Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

Since Obama pledged a zero tolerance policy toward invasive species in the Great Lakes, Cox said the president has left the door to the lakes wide open, potentially hurting Michigan jobs and the economy. “His indifference is stunning,” Cox said.

A crisis the Obama administration is letting go to waste much to the chagrin of other liberals like Governor Granholm in the third world state of Michigan.  Maybe Rahmbo ‘deadfish’ Emanuel should be the point man on the carp crisis. Invasive species are a problem but they may also be an example of larger problems in the US.  POLS and public officials appear to be clueless on how to handle problem solving.  The recurring theme is the nanny state mantra demanding someone else make the problem go away.

Yo, Governor Granholm, besides destroying your state’s economy was there no way you could solve your fish problem before this?  What did you do to address the problem before this news item put it out there for all to read?

Gee, maybe anthropogenic global warming is not the biggest eco problem for liberals.  Perhaps it comes in the form of a big fish that eats a lot.  The growth of government, spending and deficits does not appear to have been the great problem solving tool liberals suggest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Some in the ’science’ community are honest and some created Climategate.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists’ willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer “consensus” and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

Some ‘deny’ Climategate while others have known about the fraud for a long time.

“My presentation will be the unique one,” said Inhofe, a climate change skeptic who is investigating allegations that some scientists manipulated data to provide proof of global warming. “They’re not even close on votes in the United States Senate.”

“They’re cooking the science,” Inhofe said. “The same things that came out on these e-mails is what I said four years ago.”

You need a flawless scheme and ‘perps’ who can carry it out in order to commit the perfect crime.

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

As with all investigations the best strategy is to follow the money.

As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.

Al Gore’s scam is not especially creative. His strategy is well known in the life insurance market. An old technique is to create fear in the mind of your prospect that their spouse and other dependents will be left penniless if they expire prematurely. The claim is the life insurance they buy will protect them from that fate. While the salesman may actually believe he is helping you he knows his income depends on a successful outcome to the presentation. Then there are the scam artists whose only interest is getting rich off your fear, real or imagined.

The faster someone wants you to act on their suggestion the more likely it is a scam.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Soros scheming at Copenhagen: Eco-redistribution of wealth (Michelle Malkin) 

The following is part of Michael Mann’s attempt to convince you the evidence of the greatest scandal in recent science history does not exist.  Just like he tries to tell you the evidence against AGW does not exist.  In his world the truth is what you want it to be.

“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

They’ve turned “something innocent into something nefarious,” Mann added.

Now there’s some arrogance.  Not only does Michael Mann suggest the public is stupid but they cannot read.  But if you lie to the public about a political agenda using fake science how much of a leap is it to simply lie when you get caught?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Not that all environmentally related efforts on the planet should cease given Climategate but you gotta laugh at the timing. Unless the hacker(s) who exposed the AGW freaks for what they are eludes authorities successfully and forever (he/she/they) will not be laughing at things related to timing or time. Maybe the powers that be will at some point realize what a gift this hack was and give the perp a pass. Right.

As a sidenote, guess the WH had to feature this event since President Obama’s Asia trip is being ‘touted’ as a major bust. At least he’s consistent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

PM-Obama: The next step

India, US Agree on Climate Change

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have launched what the White House is calling a “green partnership.”

Vidushi Sinha | Washington, DC
25 November 2009

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have launched what the White House is calling a green partnership, affirming the countries’ commitment to combating climate change and ensuring energy security and clean energy.

India and the United States have agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding to increase cooperation on energy security, clean energy, and climate change.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on a state visit to Washington, said both countries will work together to make the environment cleaner.

“We welcome the president’s commitment to a major program for promotion of renewable energy, and I drew his attention to India’s own ambitious national action plan on climate change which has eight national missions covering both mitigation and adaptation,” Mr. Singh said.

The two leaders said their countries are committed to building a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation, and economic growth.

Ron Somers is president of the US-India Business Council. He says India and the United States will soon be close partners in promoting green technology.

“We will be focusing on new collaborations that are going to become platform not only for India to fight global warming or United States to fight global warming but a platform that we together develop to provide technologies for the world. So I see tremendous opportunities coming,” Somers said. “It’s all about low carbon emitting technology.”

But India and China have rejected mandated cuts in carbon emissions. Both countries say rich, developed nations should lead the way in cutting greenhouse gases.

They argue that their economic growth would be stunted if there were mandated cuts.

The US and India have agreed that the Copenhagen climate conference, in early December, should involve targets for emission cuts for developed countries but only mitigation actions — such as improving energy efficiency — for developing countries.

Recently, India announced it would produce 20 Gigawatts of solar power by 2022.

