Having failed in every other attempt to stampede the public into the long-sought overreaction, climate alarmists are now playing the Kid Card, apparently hoping to guilt trip the country into signing an economic suicide pact. If we adults won't agree to destroy what's left of the U.S. economy, in a futile attempt to halt global climate cycles, for our own wellbeing, just maybe we'll agree to do it "for the kids."
It works as a means of selling every other lame idea and government program. Maybe it will work for this one, too.
The mark of a truly despicable mind is the willingness to use old people and children as pawns in political agendas.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Federally-Funded Fear
The Bush White House took a lot of heat for "politicizing science," and for allegedly muzzling federal employees who didn't agree with the administration's cautious approach on climate change. But if all the government's in-the-closet climate alarmists were being persecuted, how to explain the perpetually sky-high profile of NASA climatologist James Hansen, whose spokesman work for the Chicken Little Lobby didn't slow down a bit during the Bush years.
If ever a federal employee needed muzzling, or a career change, it's Hansen, who travels the globe, trading on his NASA credentials, while spewing sensationalist climate spin to any audience that will listen. And plenty evidently will. The man is not a "scientist," in any serious sense: he's an extreme ideologue, shilling for a cause. Hansen could earn a very good living trading on fear in the private sector -- it's a big business, as Al Gore can attest. I'm sure any number of environmental groups would pay him a hefty sum to serve as their front man. But as a taxpayer, I resent having to help pay the man's salary, and help pay his future pension, and I fear his association with NASA is threatening the agency's already-shaky stature and credibility.
Will someone in the Obama Administration please fire James Hansen? Even if it makes him a martyr, it would do the tarnished reputations of climate science and the federal government a world of good.
If ever a federal employee needed muzzling, or a career change, it's Hansen, who travels the globe, trading on his NASA credentials, while spewing sensationalist climate spin to any audience that will listen. And plenty evidently will. The man is not a "scientist," in any serious sense: he's an extreme ideologue, shilling for a cause. Hansen could earn a very good living trading on fear in the private sector -- it's a big business, as Al Gore can attest. I'm sure any number of environmental groups would pay him a hefty sum to serve as their front man. But as a taxpayer, I resent having to help pay the man's salary, and help pay his future pension, and I fear his association with NASA is threatening the agency's already-shaky stature and credibility.
Will someone in the Obama Administration please fire James Hansen? Even if it makes him a martyr, it would do the tarnished reputations of climate science and the federal government a world of good.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Apocolypse on Hold
What oh what will happen to those adorable little pikas when global warming melts away the Rocky Mountain tundra? If you've been losing sleep over that question, sleep better tonight.
Despite frequent scare stories about the dramatic changes coming to Colorado's high country if Al Gore is correct -- of ski resorts closing, of flora and fauna struggling, of snow-capped peaks melting like ice cream cones in an oven -- the promised apocalypse just isn't unfolding according to plan, according to this report in the Durango Herald. Actual temperature readings show a very modest trend toward warming -- nothing like the runaway train alarmists predict:
"VAIL - Climatologists are about to establish a "new normal" for temperature trends in Colorado.
And, believe it or not, it looks a lot like the old normal, said Colorado State Climatologist Nolan Doesken.
"What I was surprised about when I looked at these new quote-unquote normals is they really haven't changed very much," Doesken said Thursday in a presentation to the Colorado Water Congress.
Climatologists calibrate normal temperatures every 10 years, based temperatures over the last 30 years. So by the end of this year, the "normal" data will kick out the 1970s and introduce the warm 2000s.
Temperatures at a weather station in Mesa Verde National Park are on track to rise 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the new period - in line with most of the rest of the state, according to Doesken's data about the last 29 years.
But compared to the 1951 to 1980 period, temperatures at the Mesa Verde station have fallen 1.3 degrees. Most of the other weather stations in Colorado show slight temperature increases over the same time frames.
Doesken knows his numbers don't match up with the perception of a rapidly warming planet. He watches data gathered at weather stations, while projections of global warming are made through computer models that attempt to predict the future, he said.
Despite the models of warmer future weather, he has not seen drastic warming so far in Colorado.
"You've got to be thinking beyond that to plan for the future, but the current data are showing pretty small changes so far. But it leans in the warm direction," Doesken said in an interview."
