WyBlog

Your tax dollars at work: NJ will subsidize builing electric car charging stations

Government waste, econut edition:

Hey, remember back in the early 1900s when the state passed out grants to "encourage" the building of more gas stations?

Yeah, me neither.

According to the state Board of Public Utilities, there are currently 398 charging outlets at 181 locations in New Jersey, based on data kept by the federal Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center. BPU President Richard Mroz said the grant program will encourage greater use of electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrids, by expanding the infrastructure network needed to keep alternative-fueled vehicles on the road in New Jersey.

398 charging stations doesn't sound like a lot. Except there probably aren't 398 electric cars in all of New Jersey.

Remember when the people who needed and wanted a service paid for that service? Ah, but then we couldn't have socialism, and use Other People's Money to buy votes and preen for favorable press.

Proving once again just how impractical electric cars really are. Plug in for an hour while twiddling your thumbs, and presto! you're good for another 2, maybe 5 miles. Lather, rinse, repeat!

Wait 8 hours (maybe take a nap?) and go a whopping 40 miles! Just don't turn on the air conditioning…

Or you could, oh I don't know, spend 8 minutes at the corner gas station and go upwards of 400 miles on a single tank. That is if you're smart enough to buy a Real Car instead of a glorified golf cart.

But then how would smug virtue-signaling liberals be able to feel good about themselves at our expense?

Posted at 11:31 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: electric-vehicle New-Jersey taxes   |   Tweet

It's OK to slaughter thousands of bald eagles if you're promoting "green energy"

The bald eagle. A majestic symbol of America. Proud. Unafraid.

And, protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Unless you're the owner of an Obama-approved Wind Farm.

Then, let the killing begin!

Bald Eagle sushi! It's "conservation."

"The permitting system gives us access to eagles and eagle mortalities that we wouldn't otherwise have," an unnamed source told ABC News. "It's a great mechanism for us to work proactively to prevent eagle deaths."

Eagle chop suey prevents eagle deaths!

Also work makes you free.

If even one bald eagle got coated in oil, you can bet your bottom dollar Obama's ecowarriors would be screaming from the ramparts, and fighting tooth and nail to shut that oil company down.

But "green energy" boondoggles trump ecology every time in Obamaville.

He'll throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the failure that was Solyndra, but pledge to bankrupt tried and true coal producers.

Sneeze in the direction of a piping plover, and New Jersey will put your in prison. But slaughter thousands of bald eagles and Obama will praise your dedication to combating "climate change."

Nevermind that more than 14,000 abandoned wind turbines dot the landscape, monuments to the stupidity of "green energy."

The good news is they aren't killing any more bald eagles.

The bad news is we wasted billions of tax dollars creating these eyesores.

You know what never killed a single eagle? Or for that matter, any piping plovers?

Fracking.

And nuclear energy.

So ask yourself this. Why do the econuts oppose both?

I'll help you out.

It's because at the end of the day they aren't pro-environment.

They're anti-people.

Posted at 21:08 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Obama wind-farm bald-eagle endangered-species green-energy   |   Tweet

To celebrate Lenin's birthday Dictator Obama signs the Paris Climate Accord

Because he's a constitutional scholar dontcha know, and he don't need no "advice and consent" from no stinkin' Senate. Besides, it's Earth Day Lenin's birthday, and he can't help but feed into the symbolism of the whole thing. So, let the wealth transfer begin!

Not so fast there Lurch. It's a treaty. And Jim DeMint says treaties need to be ratified by the Senate.

Ah yes, the "Green Climate Fund." To which Dear Leader has already sent $500 million of our tax dollars as a down payment on his annual committment of $3 billion or so. Think of it as reparations for Climate Justice, but please don't call it a treaty.

The Senate ought to stand up (for once) and deny President Pen-And-Phone his legacy. Defund the EPA. Defund the State Department's travel and conference budget.

It's what Lenin would have done.

Posted at 14:41 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW Climate-Change Obama treaty US-Senate   |   Tweet

What's the carbon footprint of cutting down 15,000 trees to build a solar farm?

Ecotwit insanity on steroids: They paved paradise to put up a solar farm.

Solar energy devastates the environment! Now that's funny!

You can't make this stuff up.

