Category Archives: Financial

Shocking! Cap & Trade Eviscerated by Climate Religion Guru James Hansen!

Say what you want about Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but even the proverbial stopped watch is right twice a day. Looks like Dr. Hansen finally has one correct idea, at least as far as the usefulness of cap and trade is concerned. We wonder if this is the result of shock therapy.

Speaking at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club he had the following to say:

The system, in which companies buy and sell permits to produce greenhouse gases, is a “half-baked” and “half-assed” way to deal with global warming, Hansen said.

His comments Tuesday were typically blunt. Cap and trade, he said, does little to cut emissions. But it does enrich the trading desks of banks, who have a new market to explore.

“Why do you want big banks in this problem?” Hansen asked. “Why should they be making money? Every cent they make is coming out of the public’s hide. And they add absolutely nothing. What you want is a system which is very simple and makes things cleaner.”

No, he didn’t do a 180 degree flip on global warming, but at least he gets the idea that the cap and trade system is a ripoff and basically doesn’t do much except ripoff the general public and make bankers fat,  AKA: Bend forward in the name of Gaia. At least him making these statements is one step in the right direction.

It also appears he neglected to mention that no matter how it’s administered, cap and trade is a glorified tax that greedy states like California will grab under the pretense of saving us all from global warming and then misuse it on other “half-assed” schemes.

The best part of this is he said it all in front of California Governor Jerry Brown who’s no doubt salivating at getting California’s hooks into that money. Jerry just loves cap and trade. What greedy government official wouldn’t?

Source: SF Gate

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under AB32 California, California, California Air Resources Board, Cap & Trade, CARB, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Dr. James Hansen, Financial, Global Warming, Government, NOAA

E15 AKA: The EPA wants to kill your old car

E15 Warning Label Picture

The non-elected officials at Obama’s EPA are again trying to mandate the use of  E15 gasoline. This means that instead of 10% ethanol they will now start selling  gasoline that will contain 15% ethanol. While this sounds green we feel the reality is there are many bad issues in doing this and no good ones. We also strongly suspicion the outcome the EPA really wants is nefarious and is entirely different from what they appear to claim.

The EPA’s goals appear on the surface to merely be a) reduce pollution and b) reduce dependence on oil via using more ethanol. As ethanol is made from crops such as corn, they consider it a renewable (aka green) resource. They claim that E15 is safe in cars manufactured after 2001 and that it’s the most tested fuel…ever. On the face of it, this sounds just terrific. A green win-win situation if there ever was one. In our opinion the reality of using E15 may be far different from claimed.

Like global warming, it appears to us that the EPA and Obama administration are using some good old-fashioned faux science to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. They then put them out to the general public, who, for the most part, seem eager soak up any green BS the government spouts, true or not.

According to the article from The Hill, the automakers and AAA (the American Auto Club) take issue with E15 being safe for vehicles not originally designed it like the ones you see running around with “Flex Fuel” on the body. Those are vehicles specifically designed to run on the regular gas we use or E15.

But automakers say EPA is only considering the fuel’s impact on emissions control systems while disregarding the impact on the rest of the vehicle.

“It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle. Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers,” AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet said in a Friday statement.

In a nutshell, they’re claiming the EPA only cares that if it doesn’t whack a car’s emission control system it’s deemed “safe.” Never you mind if engine or other problems may arise from using it, we’re the government, we never lie!

It’s evident they could also care less if people in even older pre-2001 autos, unaware of the potential problems, inadvertently fill their cars up from an E15 pump and destroy their engines. You will note the article from The Hill also makes it known you may not have a warranty from the manufacturer on newer cars if any E15 related damage occurs. Knowing the auto manufacturers just ‘love’ to pay warranty claims, you can probably make a safe bet that many more problems will suddenly be deemed E15 related so they can make more profit at your expense by making you pay for the damage.