So great is the pressure to ride the alarmist bandwagon that even credible researchers, when confronting hard contradictory evidence, seem reluctant to voice skepticism about what the climate cartel, using computer models, is saying. Temperatures in Colorado are actually considerably cooler that they were in the 30 year span between 1950 and 1980, as the story points out, and they show only a minor trend upward, yet the state climatologist can't quite bring himself to concede that the world might not be coming to an end after all.
You really get a sense of the mania that's afoot when scientists are more inclined to believe suped-up supercomputer simulations than what's right in front of their faces.
Despite frequent scare stories about the dramatic changes coming to Colorado's high country if Al Gore is correct -- of ski resorts closing, of flora and fauna struggling, of snow-capped peaks melting like ice cream cones in an oven -- the promised apocalypse just isn't unfolding according to plan, according to this report in the Durango Herald. Actual temperature readings show a very modest trend toward warming -- nothing like the runaway train alarmists predict:
"VAIL - Climatologists are about to establish a "new normal" for temperature trends in Colorado.
And, believe it or not, it looks a lot like the old normal, said Colorado State Climatologist Nolan Doesken.
"What I was surprised about when I looked at these new quote-unquote normals is they really haven't changed very much," Doesken said Thursday in a presentation to the Colorado Water Congress.
Climatologists calibrate normal temperatures every 10 years, based temperatures over the last 30 years. So by the end of this year, the "normal" data will kick out the 1970s and introduce the warm 2000s.
Temperatures at a weather station in Mesa Verde National Park are on track to rise 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the new period - in line with most of the rest of the state, according to Doesken's data about the last 29 years.
But compared to the 1951 to 1980 period, temperatures at the Mesa Verde station have fallen 1.3 degrees. Most of the other weather stations in Colorado show slight temperature increases over the same time frames.
Doesken knows his numbers don't match up with the perception of a rapidly warming planet. He watches data gathered at weather stations, while projections of global warming are made through computer models that attempt to predict the future, he said.
Despite the models of warmer future weather, he has not seen drastic warming so far in Colorado.
"You've got to be thinking beyond that to plan for the future, but the current data are showing pretty small changes so far. But it leans in the warm direction," Doesken said in an interview."
So great is the pressure to ride the alarmist bandwagon that even credible researchers, when confronting hard contradictory evidence, seem reluctant to voice skepticism about what the climate cartel, using computer models, is saying. Temperatures in Colorado are actually considerably cooler that they were in the 30 year span between 1950 and 1980, as the story points out, and they show only a minor trend upward, yet the state climatologist can't quite bring himself to concede that the world might not be coming to an end after all.
You really get a sense of the mania that's afoot when scientists are more inclined to believe suped-up supercomputer simulations than what's right in front of their faces.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Nothing That a Name Change Won't Cure
Stop the economy. Cap all carbon emissions immediately. Some of the glaciers in Glacier National Park are reportedly melting. It's just the latest in the seemingly endless list of crises blamed on global warming. And what the heck will tourists say when they show up at Glacier National Park and all the glaciers are gone?
Most will shrug, yawn and point their cameras at something else.
I've been to Glacier National Park. It's a wonderful place. It's a worthwhile visit, and stunning experience, with or without the glaciers, unless you are a true blue glaciophile and won't rest content until you've seen and photographed every remaining glacier in the lower 48. That's probably 2 percent of park visitors; the other 98 percent go there because they've already been to Yellowstone, or because their mother-in-law lives in Kalispell.
It's really more of a marketing problem than an ecological one, since the glaciers will eventually bounce back, once human beings have gone extinct (assuming the two are causally linked). The craggy landscape they carved is good to go for the next 10 million years, at least. Think in geologic terms for a second; that usually puts it all in perspective. It's nothing that can't be cured with a name change.
Why not rename it Vanishing Glaciers National Park? That might even boost visitation, by adding an element of urgency to the whole thing: "See the glaciers while you can; they won't be back for 150,000 years." That way, Washington can't be accused of false advertising. Lost Glaciers National Park also has a nice, slightly spooky ring to it. We might borrow a marketing ploy from the pop music world, by calling it The Place Formerly Known as Glacier National Park, though that's a little clunky-sounding, no question. I think we can all agree to take Puddles National Park off the list.
I know it's politically incorrect to make light of such matters, but really: If the planet is doomed, and teetering on the brink of complete catastrophe, as alarmists assert, the lack of glaciers at Glacier National Park is the least of our problems.