You know what's even funnier?

The greenies are unhappy!

"This gives green energy a black eye. You cannot cut down a forest for solar panels. That's the opposite of being green," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey, one of the groups formally objecting to the project. "You don't destroy a habitat in a forest in the name of clean energy."

Said the guy who wants solar panels on every office building in the universe and a windmill in everyone's back yard (except his, of course).

If only there was a carbon-neutral generating plant nearby that wasn't being mothballed 10 years early due to endless complaints from Jeff and his merry band of anti-nuclear luddites. And if only there wasn't a replacement reactor on the drawing board that, you guessed it, is rabidly opposed by You Know Who.

Sorry econuts, you made your green bed. Now reap what you've sown.

Because when the going gets green, the greenery gets bulldozed. That's Progress!

Posted at 12:13 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Climate-Change solar-energy carbon-dioxide trees Six-Flags   |   Tweet

No one tell Leonardo DiCaprio: The EU can't keep its climate promises

Gas up the private jet Maurice, Leonardo DiCaprio needs to get his Oscar to Brussels, STAT.

Of all the stakeholders at the negotiating table in Paris this past December, the EU was perhaps the most vociferous in its attempt to try and hammer out an international climate treaty. The document the summit produced requires nations to submit plans how they'll reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and notably lacks any sort of robust enforcement mechanism. Now, it seems the EU ought to be thankful that the climate treaty turned out to be so flimsy, as it's on track to emit two billion more tons of carbon dioxide than was agreed three months ago, according to a European Commission document.

Uh, oh. Maybe the Euroweenies weren't watching TV Sunday night.

"Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating."

Leo should probably bring the yacht too. You know, in case anyone over there still won't stop procrastinating.

And by "now" he means 2019, at the earliest. Maybe 2020. Delivery of The Plan is being delayed, long past the treaty's "required" due date of 2018.

They've got their excuses reasons, of course, most of which boil down to "it's too hard."

Still, whatever the reasoning, it's a bad look for the EU — supposedly the greenest bloc of countries in the developed world — already to be flouting the review process of a treaty drafted not 12 weeks ago.

Gee, a cynic like me might think they weren't serious.

But I'm sure another celebrity tongue-lashing or two will set them straight. Because that's what works so well here, right?

Posted at 14:40 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW EU Climate-Change Global-Warming Paris   |   Tweet

Obama hates cheap gas so he wants a $10 per barrel oil tax to fund green energy boondoggles

Remember when high gas prices were bad?

Yeah, me neither.

But cheap oil means Obama's green energy buddies need even more subsidies to compete, so he's suddenly decided to impose another gas tax.

It's almost as if he doesn't want us to catch a break, because he really wants gas to cost $10 a gallon. But he'll settle for an additional $10 a barrel for oil as a good start.

For those of you who are bad at math (ie, Democrats), with oil currently trading around $34 a barrel, Obama is proposing what amounts to a 30% tax.

Does anyone here want to pay 30% more for gas? Besides all the shysters hawking solar panels and windmills of course…

Fortunately, Congress won't go along.

It'll be interesting to see Hillary Clinton defend this latest assault on consumers, seeing as how she's now running as Obama's 3rd term and all.

That is if anyone in the palace guard media bothers to ask her about it.

Posted at 12:39 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Obama gasoline oil energy taxes green-energy   |   Tweet

Obama's Energy Dept wants you to know that Halloween pumpkins contribute to Global Warming

Put down the knife, don't carve that pumpkin, or the planet will die.

Nobody tell Linus van Pelt, he'll have to stop believing in the Great Pumpkin.

And since Smashing Pumpkins is already taken, wouldn't Methane Marauders be a great name for a rock band?

Hey, remember that guy Gallagher who was always pulverizing pumpkins with a giant sledge hammer back in the 1970s? I guess he single-handedly averted an ice age and caused global warming!

OK, look, the ridiculousness of the climate alarmists is getting out of hand. Pumpkins? Seriously? They're really going to tell us to stop carving pumpkins? Or the seas will rise and the glaciers will melt and Al Gore will cry?

I think I'll chance it.