So, what can happen if an automobile is not specifically designed for E15 fuel?  Apparently quite a bit.  First, it can attack rubber hoses, gaskets, seals and o-rings that are not specifically designed to withstand it. This means hoses like the one that goes from the fuel filler to the tank and the ones that go to the engine from the tank. The fuel injection units have gaskets, seals and o-rings it could attack. They also have things made from plastic such as throttle position sensors, fuel temperature sensors and idle air control valves that may not be made to withstand E15. On even older cars using carburetors, it can attack all the seals and 0-rings inside the carburetor.

E15 can also cause corrosion problems with metals like aluminum. It can corrode the aluminum fuel lines to the fuel injectors on some cars and even corrode aluminum intake manifolds.  If you look at a flex-fuel car, it will have all fuel related parts made of materials designed to withstand the corrosion effects of the higher ethanol content. Got an older car with a carburetor? It’s most likely that the body of the carburetor is aluminum.

Can you imagine what will happen to an older car that starts leaking fuel into a hot engine compartment ? Most likely the fuel will spray out someplace and sooner or later leak on to the hot exhaust manifold and catch the car on fire. Same if the fuel line from the gas tank leaks onto the hot exhaust pipe or muffler. All possibilities using E15 in cars not designed for it. You can darn well bet that the government will find a way to deny any and all claims related to cars burning to the ground caused by using their mandated E15 gasoline. Same with auto manufacturers who will deny your claim due to you using E15 or tell you to sue the government because they mandated it, not us. Sounds like it will end up being circular to us.

All the aforementioned makes us question if this is exactly the intended effect of foisting E15 upon an unsuspecting public, many who are driving older cars due to Obama’s bad economy over the previous 4 years. The EPA rather obviously hates old cars. In their eyes they use too much gas, take up too much space and pollute too much. With the push for hybrid and full electric cars lately, it seems that in their eyes even driving a fuel-efficient car that uses gas is bad.

Just think about what’s gone on in the recent past four years. It appears to us to be a concerted effort by the government to get its citizens out of older cars, most gas fueled cars and perhaps out of cars all together. We feel there have been 3 plans and that we’re now starting up number 4.

Plan 1, known as jack up the price of fuel didn’t work to get everyone out of their older cars.

Plan 2, known as cash for clunkers didn’t work either. About all this did was ruin a lot of good parts vehicles that deliberately had their engines destroyed after trade-in and then were crushed. Let’s not forget it wasted a few billion of your tax-dollars, too.

Plan 3, subsidizing hybrids such as the Toyota Prius, full electric cars like the Nissan Leaf and the whatever it is Chevy Volt hasn’t gotten many people to leave gas fueled cars either. Chevy Volt sales (owned by GM aka: Government Motors) are sucking. Even subsiding any of them leaves them too expensive for the average person to buy.

Based upon all of this, it appears to us that the next step to be implemented is what we’ll call Plan 4. Plan 4 is the sneaky plan to increase the ethanol content of gasoline to the point where it will destroy many old cars and force people into buying new cars that the EPA considers green, such as the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf, or at the very least, more fuel-efficient gasoline powered cars that pollute less and will run on E15. Once they get this going, it’s an easy step for them to eliminate E10 totally, like they did leaded gas in the previous century. Then it will be all E15, and even if you have so far been able to avoid filling up your older car with E15, they’ll get you now.

Let’s not forget ethanol is made from food crops such as corn and right now there’s a drought in much of the Midwest, which is causing corn and other crop prices to rise. Throw in more competition for these same crops due to an increase in ethanol production and you have a recipe for higher gas prices, higher food prices and even possibly shortages of one, the other, or both.

This seems a rather nefarious and sneaky plan to us, meaning it fits perfectly with the Obama Administration’s modus operandi, referred by them as being ‘transparent’ for some strange reason.

Have a better sneaky way to get everyone out of their own cars and save us all from non-existent global warming? Call the EPA, they’ll love to hear from you.

Source: The Hill

4 Comments

Filed under Automobiles, Biofuel, Chevrolet Volt, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Electric Cars, Energy, EPA, Financial, Gas Prices, Global Warming, Green Energy, Green Tech, Obama, Politics, Renewable Energy

The San Francisco Green Energy Ripoff

A photo of San Francisco at night with green power?