Most will shrug, yawn and point their cameras at something else.
I've been to Glacier National Park. It's a wonderful place. It's a worthwhile visit, and stunning experience, with or without the glaciers, unless you are a true blue glaciophile and won't rest content until you've seen and photographed every remaining glacier in the lower 48. That's probably 2 percent of park visitors; the other 98 percent go there because they've already been to Yellowstone, or because their mother-in-law lives in Kalispell.
It's really more of a marketing problem than an ecological one, since the glaciers will eventually bounce back, once human beings have gone extinct (assuming the two are causally linked). The craggy landscape they carved is good to go for the next 10 million years, at least. Think in geologic terms for a second; that usually puts it all in perspective. It's nothing that can't be cured with a name change.
Why not rename it Vanishing Glaciers National Park? That might even boost visitation, by adding an element of urgency to the whole thing: "See the glaciers while you can; they won't be back for 150,000 years." That way, Washington can't be accused of false advertising. Lost Glaciers National Park also has a nice, slightly spooky ring to it. We might borrow a marketing ploy from the pop music world, by calling it The Place Formerly Known as Glacier National Park, though that's a little clunky-sounding, no question. I think we can all agree to take Puddles National Park off the list.
I know it's politically incorrect to make light of such matters, but really: If the planet is doomed, and teetering on the brink of complete catastrophe, as alarmists assert, the lack of glaciers at Glacier National Park is the least of our problems.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Far From The Madding Crowd
What an invaluable resource for reasoning people the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal continues to be -- countering the general dumbing-down of media and simpering namby-pambyism that dominates the opinion sections of most American newspapers. Particularly insightful and timely have been a series of pieces on the topic of climate change, which I'll link to below for the benefit of those who don't make the WSJ a regular stop on their reading list.
Here a respected biologist calls for reconsideration of the somewhat rigid, romanticized way we look at nature.
Here Patrick Michaels -- a man who has suffered at the hands of the eco-McCarthyists -- explains how the alarmist camp of climate researchers managed to "manufacture" the myth of a scientific "consensus."
Here Howard Bloom argues that climate change is just nature's way.
Here the "skeptical environmentalist," Bjorn Lomborg, calls for a smarter response to climate variation.
At a time when all the country frequently seems on the verge of mass insanity, it's comforting to know that there's at least one place to turn where reason and critical thinking still can be found.
Here a respected biologist calls for reconsideration of the somewhat rigid, romanticized way we look at nature.
Here Patrick Michaels -- a man who has suffered at the hands of the eco-McCarthyists -- explains how the alarmist camp of climate researchers managed to "manufacture" the myth of a scientific "consensus."
Here Howard Bloom argues that climate change is just nature's way.
Here the "skeptical environmentalist," Bjorn Lomborg, calls for a smarter response to climate variation.
At a time when all the country frequently seems on the verge of mass insanity, it's comforting to know that there's at least one place to turn where reason and critical thinking still can be found.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Climategate Jr.
The reputation of climate scientists has taken a hit lately, even if a few Obama administration deniers still insist that the Climategate affair is much ado about nothing. But all the focus on the infamous hacked e-mails has overshadowed news of a more overt act of fraud, perpetrated by another "highly-respected" climate scientist -- a case that underscores the danger of putting such people on pedestals.
The accused, NASA climatologist Mark Schoeberl, got a slap on the wrist, as compared to more run of the mill felons, presumably because his long service in government and testimonials to his otherwise good character from colleagues -- including one Nobel Prize winner! -- held sway with the court. His defenders (like the defenders of monkey-wrencher Tim DeChristopher) argued that he wasn't motivated by low motives or ignoble greed, but acted out of an overzealous (but noble) desire to help protect the planet. Whether justice was served, I leave to your judgment.
Here's the story, as told by one of my favorite websites, GovExec.com:
NASA scientist avoids jail in procurement case
A prominent NASA scientist, who has admitted directing thousands of dollars in sole-source agency contracts to his wife's company and failing to report the income on a financial disclosure form, has been spared a prison sentence. The U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., on Tuesday sentenced Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, Md., to one year's probation and a $10,000 fine.
Schoeberl, who was a senior manager and a well-known atmospheric scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland before he retired earlier this year, pleaded guilty in September to one felony count of conflict of interest. At Tuesday's sentencing, Schoeberl, who spent 30-plus years with the agency, expressed remorse for his mistakes and admitted an error in judgment.
