« Everyone’s Opposed to ObamaCare. Even Obama! | Main | The New Christie Miracles 2 »

Friday, May 14, 2010


George Mason

KB; Old friend you missed one of the reliable sources of energy which as everyone in S.D. should know is hydro. If you want green technology the new and more efficient hydro-turbines can provide a significant supply of base load electricity. The base load, no matter how many wind mills or solar panels you erect, must still come from one of the uninteruptable sources you mentioned. All of these sources supply electricity at a lower cost than wind or solar.


US passes Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, thhousands of lessers regulations

China has no such environmental concerns

US manufacturing costs go up as a result of laws - manufacturing for USA goes to China

Global environment not helped - pollution merely moved to China - but environmentalists in USA feel good for having cared and done something

US consumers/voters/taxpayers think environmental regs are free because products that used to be made in the USA now come from China at poverty wages so Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act cost them nothing - no new taxes - no higher prices

Now US passes Cap & Trade

"China's aggressive efforts to win the global competition for green technologies and green jobs" continues in large part because China does not have to comply with environmental laws creating demand for "green technologies"

Global environment still not helped because Chinese carbon emmissions have increased in direct proportion to US reduction in carbon emmissions

US wealth continues to flow at even greater rate to China

Greenies feel good - Chinese laugh all the way to the bank

Michael Snow

THE NYT continues as a propaganda machine for the CO2 hysteria: '... inexorable math of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions.'
What the math shows is that there is no need for hysterics when it comes to 'greenhouse gases.' Just ask Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT: "One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things [reducing CO2 emissions] will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no brainer.”

Or ask other top-notch climate scientists like John Christy, who was a lead author on the IPCC, or Roy Spencer whose new book exposes the naked emperor:
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists


George and BillW: thanks for the support. It looks to me to be as you say.

Michael: I think it is worse than Professor Lindzen says. Reducing emissions will have no effect even if the climate models are right.

The comments to this entry are closed.