Posted at 10:14 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW global-warming climate-change Halloween pumpkins methane   |   Tweet

I applaud Volkswagen for circumventing EPA rules to build cars people want to drive

VW built cars that people wanted, rather than cars bureaucrats love.

So naturally the bureaucrats are teed off.

"Public health" my ass. Remember, these are the same bozos who dumped millions of gallons of toxic waste into rivers across the Southwest and then tried to cover it up.

All VW did was follow the letter of the law.

Is it gaming the system? Sure! But it's not like the people bloviating the loudest about Globull Warming are actually living according to the rules either.

And since when is it a crime to follow the law?

When the Obama Administration wants to punish a non-UAW automaker, that's when.

To which I say, screw the EPA. Screw their job and freedom killing regulations. Screw their sanctimonious preening for green groupie adulation. And screw their illegal collusion with radical econuts to advance ideology over science.

Volkswagen found a way to beat the regulators at their own game. They should be praised for their ingenuity, especially since their customers aren't the ones complaining about their cars. I hope VW challenges these ridiculous fines in court, and wins. And then I pray we elect a president who'll hogtie the EPA and let the market decide what kind of cars we can drive.

People who want to buy a Prius should be able to buy a Prius, so long as it's economically viable to manufacture without government subsidies and bureaucratic meddling.

And people who want to drive a Real Car ought to be able to buy one too. Which also means that when the inevitable recall is issued, owners of the "problem" cars should collectively thumb their noses at the ecotwit killjoys and refuse to let the Peoples Commissariat for Climate Alarmism ruin their driving experience.

Because, freedom.

And, of course, Farfegnugen!

UPDATE 24 Sep 2015 14:00:
Quoted and linked at Investor's Business Daily! Thanks!

Posted at 11:57 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: VW Volkswagen EPA emissions   |   Tweet

Oops, the EU's carbon trading scheme actually increased CO2 emissions, a lot

In some fashionable circles carbon credits are useful, mainly for "printing money." However, their ability to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions turns out to be just so much hot air.

That's the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits "was like printing money."

Here's the scoop from The BBC:

In other words, carbon credits are a total farce.

You'll note that this is essentially the same scheme being pushed by Barack Obama and his Green Goons at the EPA. The "right people" get richer, and the environment gets hosed.

Perhaps worst of all are the perverse incentives the SEI report alleges these credit swaps have created for actually increasing emissions. According to a study released in the journal Nature Climate Change, plants in Russia "increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas," resulting in an increase in emissions as large as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide — roughly half the amount the EU's ETS intends to reduce from 2013 to 2030.

Pretend to save the planet by generating more CO2, all while profiting handsomely! What's not to like?

On the plus side, given this context, Obama spewing a few tons of CO2 flying Air Force One to Vegas so he can lecture us about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions doesn't seem so out of line. Because hey, if his Euroweenie buddies can get away with paying lip service to the gods of Climate Change, why should he bother to practice what he preaches?

Oh, and don't forget how George Soros is "suddenly" buying up coal company stocks, at fire sale prices. Prices engineered by Barack Obama. The profits from which Soros will then use to help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, and probably underwrite a good chunk of Obama's "post-presidency" to boot.

Yes kids, Climate Change is a fraud. And we're the marks.

Posted at 12:03 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: carbon-credits AGW climate-change greenhouse-gas CO2 emissions   |   Tweet

Obama's EPA is coming for your barbecue grill

First they "suggested" that we go vegan to Save The Planet.

Now Obama's storm troopers are going to regulate our backyard barbecues using the Clean Air Act.

Get ready for the denials. If you like your barbecue, you can keep your barbecue.. Like we're gonna fall for that one again, right?

The EPA has already effectively outlawed wood burning stoves.

And we all know what they've done to destroy the coal industry in this country.

So using the same rules to regulate barbecues like mine is the logical next step.

Here's their first proposal:

The school is proposing two fixes to reduce emissions from barbecues. First, they want to cut back on grease flare-ups. The idea: "A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray and can be used at the pit master's discretion."

But it's the second phase that really shows how nuts these EPA clowns are:

But, total capture isn't "practical," so a filter and fan are proposed for installation. "The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank," said the project write-up.

Good freaking grief!

Can you imagine anything so ridiculous? A smokestack and soot scrubbers encasing your backyard grill?