Three scientists, including two who still work for NASA, also addressed the court and requested leniency for Schoeberl. More than 50 other scientists, included one Nobel Prize winner, submitted letters praising his character and credentials. Schoeberl's attorney Jacob Frenkel said the sentence was a reflection of his client's "enormous contributions to world atmospheric sciences and anticipated valuable continuing work in support of climate change research."
Prosecutors agreed Schoeberl did not deserve to go to jail, noting in court documents that he quickly accepted responsibility for his conduct, had no criminal history and had a lengthy record of service at NASA. Schoeberl was the chief scientist of Goddard's earth sciences division, which conducts climate research, and the project scientist for the Aura mission to study the Earth's ozone layer, air quality and climate.
Schoeberl's position enabled him to guide funds budgeted for the Aura mission. According to the plea agreement, in mid-2004 Schoeberl began inquiring about ways to direct work to his wife Barbara's company, Animated Earth, a small business that develops and distributes Earth Today, an exhibit displaying near-real-time earth science data. The couple previously had collaborated on a host of projects and presentations for NASA and court documents indicate that the relationship was well-known at the agency.
Prosecutors said Mark Schoeberl initially encountered resistance to a plan that would have directed a $20,000 appropriation to Animated Earth, but later convinced a colleague to approve the funding. In May, Schoeberl prepared a document that justified Animated Earth as the only contractor eligible to bid on a new award for maintenance on kiosks that the company previously had installed on NASA grounds. In June, he provided another sole-source justification directing NASA contracting personnel to award a $60,000 software contract to Animated Earth.
Schoeberl's 2007 financial disclosure form did not include the more than $50,000 in contracts his wife's firm earned that year. Between fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2008, Animated Earth was awarded more than $190,000 in NASA contracts, all without competition, according to data on USASpending.gov, a federal Web site that aggregates date on contract spending.
Frenkel argued that Schoeberl was not motivated by financial gain but rather by a belief that Animated Earth's software was the best product available for earth science education. "Unfortunately, his appreciation of the efficacy and value of the product, and his encouragement of its use, was inconsistent with his professional position at NASA because Dr. Schoeberl's job included responsibility for administering the educational function associated with the satellite program he supervised," the attorney wrote in a sentencing memo he prepared for the court.
"Once a NASA lawyer instructed Dr. Schoeberl that he, in substance, should not even be communicating about Earth Today, it was too late; by then the incidents supporting use of the software already had occurred." In Nov. 20 sentencing correspondence to the court, prosecutors said the government does not seem to have suffered a financial loss because "Animated Earth appears to have completed the work that it contracted with the federal government."
Nontheless, Frenkel said NASA has refused to pay an outstanding bill to Barbara Schoeberl because of the criminal case. The Goddard Space Flight Center did not respond to a request for comment. In the wake of the criminal charges against Schoeberl, agency lawyers reportedly issued a memo to staffers advising them of ethics rules and post-employment restrictions, Frenkel said in his court filings. He said several NASA employees subsequently came forward about similar ethical conflicts. Schoeberl, who has received numerous awards from the space agency and written more than 150 published articles, now finds himself out of work and "radioactive" to potential employers, Frenkel said. "The atmospheric science program has been his life and he has no desire to abandon it," he said.
Why this story received so little media play, in contrast to Climategate, is curious. Maybe fraud undertaken in the name of lining one's pockets is less interesting than fraud undertaken in the name of a cause. But it amounts to the same thing, in my opinion, since climate alarmists are guaranteed to garner more funding, more power, more media attention and adulation than scientists who take a more skeptical tack. No one ever won a government grant, after all, by arguing that everything's alright with the world.
The accused, NASA climatologist Mark Schoeberl, got a slap on the wrist, as compared to more run of the mill felons, presumably because his long service in government and testimonials to his otherwise good character from colleagues -- including one Nobel Prize winner! -- held sway with the court. His defenders (like the defenders of monkey-wrencher Tim DeChristopher) argued that he wasn't motivated by low motives or ignoble greed, but acted out of an overzealous (but noble) desire to help protect the planet. Whether justice was served, I leave to your judgment.
Here's the story, as told by one of my favorite websites, GovExec.com:
NASA scientist avoids jail in procurement case
A prominent NASA scientist, who has admitted directing thousands of dollars in sole-source agency contracts to his wife's company and failing to report the income on a financial disclosure form, has been spared a prison sentence. The U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., on Tuesday sentenced Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, Md., to one year's probation and a $10,000 fine.