Bo Kong, directs the Global Energy and Climate Initiative at Johns Hopkins University. He says that target is impossible for India.

“Within such a short time frame - we are talking about building about 20 - 20 gigawatts of power plants which translates into at least over 10,000 solar power plants between 2009 to 2020 - in less than 10 years - so I am very suspicious,” Kong said.

Experts say India can only make inroads into green technology if it has financial and technological support from rich countries.

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama agreed to support public and private intiatives that will invest in clean energy projects in India.

On the topic of what has been referred to as climategate, a word. Scandal is a word. But more words than that are presented by the following source which sums up the situation rather well. Don’t be fooled by the excerpt presented here. The account is balanced and may be completely on point.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet

And another group of words from WSJ demonstrate the single item that many seem to ignore.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

If ’spin’ can be defined as emphasizing your argument and diminishing that of your opposition rather than simply lying about a situation for damage control then the following from the MSM demonstrates the strategy.

Skeptics have also pounced on an e-mail from Jones to colleagues that reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

It’s not so much that AGW ’skeptics’ have ‘pounced’ on anything but anticipate those embarrassed by climategate will do their best to dismiss this event just as they do to others who do not agree with their arguments about something they named AGW.

Providing these hacked docs are genuine, which seems to be the case and is mentioned in the link for the first excerpt above, less than honorable actions were taken by AGW scientists that may include fudging the numbers and sabotaging opposing conclusions from fellow scientists. What that demonstrates is a breech of trust without which science is not science. How do you expect people to accept your findings if you engaged in dishonest tactics to support an agenda that has nothing to do with science?

That’s the word, science. If it is not honest, it is not science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The hacked emails and other docs that were published on the internet from a ‘leading’ global warming proponent source has raised some discussion. There is the expected shock and dismay that anyone would do such a thing. And there is some commentary on the real point of all this. As an interesting side note, of the 100 entries on the first page of a Google search, about five mainstream news sources cover the story. The NYT, WaPo, LAT, AP and the WSJ are there. But the vast majority of hits comes from lesser known sources. But then who cares what the MSM has to say about it?

The source of the hacked docs had this to say. “The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said. A completely laughable response from a source who has engaged in dissemination of fake science and other unscrupulous tactics to promote an agenda that to date was suspected but largely hidden. BTW, these were ‘good’ hackers regardless of their intentions as they have exposed a sinister plot.

So what kind of material is in the hacked docs. The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with. Imagine that, the United Nations is involved. There efforts and those of others involved in this sham have conspired to present only what supports their agenda. So who will now step forward to attempt a whitewash of this latest revelation in fake science?

It will come from people like this. …the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday. Opposing viewpoints in a discussion of science will be kept out somehow. That’s reassuring. So much for the validity of any information from the AGW crowd.

The people that will speak out for truth in science are more closely exemplified by this example. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

That would be putting it mildly. If there was any question about the honesty of those supporting AGW on this blog before it is certainly gone now. AGW has been exposed for what it is…. fake science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As a post-script, the MSM was mentioned as well as a comment of who cares. Of the five listed specifically, this blog views the WSJ as credible and at one time held that view of WaPo. The others listed rarely get it right.

ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal 

The climate change and global warming debate may be continuing in the real world but those employed by your tax dollars have jumped ahead to spending more of your money courtesy of Steven Chu.

Nothing like a good stimulus program to find more ways to spend tax dollars. God knows paying down the national debt or reducing trillion dollar plus deficits is a waste of money, right?

Here’s what one of Steven Chu’s bright ideas has paid for with your money.

New program will certify professionals in carbon capture and storage

RICHLAND, Wash. – Scientists and engineers will soon be able to receive advanced training and certification in burying and permanently storing underground the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as part of a recent stimulus award from the Department of Energy. The DOE awarded nearly $1 million to the Seattle-based Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance (EOS) to develop a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) curriculum that will be used to build a skilled workforce through regional training.

Imagine that! $1 million to develop climate change curriculum. And there’s at least $7 million more of your money to spend after that. That’ll recover America and create more jobs, right?

Funding for the EOS training project is part of more than $8.4 million recently awarded by DOE Secretary Steven Chu for regional sequestration technology training programs.

And we wouldn’t want to unnecessarily increase our carbon footprint with this project, right?

The project organizers also plan to make lectures and other relevant course material available on the Web for students who cannot attend in person, which will reduce the program’s overall carbon footprint.

Gee, do you suppose this planet-saving method is a proven winner? You know, is it a good idea and will it be effective, reasonable, beneficial and not break the bank?

PNNL is conducting laboratory and field research in the Pacific Northwest to assess the feasibility of permanently storing carbon dioxide in basalt, a type of igneous rock common in eastern Washington, Oregon and parts of Idaho.