Yeah, that won't be expensive! Or cumbersome. Not to mention, batshit insane.

Typical EPA-approved smokestack scrubber setup. Substitute "your grill" for "wet scrubber" and you'll get an idea of where they're going with this.

Can you imagine cooking ribs inside that contraption?

The Obamunists have got to be stopped. Now. Before they mess with our grilled meat.

Posted at 11:43 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: EPA Obama barbecue Clean-Air-Act regulations tyranny fascism   |   Tweet

How do you fix a solar energy fiasco that's $88 million in the hole? Throw more money at it!

Why waste a mere $88 million, when you can waste millions more? Yup. That tri-county solar energy debacle I wrote about last week is getting a taxpayer bailout.

It couldn't make money when it cost $88 million. So obviously the "solution" is to pour even more money into it!

Did these clowns fail math?

Of course they did.

In the Real World, we call that "throwing good money after bad."

In government, they call that "Tuesday."

Posted at 14:47 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW solar-energy Sussex-County green-energy SREC   |   Tweet

Massive NJ solar project fizzles, leaving taxpayers $88 million in the hole

Another green energy fail.

Except, and this is the key part, they weren't actually selling electricity.

Nope, they were selling tax credits. And it turns out, the market for those tax credits dried up.

But the market for state solar-energy tax credits -- a key part of the deal -- plummeted in the months after the deal was struck. Cost overruns mounted, and the developer and contractor became embroiled in a dispute that ended in lawsuits, according to court papers. Work ground to a halt. And while the projects in Somerset were mostly completed, only about half were completed in two of the counties, Morris and Sussex.

Green energy is simply not viable without taxpayer subsidies. The subsidy either comes on the front-end via tax credits, or on the back-end as we see here. Either way the taxpayer is left holding the bag just so the ecotwits can smugly preen in their coal-powered Priuses.

There's a reason private enterprise won't build these boondoggles without government guarantees. They're too risky, and the potential returns too meager. Remember Solyndra? Or the myriad failures of wind power?

Meanwhile environmental groups like the Sierra Club raise hundreds of millions of dollars from their deluded supporters, which they use to lobby government into wasting tax dollars on green energy. Here's an idea. They should put up their own damn money. Pledge their $88 million instead of mine. Walk the walk. Stop blowing smoke up my ass.

They won't, of course. Because they're not stupid, and they know that green energy is Teh #Fail.

Posted at 10:49 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: solar-power NJ-Politics agw green-energy #FAIL   |   Tweet

Obama flushes $3 billion of our tax dollars into a Third World climate change slush fund

Climate change, it's not about saving the planet. It's about wealth transfer.

By "adapt" they mean, of course, line their pockets with our money.

In Obama's lefty worldview, it's like reparations for colonialism, only better.

And $3 billion is merely the down payment.

At a 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged that by 2020 the United States would help mobilize $100 billion, through a combination of public aid and private investments, to flow annually from rich countries to poor countries to help the poor economies deal with climate change.

$100 billion dollars of our money. Annually. Flowing into the pockets of Third World shithole dictators everwhere! It'll certainly change their, uh, "climate." For the better, I'm sure.

But I guarantee it won't do Thing One to change the weather.

Posted at 16:06 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Obama climate-change AGW wealth-transfer   |   Tweet

Look out, Climate Change is causing a shift in the Earth's gravity, and Guam might tip over!

Rep. Hank Johnson, please call your office.

According to the European Space Agency, Climate Change is altering the Earth's gravitational field, which, if we're not careful, could quite possibly disrupt the balance of, well, everything.

We've gotta watch out! And Do Something, Dammit!. Because even minute changes in gravity could be problematic for a small, precarious island like Guam.

Who knew Climate Change could be so dangerous?

As for the melting sea ice, it's reappearing elsewhere, faster than it's been melting.

So Guam is probably safe. For now.

Posted at 11:16 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW Climate-Change Global-Warming Antarctica glaciers gravity Guam   |   Tweet

Obama: If you like your electricity rates, you can keep your electricity rates

Dear Leader's new CO₂ cap-and-trade plan will reduce your electricity rates. Honest!

In other words, if you like your electricity rates, you can keep your electricity rates.