Schoeberl, who was a senior manager and a well-known atmospheric scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland before he retired earlier this year, pleaded guilty in September to one felony count of conflict of interest. At Tuesday's sentencing, Schoeberl, who spent 30-plus years with the agency, expressed remorse for his mistakes and admitted an error in judgment.
Three scientists, including two who still work for NASA, also addressed the court and requested leniency for Schoeberl. More than 50 other scientists, included one Nobel Prize winner, submitted letters praising his character and credentials. Schoeberl's attorney Jacob Frenkel said the sentence was a reflection of his client's "enormous contributions to world atmospheric sciences and anticipated valuable continuing work in support of climate change research."
Prosecutors agreed Schoeberl did not deserve to go to jail, noting in court documents that he quickly accepted responsibility for his conduct, had no criminal history and had a lengthy record of service at NASA. Schoeberl was the chief scientist of Goddard's earth sciences division, which conducts climate research, and the project scientist for the Aura mission to study the Earth's ozone layer, air quality and climate.
Schoeberl's position enabled him to guide funds budgeted for the Aura mission. According to the plea agreement, in mid-2004 Schoeberl began inquiring about ways to direct work to his wife Barbara's company, Animated Earth, a small business that develops and distributes Earth Today, an exhibit displaying near-real-time earth science data. The couple previously had collaborated on a host of projects and presentations for NASA and court documents indicate that the relationship was well-known at the agency.
Prosecutors said Mark Schoeberl initially encountered resistance to a plan that would have directed a $20,000 appropriation to Animated Earth, but later convinced a colleague to approve the funding. In May, Schoeberl prepared a document that justified Animated Earth as the only contractor eligible to bid on a new award for maintenance on kiosks that the company previously had installed on NASA grounds. In June, he provided another sole-source justification directing NASA contracting personnel to award a $60,000 software contract to Animated Earth.
Schoeberl's 2007 financial disclosure form did not include the more than $50,000 in contracts his wife's firm earned that year. Between fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2008, Animated Earth was awarded more than $190,000 in NASA contracts, all without competition, according to data on USASpending.gov, a federal Web site that aggregates date on contract spending.
Frenkel argued that Schoeberl was not motivated by financial gain but rather by a belief that Animated Earth's software was the best product available for earth science education. "Unfortunately, his appreciation of the efficacy and value of the product, and his encouragement of its use, was inconsistent with his professional position at NASA because Dr. Schoeberl's job included responsibility for administering the educational function associated with the satellite program he supervised," the attorney wrote in a sentencing memo he prepared for the court.
"Once a NASA lawyer instructed Dr. Schoeberl that he, in substance, should not even be communicating about Earth Today, it was too late; by then the incidents supporting use of the software already had occurred." In Nov. 20 sentencing correspondence to the court, prosecutors said the government does not seem to have suffered a financial loss because "Animated Earth appears to have completed the work that it contracted with the federal government."
Nontheless, Frenkel said NASA has refused to pay an outstanding bill to Barbara Schoeberl because of the criminal case. The Goddard Space Flight Center did not respond to a request for comment. In the wake of the criminal charges against Schoeberl, agency lawyers reportedly issued a memo to staffers advising them of ethics rules and post-employment restrictions, Frenkel said in his court filings. He said several NASA employees subsequently came forward about similar ethical conflicts. Schoeberl, who has received numerous awards from the space agency and written more than 150 published articles, now finds himself out of work and "radioactive" to potential employers, Frenkel said. "The atmospheric science program has been his life and he has no desire to abandon it," he said.
Why this story received so little media play, in contrast to Climategate, is curious. Maybe fraud undertaken in the name of lining one's pockets is less interesting than fraud undertaken in the name of a cause. But it amounts to the same thing, in my opinion, since climate alarmists are guaranteed to garner more funding, more power, more media attention and adulation than scientists who take a more skeptical tack. No one ever won a government grant, after all, by arguing that everything's alright with the world.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Global Cooling Could Have Dire Consequences
Super President Barack Obama already has many triumphs to his credit. He saved the economy. He ran the lobbyists out of Washington. He vanquished Somali pirates. He made Americans popular in Europe again.