Hmmm, seems as though someone is putting the horse before the cart…… again. There’s a pejorative remark about educators that states those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. Have you ever wondered about public sector science? It may have been considered a noble endeavor for the public to fund scientific research. But these days one has to wonder if geeks and techies who work for the government were unable to get a job in the real world. Add to that the notion they may spend much of their time seeking funding to provide themselves with an income. Not much incentive to be good at science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

U.S. Temperature Highlights – Summer

* For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

* A recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states, where Michigan experienced its fifth, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota their seventh, Nebraska its eighth, and Iowa its ninth coolest summer. By contrast, Florida had its fourth warmest summer, while Washington and Texas experienced their eighth and ninth warmest, respectively.

* The Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota region experienced its sixth coolest summer on record. Only the Northwest averaged above normal temperatures.

A perfect example of why the global warming crowd is misguided. Forget the disputes about who is right or wrong on the idea of AGW or whatever it is called now. Seeking solutions to issues, real or imagined, through the government, aka politicians, is never a wise choice.

The title of the piece below from The Hill also muddies the water. It is not a matter of ‘consumers’ seeking changes to the laughable ‘climate change bill’ rather it is a battle between special interests. Lobbyists in the form of manufacturing or industrial interests are facing off with interests who claim to champion consumers.

The public at large or the real consumer, is largely unaware of the specifics in legislation of any kind not to mention the global warming variety. This is a classic case of be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Not unlike the issue of healthcare reform, the climate change legislation is subject to the business as usual in Washington that one politician after another said was going to change. Not the least of which was the current President. The power brokers in Washington, lobbyists included, still have the last word on legislation. If you go to that trough seeking change you will be subjected to the pecking order which renders no proposal, worthy or otherwise, exempt from producing an outcome not of your choosing.

Consider groups like AARP only involve themselves in this type of action to increase or maintain their membership. Could it be that win or lose so-called consumer groups benefit from these matters by saying they fought for their members? And are the majority of their members even paying attention? Or are they simply delegating their responsibility to someone else as when or if they step up to the ballot box on election day?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Consumers seek climate bill changes
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 07/22/09 06:31 PM [ET]

Consumer groups, including the powerful seniors’ lobby AARP, say House climate change legislation does not do enough to protect households from skyrocketing electric bills or to prevent power companies from reaping windfall profits.

They want the Senate to add more explicit language that requires local utilities to pass along the revenues from the sale of the free emission allowances distributed by the federal government to residential consumers.

The community organizer who is friends with the domestic terrorist William Ayers, hate monger Jeremiah Wright and hires friends from the most corrupt political machine (Illinois) has the audacity of something other than hope to reference the founding fathers and call on the public to support his agenda that is anything but American.

Like mutually exclusive terms President Obama insults the meaning of this nation’s Independence Day when he tries to connect the principles of the founding with his socialist agenda. Those who have dismissed the idea that his agenda is socialist overlook nationalizing private industry, spending and government expansion with the intent of complete government control that will render this great country into nothing more than a banana republic.

Addressing our dependence on foreign energy by taxing all we use rather than a transition approach that draws on our own fossil fuel resources until alternatives become viable in a free market is counter to American ideals which rely on the innovation of a free people. Expecting the public to buy into a universal or socialized, government-run healthcare system rather than encouraging free market solutions also runs counter to American ideals. With these two examples only God may know what the Obama agenda has planned for education, immigration and the remainder of his ideas for transforming the United States into another socialist country like some in the EU and others in this hemisphere.

And then we have the impotent GOP. Based on the report below the Senator who lost an election to the community organizer was chosen to give the opposition party response to ObamaGov. While we can all debate whether or not it would have been wise to have a united response from the US regarding turmoil in Iran the larger issues of our own nation under the leadership of Barack Obama seems more to the point or at least an issue of primary importance. We can do little to help others if we cannot help ourselves and the GOP response appears to be a continuance of Republicans being lost in the wilderness.

Will someone please find a way to encourage this nation’s leaders to remove their collective heads from their collective hind quarters and return sensible government to a young nation which just observed its 233rd birthday.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pres. Barack Obama

On U.S. Independence Day, President Barack Obama is calling on Americans to remember the spirit of the nation’s founders, and to embrace his domestic initiatives. Republican Senator John McCain, meanwhile, wants stronger U.S. language against Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters.

President Obama, in his weekly address, asks Americans to remember the sacrifices and achievements of the men who voted for independence 233 years ago.

“We are called to remember how unlikely it was that our American experiment would succeed at all; that a small band of patriots would declare independence from a powerful empire; and that they would form, in the new world, what the old world had never known - a government of, by and for the people,” he said.