Until… Oh, I don't know, until you can't. Maybe, right after you couldn't keep your doctor. Or your health insurance plan. Because, you know every one of Obama's promises comes with an expiration date.

There is no universe where green-energy boondoggles like windmills and solar and biomass are cheaper to operate than coal-fired power plants. None. It's physics. The energy density of coal (and oil and natural gas) exceeds that of anything other than perhaps uranium or thorium.

He's not gonna build any new nuclear plants.

So yeah, your electricity bill is going to necessarily skyrocket. And the poor folks in West Virginia and Kentucky who depend on coal for their livelihood? They're screwed. But the tree-hugger Hollyweird elites are happy, and really, who else does Obama care about?

Posted at 16:47 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW EPA CO2 carbon-trading cap-and-trade electricity coal   |   Tweet

Obama's EPA will bypass Congress to impose Cap-And-Trade, killing the economy

Checks and Balances? Yeah, we don't have those.

Congress said "no" to Cap and Trade. Which of course didn't sit well with the Globull Warming whackos. So Obama's EPA plans to thumb its nose at the Constitution and impose limits on CO₂ by regulatory fiat.

Your electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.

Obama will keep us poor, cold, and in the dark.

The price tag? $50 billion a year. Along with 224,000 lost jobs.

Meanwhile Globull Warming is on hold for the past 18 years, and counting.

And the climate models being used to justify the economy-killing initiative can't even accurately predict past temperature changes, nevermind what's going to happen in the future.

But Obama's True Believers won't be stopped. They work for the EPA. The Employment Prevention Agency. Where the motto is: Science is Truth, don't be misled by Facts. Especially the rather painful fact that our economy is still teetering, and yet another job-killing boondoggle is the last thing we need right now.

Unless, of course, your goal is to destroy America. Then, everything is going according to plan.

Posted at 13:25 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: EPA Obama Cap-and-Trade CO2 economy AGW climate-change fascism   |   Tweet

Your tax dollars at work: Pentagon paid $150 per gallon for "green" jet fuel

Green energy costs the taxpayers a lot of green.

Regular jet fuel runs about $2.88 per gallon. Which leads GAO to drily conclude … "Currently, the price for alternative jet fuels exceeds that of conventional jet fuel."

Ya don't say!

Left out of the GAO report is why the Pentagon is buying this overpriced snake oil in the first place.

Did you guess Obama Administration mandate?

Of course you did.

Posted at 15:21 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Pentagon biofuel jet-fuel algae green-energy government-waste   |   Tweet

As the EPA shuts down coal-fired power plants you need to get ready for blackouts

Barack Obama's EPA is busy shuttering America's coal-fired power plants. Because, Globull Warming.

Meanwhile, demand for electricity continues to surge.

And, contrary to what the Obamabots might have you believe, magic unicorns aren't picking up the slack.

Barack Obama doesn't care about keeping the lights on.

He's not particularly concerned if your life is in danger either.

All he cares about is making energy prices "skyrocket." And, bankrupting the coal industry.

The fact that there are Real Consequences to his policies? That Americans will suffer while he golfs and his wife vacations in Tahiti?

Not on his radar.

We can freeze in the dark.

The econuts must be mollified. And our children must be brainwashed into believing they're sacrificing for a Noble Cause. But Obama's kids won't ever feel the cold. Only yours, and mine.

Because in the Obamabot Socialist Utopia, the Obamabots are more equal than the rest of us.

Posted at 20:30 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: EPA coal electric-power blackouts alternative-energy   |   Tweet

Remember that time when Cory Booker was 17 and he drove all the way to Hawaii?

I wonder if he visited 57 states along the way.

Maybe T-Bone was his co-pilot… LOL.

In his next breath Cory tried to convince us that "climate change" is equally believable. That's what his speech was supposedly all about. How he was able to drive to Hawaii, but now if anyone else tries to do that they'll be selfishly contributing to Global Warming.

So give up your car, move to a high-rise micro-apartment in a green-energy sustainably-grown transit village, walk to Whole Foods to buy organic arugula, and for Gaia's sake recycle your old toilet paper. Oh, please pay your carbon tax before you spend that money on something frivolous, like a vacation. Only the Obamas walk on water are allowed to spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases jetting hither and yon in pursuit of relaxation. You peasants need to know your place.