And now, according to this piece in the Chicago Tribune, he has reversed global warming in the Windy City. Obama also has brought record cool temperatures to Indianapolis. Louisville is feeling the effects, as is Ohio and Georgia. Obama's blessings haven't been bestowed equally; a few parts of the country are still suffering the ravages of global warming. But most of the nation is feeling cooler and Obama's only been in office six months!
Perhaps he ought to slow things down a bit: If he's not careful, the super president could dial the temperatures back so fast he could plunge us into a mini-Ice Age. And there's a downside to this situation many of us didn't anticipate.
Urban gardeners and "localvores" are having a miserable time trying to keep their dinner tables brimming with home grown, pesticide- and chemical-free veggies. Obama's successes with climate change have hurt seasonal tourism and slowed crop production, reports the Associated Press. Air conditioning use is down, according to USA Today, and shirts aren't sticking to our sweat-soaked bodies like they should; that hurts profit margins for energy companies and dry cleaners. People aren't visiting local pools as much as they were when global warming was going full throttle, hurting concession stand sales. "Fewer families mean less lemonade and nachos sold at the concession stand," reports WYTV.com.
Obama's amazing talent for turning down the heat, although a boon to polar bears, is doing harm to an already fragile economy, threatening to undermine the stimulus plan and put pool concession staff out of work. Tens of thousands of climate researchers, professional environmental activists, government regulators and alternative energy company executives -- virtually the entire eco-industrial complex! -- also stand to lose if climate change goes away as an issue. An end to weekly climate change conferences will hurt air carriers, hotels and the event planning business. And let's not even think about what it would do to hybrid vehicle sales.
Global warming had it's dangers, but the cooler climate Obama is bringing carries potentially greater risks. A blue ribbon panel should be empowered by Congress to determine the ideal temperature for the United States; something that won't endanger polar bears yet still protects jobs in global warming-dependent industries. The great one should then use his powers to maintain that optimum temperature, allowing for federally-approved seasonal fluctuations only.
It's wonderful having a super president in the White House. But his extraordinary powers should be kept in check, and applied responsibly, lest the demise of the global warming craze lead to a global cooling crash. If we're not careful, and don't manage this carefully, a perfectly good crisis could go to waste.
And now, according to this piece in the Chicago Tribune, he has reversed global warming in the Windy City. Obama also has brought record cool temperatures to Indianapolis. Louisville is feeling the effects, as is Ohio and Georgia. Obama's blessings haven't been bestowed equally; a few parts of the country are still suffering the ravages of global warming. But most of the nation is feeling cooler and Obama's only been in office six months!
Perhaps he ought to slow things down a bit: If he's not careful, the super president could dial the temperatures back so fast he could plunge us into a mini-Ice Age. And there's a downside to this situation many of us didn't anticipate.
Urban gardeners and "localvores" are having a miserable time trying to keep their dinner tables brimming with home grown, pesticide- and chemical-free veggies. Obama's successes with climate change have hurt seasonal tourism and slowed crop production, reports the Associated Press. Air conditioning use is down, according to USA Today, and shirts aren't sticking to our sweat-soaked bodies like they should; that hurts profit margins for energy companies and dry cleaners. People aren't visiting local pools as much as they were when global warming was going full throttle, hurting concession stand sales. "Fewer families mean less lemonade and nachos sold at the concession stand," reports WYTV.com.
Obama's amazing talent for turning down the heat, although a boon to polar bears, is doing harm to an already fragile economy, threatening to undermine the stimulus plan and put pool concession staff out of work. Tens of thousands of climate researchers, professional environmental activists, government regulators and alternative energy company executives -- virtually the entire eco-industrial complex! -- also stand to lose if climate change goes away as an issue. An end to weekly climate change conferences will hurt air carriers, hotels and the event planning business. And let's not even think about what it would do to hybrid vehicle sales.
Global warming had it's dangers, but the cooler climate Obama is bringing carries potentially greater risks. A blue ribbon panel should be empowered by Congress to determine the ideal temperature for the United States; something that won't endanger polar bears yet still protects jobs in global warming-dependent industries. The great one should then use his powers to maintain that optimum temperature, allowing for federally-approved seasonal fluctuations only.
It's wonderful having a super president in the White House. But his extraordinary powers should be kept in check, and applied responsibly, lest the demise of the global warming craze lead to a global cooling crash. If we're not careful, and don't manage this carefully, a perfectly good crisis could go to waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)