In July, 1776, the representatives of 13 British colonies in America, gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, voted to declare independence from Britain and formed a new nation. At the same time, colonists in hastily-organized and poorly-financed militias battled the British Army for several years, until London officially recognized U.S. independence.

Mr. Obama called on Americans to recall those patriots’ spirit and support his plans to reform the U.S. education, health care and energy policies.

“We are not a people who fear the future,” he said. “We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall 233 years ago today.”

The president is celebrating Independence Day with a traditional barbecue and fireworks on the White House lawn, with 1,200 military families invited to attend. He is also celebrating his daughter Malia’s eleventh birthday. Mr. Obama leaves late Sunday for a week-long trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.

Sen. John McCain (file photo)

In the weekly Republican Party message, Senator John McCain of Arizona is also paying tribute to the nation’s founding fathers, who he says “stood up to a powerful oppressor and claimed their natural right to liberty.”

McCain is also invoking the patriots’ spirit as he calls on the Obama administration to speak out more forcefully in support of the anti-government protesters in Iran.

“They did not ask us to arm them or come to their assistance with anything other than public declarations of solidarity and public denunciations of the tyrants who oppress them. We have a moral obligation to do so,” he said.

Senator McCain is rejecting earlier White House claims that a more vocal response by Washington would have supported the Iranian government’s claims of U.S. interference.

“Do they really believe Iranians do not know why they are protesting, and who is oppressing them? Do they think Iranians whose votes were discarded, whose voices have been ignored, whose lives have been threatened by the regime they wish to be rid of, will think America has put them in that position?” he said.

U.S. Independence Day is traditionally celebrated with picnics, parades, concerts, fireworks displays, and readings of the Declaration of Independence.

The current President of the United States has expressed shall we say, disappointment, that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and resists everything and that news sources like Fox rarely have anything positive to say about him.  It is not uncommon for liberals who call in to conservative talk radio to admonish the host for not giving Barack Obama a chance.  The following news report excerpt is representative of the kind of stories about Mr Obama’s agenda which understandably generate negative comments.  How can anyone promote such agenda items which demonstrate appalling stupidity?

Obama Announces New Energy Conservation Steps

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,” Mr. Obama said. “But this simple action holds enormous promise because seven percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.”

The president says the savings will be striking.

“Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year,” he said.

In his own words, seven percent of our expenditures for electricity are attributed to lighting.  Therefore the most we could save, assuming we abandoned lighting all together, which we  would not, is seven percent of what we spend.  Not sexy Mr President?  It is not even remotely sexy nor practical.  And if you divide the President’s estimate on savings to consumers for the compact ripoff by the number of households in the US it means less than 10 cents per day per household.  The additional cost of the ‘new’ lamps and questionable life expectancy could easily turn that minuscule saving into a net loss.  If you consider his words on savings and that his usage estimate includes businesses as well as residential use the savings are invisible.

additional data source: US QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

This sort of government action is absolutely brain dead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(Video below provided for perspective)

Among a long list of other witnesses providing testimony on The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 at a hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (whew!) are Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. Mr Gore’s prepared remarks are available on the House website and the linked text below will retrieve it for you. The excerpt below is representative of Mr Gore’s position on this issue. It expresses eminent crisis and his assertion we must act on it now. He has held this opinion for a long time.

By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels, which is the common thread running through all three of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil.

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families. Each day we continue on our current path, America loses more of its competitive edge. And each day we wait, we increase the risk that we will leave our children and grandchildren an irreparably damaged planet.

While Mr Gore expects you to believe his opinion is conclusive his own words, like Rep Lowey in another post on this blog, betray him. His first argument supporting his opinion in the prepared remarks states, ‘the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.’ It would be more convincing if Mr Gore’s phrasing here used the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may.’ It underscores that even Mr Gore cannot be certain of his own view.

In another argument presented regarding the salmon population Mr Gore uses the phrase ‘Researchers are now working to determine the cause….’ While he states the dire consequences of not acting right now on this subtopic he admits the cause is not currently known. To be fair, Mr Gore makes other statements and draws other conclusions that would have to be researched to respond to in this post. And that is beyond the scope of this post by virtue of the time required to perform the task. The point is without dissecting every word in his prepared remarks Mr Gore regularly states all the facts are not available yet urges we act this very minute. And they wonder why so many reject his opinion.

A link is provided below from the subcommittee’s webpage on this hearing. It includes a witness list, an announcement that the hearing will be broadcast today on CSPAN and other links and information.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Day 4

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Thrilla in Vanilla: Gore vs. Gingrich in Global Warming ‘Showdown’?