Category: Miscellaneous

From the Wall Street Journal…

I can’t wait to hear the plaintiffs argument as to why U.S. CO2 emissions versus Chinese were the proximate cause of the damage..

Now that Sen. Lindsey Graham has teamed up with Sen.John Kerry in trying to foist cap-and-tax on America, one of Graham’s goons is offering advice to Republicans on how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In an article about a new poll indicating that almost 80 percent of Americans don’t know what cap-and-trade is but that Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to know about cap-and-trade, ClimateWire reports,

Republican pollster Whit Ayres downplayed the viability of phrases like “cap and tax.” For those opposed to the bill, he said, the most effective strategy is using third-party “validators” like the Congressional Budget Office to point out costs of specific provisions within legislation.

And he said the worst strategy for the GOP would be to deny that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, according to his polling research.

Although we are winning the battle against oppressive green climate/energy legislation — or at least holding our own against vastly better funded opponents — “Republican” pollster Ayres says we should change tactics — i.e., don’t say “cap-and-tax” and don’t question whether climate change is manmade. Ayres further advises that we should rely on “third-party validators” like the CBO — a group that thinks Americans will actually benefit economically from cap-and-tax (Oops… it slipped. Sorry, Dim-Whit.)

Sen. Graham is one of Ayres’ clients as is the Environmental Defense Fund — no wonder Ayres wants us to surrender our winning ways.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of Ayres’ clients — do you think Ayres will follow the likes of Apple, Nike and Exelon and abandon the USCOC? Perhaps it should abandon Ayres?

BTW, don’t forget to check out Nancy Morgan’s terrific piece in today’s American Thinker, “The Seduction of Lindsey Graham.”

From ClimateWire:

Duke Energy, the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the U.S. utility sector, has spent more than $10 million to lobby Congress since 2008, helping to shape, it says, legislation to cap carbon emissions… [Waxman-Markey] gave Duke most of the credits it would need for the next 15 to 20 years for free.

“That was a major achievement,” said Duke spokesman Tom Williams. “I would say that was a major example of our [lobbying] presence paying off for our customers.”

Maybe Duke meant “paying off from our customers,” since Duke Energy has already applied to increase electricity rates 12.6% ($500 million) in anticipation of carbon cap legislation.

More from the ClimateWire article:

Duke CEO Jim Rogers has “played the political winds like a master yachtsman,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, adding that the firm touts carbon controls while also expanding a coal-fired plant west of Charlotte, N.C.

“Master yachtsman”? Below is a more apt image of Duke’s “Skipper”:

In reality, Rogers has done nothing but betray his shareholders and customers:

… says the UK’s Tyndall Centre, according to this report in the Telegraph.

Who wouldn’t sign up for a government-planned recession to combat the government-fabricated catastrophic manmade global warming?

… says the UK’s Tyndall Centre, according to this report in the Telegraph.

Who wouldn’t sign up for a government-planned recession to combat the government-fabricated catastrophic manmade global warming?

In a version of the acorn not falling far from the tree, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s totalitarian genes are starting to shine through.

In a New York Times article last weekend, Schwarzenegger admitted that he hounds his children about the length of their showers:

In remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, where he was commemorating the third anniversary of the state’s ground-breaking law to reduce gases that contribute to global warming, the governor described growing up in Europe after World War II, when efforts at conservation were pervasive, and complained about his four children’s lack of similar discipline.

“We were taught to always switch off the light when you go and leave the room, and that you can only use water sparingly or to drink,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “That’s it. Not to waste any water, period. So it’s a totally different atmosphere.”

But his children are prone to taking 15-minute showers, he said.

“So I finally had to implement rules at home,” the governor said, “and tell them that if they take showers that are longer than five minutes that there will be consequences, like they will not be able to go out, where they will not be able to bring friends over, and on and on and on.”

And that is not all.

“I will sometimes spy on them when it comes to the showers and time them,” Mr. Schwarzenegger told his tittering audience. “And I told them if I catch them, there will be something built in that I have from Europe, which only allows you to take a shower for five minutes and then it turns off automatically, which they have in Europe in gymnasiums so you don’t take a shower for too long.”

Hey Arnold, you don’t have to get “something built in” from Europe. We have them here — and the seller is (or, at least, used to be) proud that the device is called the “Shower Nazi.”

