While watching President Obama’s jobs speech, I kept thinking that it’s like he sliced the first drive out of bounds, reloaded for a mulligan and then put the second ball in the same place.
It’s a delicious irony that the pot smoking, long haired, maggot infested hippies who worry overmuch about man made climate change themselves hold much of the blame.
According to the Department of Energy:
The analysis performed in this study finds that indoor Cannabis production results in energy expenditures of $5 billion each year, with electricity use equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This corresponds to 1% of national electricity consumption or 2% of that in households. The yearly greenhouse-gas pollution (carbon dioxide, CO2 ) from the electricity plus associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars. Energy costs constitute a quarter of wholesale value.
And California is by far the worst offender!
This stuff is just too good to make up.
Pajamas Media has an interesting article on how the media consistently gets it wrong on climate change.
Here’s a great paragraph, illustrating why I refuse to believe the climatologists this time around after being fooled into thinking in the 1970s that there was going to be a new ice age:
On November 15, 1969, Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr.: “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations. … If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the Earth could be plunged into an ice age.” On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post reported: “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age. … Better get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come.” Fortune reported in February 1974: “It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.” (Sound familiar?) On June 24, Time wrote: “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Newsweek said on April 28, 1975: “The Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. … [Meteorologists were] Almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
So it looked like we were on the precipice of a new ice age with cataclysmic consequences for the world. Then, unannounced to all, the Pacific Ocean began to warm again, and so did the Earth’s temperature.
The bottom line. The earth gets cooler. The earth gets warmer. Thus it has always been. Thus it always will be.
The last line in the article is most interesting: There has been no evidence of warming in the last ten years. This goes to a second core belief of mine: that government institutions, research scientists and the media will cook the numbers to suit their immediate purposes. The global warming types say that there is a warming trend over the last 25 years or so. The latest from NASA says that lakes have warmed over the last 25 years. I believe those dates are chosen very specifically to prove their point. In contrast, what would the numbers say if we looked only at the last five, or last ten. Or what would they say if we studied the last 50? They choose the data to suit their hypothesis.
Global Warming Scientific Method: Begin with a conclusion. Gather data. Throw out data which does not support the conclusion. Ridicule those who challenge data.
An article in the Daily Caller outlines what I think is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time: A Repeal Amendment.
As proposed, it would read:
“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”
Thanks to the elastic and commerce clauses, the strong arm of the federal government has been encroaching for decades upon things that properly are the purview of the states. This would help to restore a great deal of the balance that the Founders intended.
I wanted to keep this tidbit for future reference. It’s from Cafe Hayek.
Here’s a letter to the New York Times:
Paul Wagenseil is correct that “From 1954 through 1963, federal income tax topped out at an astonishing 91 percent” – but he is mistaken to conclude from this fact that “the government during the Eisenhower years was able to do more because it had more” (Letters, Oct. 17).
Over the course of the ten years that Mr. Wagenseil praises for their “astonishing” tax rates, Uncle Sam’s annual revenues averaged 17.5 percent of GDP. During the ten-year stretch of 2000 through 2009, these revenues averaged 17.6 percent of GDP.
In 2010-dollar terms, the “astonishing” tax year with the highest federal revenues – 1963 – Uncle Sam’s receipts totaled $756 billion. During the period 2000 through 2009, the year with the lowest federal revenues – 2009 – Uncle Sam’s receipts totaled $2.1 trillion – or 178 percent more real revenues than in 1963.*
Donald J. Boudreaux
* Data are found in this 2010 OMB document. I used the Minnesota Fed’s on-line inflation converter (“What is a dollar worth?”) to convert all dollars into their 2010 values.
A brief exchange with the folks at 3UP golf last week got me thinking about an idea that has been percolating in my head for quite some time: creating courses-within-courses for juniors, seniors, the differently-abled and others who cannot routinely hit the ball more than…
GEL Ruby Putter Grade: A- Teacher’s Comments: Putts as true as any I have ever used. Few ever notice, but when a ball is struck by a putter, it gives a little hop, then skids for a moment before starting to roll toward the hole. The hop…
Just received in the mail: Dave Pelz’s Golf without Fear: How to Play the 10 Most Feared Shots in Golf with Confidence Full review coming soon.