame has this happened over)?
It seems that CO2 sinks have generally grown over the last several decades. Our emissions rates have grown, yet atmospheric concentrations growth has been pretty much linear. This indicates growing CO2 sinks. I find it hard to believe that this growth in CO2 sinks is largly land based.
My guess is that we are missing the biological component and clouds. The amount of light to facilitate photosynthesis may be a key factor in how much/fast the oceans uptake CO2, keeping the surface PH high and allowing more uptake.
Plankton grow fast and are live short, being consumed by other marine life. The ocean biomass pyramid is believed to be the opposite of on lands, with animals making up the vast majority of biomass. Perhaps as aquatic animal life grows in population, it is able to consume more plant life and increase ocean uptake.
Is the decline in uptake recent, perhaps limited to the recent late 90s early 2000 climate shift or increase in cloud cover this past decade?