To paraphrase Instapundit, I'll believe globull warming is a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it is a crisis. Until then, see you in Hawaii Cory!

Posted at 10:43 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: Cory-Booker AGW Climate-Change Global-Warming US-Senate   |   Tweet

WaPo: How to indoctrinate your neighbor into the Cult of Climate Change

It's always amusing to read the Sunday Star-Ledger op-ed pages, and today's didn't disappoint. They reprinted a Washington Post column by Brian Palmer entitled "How to convince your friends to believe in climate change. It's not as hard as you think."

Hint, it's not about science. Oh no, taling about science is a "loser" according to researchers who are working on finding ways to convince people that climate change is real.

Wait, what?

There's an extensive body of research on how to persuade those who view science with suspicion — it's called the science of science communication. Much of the work centers on climate change.

They say "communication," I say Brainwashing.

"Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions," he notes. "Say, 'This is what's important to me, and this is why.' Don't get caught up in the scientific discussion. You're not a scientist, and evidence doesn't persuade people who reject climate change. What carries power is your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor."

Don't worry about why! Ignore your lying eyes! Join the Cult of Climate Change! All the cool kids are already here!

Better yet, gang up on the "denier," and pound him with peer pressure!

Climate change communications research suggests that a person's views are formed in large part by their social network. When a climate change rejectionist finds he is surrounded by believers, it eases the path toward changing his mind. Say that you, too, were once reluctant to accept the idea of climate change. It helps your audience identify with you.

Go ahead, tell me that isn't creepy.

Now you'll need a compelling argument to explain why you came around. As Marshall notes, communications research shows that "because scientists say so" is a loser. (President Obama made this mistake last week in his State of the Union address, when he bluntly declared that "climate change is a fact.")

Climate Change is Truth, don't be misled by facts.

The "compelling argument" is, of course, FUD, as in sowing doubt. "You buy homeowners insurance even though your house probably won't burn down. So if there's even a slight chance of rising sea levels, why not do something Right This Minute?"

Um, maybe because insurance has a proven risk-reward curve, and climate change hysteria doesn't? The oceans aren't dramatically rising ("yet, say the cultists). Nevermind that a scant 40 years ago these very same alarmists were 100% certain we were entering a new ice age. As climate scales go, 40 years is less than the blink of an eye.

I look out the window and see 2/3 of the United States covered in snow. Anybody wanna revisit that ice age theory again?

Then, OK, if we won't buy the FUD, it's onward to the circular reasoning! "The Pentagon is on board the Climate Change Express, why aren't you?"

Um, who ordered the Pentagon to "consider" the impact of Climate Change? Why that would be the Climate Change Cultist in Chief! The Pentagon is following orders, which not to put too fine a point on it, is just what you're supposed to be doing you Gaia-hating gas-guzzling greenhouse-gas-emitting goober. Get with the program already!

No thanks. I used to trust the Pentagon. Until Obama started purging all the top Generals and Admirals, replacing them with administration sycophants. Now it's a hotbed of political correctness, social engineering, feminut orthodoxy, and junk science. Plus, the civilian command structure under both Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel is full of political hacks who've never worn a uniform.

They've manged to bungle our victory in Iraq, leave Afghanistan and Libya in shambles, turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, embolden Syria and Iran, and sold out Israel. If the political leadership at DOD can't fight a conventional war, what makes anyone think they can lead our fight against the chimera of Climate Change?

The cultists realize they have their work cut out for themselves.

Finally, don't get your hopes up. Changing someone's mind is a slow, laborious process. Your obstinate uncle, neighbor or colleague isn't going to slow-clap you out of the room after your irresistible climate-change argument. All you can do is plant a seed. So go do it.

I can't plant any seeds. The ground is frozen solid. But since you agree that "changing someone's mind is a slow, laborious process," why not try a little introspection of your own? Maybe this climate change thing isn't something we can control. Maybe nature is more powerful than we are. Maybe we should be looking for ways to adapt rather than trying to maintain an untenable status quo.

I think that's called Evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Posted at 14:40 by Chris Wysocki   [/agw]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: AGW climate-change global-warming cult   |   Tweet