When you’re the child of a Sturmabteilung (SA or “brownshirt”) volunteer, you ought to bend over backwards to suppress totalitarian tendencies.

In a version of the acorn not falling far from the tree, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s totalitarian genes are starting to shine through.

In a New York Times article last weekend, Schwarzenegger admitted that he hounds his children about the length of their showers:

In remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, where he was commemorating the third anniversary of the state’s ground-breaking law to reduce gases that contribute to global warming, the governor described growing up in Europe after World War II, when efforts at conservation were pervasive, and complained about his four children’s lack of similar discipline.

“We were taught to always switch off the light when you go and leave the room, and that you can only use water sparingly or to drink,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “That’s it. Not to waste any water, period. So it’s a totally different atmosphere.”

But his children are prone to taking 15-minute showers, he said.

“So I finally had to implement rules at home,” the governor said, “and tell them that if they take showers that are longer than five minutes that there will be consequences, like they will not be able to go out, where they will not be able to bring friends over, and on and on and on.”

And that is not all.

“I will sometimes spy on them when it comes to the showers and time them,” Mr. Schwarzenegger told his tittering audience. “And I told them if I catch them, there will be something built in that I have from Europe, which only allows you to take a shower for five minutes and then it turns off automatically, which they have in Europe in gymnasiums so you don’t take a shower for too long.”

Hey Arnold, you don’t have to get “something built in” from Europe. We have them here — and the seller is (or, at least, used to be) proud that the device is called the “Shower Nazi.”

When you’re the child of a Sturmabteilung (SA or “brownshirt”) volunteer, you ought to bend over backwards to suppress totalitarian tendencies.

Green groups want to use the recession as an excuse to make the Senate climate bill tougher than Waxman-Markey.

According to ClimateWire:

The problem with staying at 17 percent, environmentalists argue, is that the economic recession has made meeting the target much too easy for businesses.

According to the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide output is likely to decline 6 percent this year, following a 3 percent slide in 2008. In 2010, emissions will rise, but by less than 1 percent, according to the agency.

“We’re already halfway to the 17 percent target without even trying,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I don’t think many members of Congress know that.”

The strategy is not without risk though:

“The risk they run is that their whole effort could be branded as a statement of the left,” said Manik Roy, a congressional expert at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a think tank that backs congressional action on climate. “No matter how good the rest of the bill is, it’s going to be hard to escape that label.”

Yes, it will be hard to escape a label that rings true.

Green groups want to use the recession as an excuse to make the Senate climate bill tougher than Waxman-Markey.

According to ClimateWire:

The problem with staying at 17 percent, environmentalists argue, is that the economic recession has made meeting the target much too easy for businesses.

According to the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide output is likely to decline 6 percent this year, following a 3 percent slide in 2008. In 2010, emissions will rise, but by less than 1 percent, according to the agency.

“We’re already halfway to the 17 percent target without even trying,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I don’t think many members of Congress know that.”

The strategy is not without risk though:

“The risk they run is that their whole effort could be branded as a statement of the left,” said Manik Roy, a congressional expert at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a think tank that backs congressional action on climate. “No matter how good the rest of the bill is, it’s going to be hard to escape that label.”

Yes, it will be hard to escape a label that rings true.

In a ClimateWire article today touting the alarmist goal of 350 parts per million for atmospheric CO2, Stanford University climate hysteric Stephen Schneider made the following comment about “haggling over emissions targets”:

“We’re betting the planet. There’s no such thing as a safe level. There’s a level of very risky, versus mildly risky.

There’s no safe level of CO2? What is he talking about? If there’s no CO2, then there are no people or plants.

Maybe he’s just referring to the inverse correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sanity among alarmists.

In a ClimateWire article today touting the alarmist goal of 350 parts per million for atmospheric CO2, Stanford University climate hysteric Stephen Schneider made the following comment about “haggling over emissions targets”:

“We’re betting the planet. There’s no such thing as a safe level. There’s a level of very risky, versus mildly risky.

There’s no safe level of CO2? What is he talking about? If there’s no CO2, then there are no people or plants.

Maybe he’s just referring to the inverse correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sanity among alarmists.