It seems San Francisco will soon have “free” green energy that isn’t “free” or very “green.” Instead of “free” and “green” we get this:

  • Monthly bills will increase by $84 to $180 annually
  • You’re signed up automatically and if you don’t opt out your stuck with the increase
  • Due to the unreliability of wind power and solar your electricity will still come from coal and gas power plants when those don’t work on windless and cloudy days.
  • The startup costs $19.5 million including $15 million placed in an escrow account to pay Shell Energy North America if the program is terminated before the contract expires in 4½ years.

San Francisco, touted as “the city that knows how” evidently only “knows how” to rip off the taxpayers. There are probably 19.5 million ways to spend that $19.5 million on things that would make San Francisco a better place to live than on overpriced faux green energy.

The city’s a mess in many places. Traffic’s a mess, the streets are a mess, the homeless are a mess, crime is a mess, there are many blighted places. Let’s not forget that the schools are taking it  in the shorts thanks to Jerry Brown’s faux budget that recently fell apart and could also use that money.

Nope, in San Francisco politics it’s better to genuflect to the imaginary green energy god. Keeping PG & E who appears to be able to provide  cleaner, more reliable and less expensive energy would have just been too simple compared to creating another SF bureaucracy that appears to be FUBAR before it even starts.

If you thought that the power going out a Candlestick Park during a nationally televised football game was an embarrassment just wait and see what happens, or doesn’t, as the case may be. No wonder the 49’ers want to move to Santa Clara.

Sources: SF Examiner  & SF Business Times

1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Politics, pollution, Solar, Wind Power

BP DUMPS SOLAR

……And another one bites the dust. British Petroleum is shuttering its solar manufacturing business. More proof that solar isn’t the big panacea it’s touted to be and is not going to be providing many shovel-ready jobs in the United States or anywhere else, with the possible exception of China.

The unit, which BP has been scaling back since 2008, is the latest sun energy business to fall victim to rampant competition from China, falling prices, overcapacity and lower government subsidies on which the industry still depends.

This doesn’t only affect Europe, this is going to have a worldwide effect…..

The company confirmed on Wednesday that it plans to exit its large-scale projects at Long Haven in the U.S. and Moree in Australia.

Add this to the long list of dead or dying companies such as Solyndra and Evergreen Solar in the US and…..

Swiss bank Sarasin said in a recent study that Conergy and Q-Cells were among the German solar companies most exposed to the sector’s crisis.

We continue to maintain that if solar power was such a great idea government subsidies would not be necessary for solar to be a big financial and energy success and it appears we’re becoming more right as each day passes. Someone should get the people running the US Department of Energy and  California Governor Jerry Brown out of their green comas and advise them of this.

Please don’t bring up oil company subsidies. At least they have a viable product, make a profit and pay taxes.

Source: Reuters

1 Comment

Filed under California, California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, DOE, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar, Solargate, Solyndra

Eight Questions to kill the Kyoto Climate Protocol in 2012

As Canada becomes the first major nation to cut and run from the UN’s global warming scam a prominent environmentalist now plunges another deadly dagger into the soft underbelly of junk climate science.

Geologist and radio and TV broadcaster Leighton Steward succinctly points to eight crucial unanswered questions to slay the mythical climate dragon. The questions Steward poses should now be thrust to the fore as nations scramble for excuses to pull the plug on the Kyoto Protocol’s life support after the abject failure of the UN’s COP17 talks in Durban.

It’s these eight glaring anomalies in the science that Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, can add to those 14 billion other reasons (those dollars saved in unpaid UN penalties) why his nation was right to bail out of the biggest scam in history.

Canada, the new climate realist at the party, joins Japan and Russia in steadfastly refusing any new Kyoto-style climate commitments. The CO2-limiting treaty, signed by various world governments in 1997 expires in December 2012 with little if any prospect of a replacement in sight before 2020. But joy of joys, Kyoto is increasingly exposed for being premised on the discredited hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would precipitate runaway global warming.

Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates

In his analysis ‘The climate-change con artists’ for WorldNetDaily (December 9, 2011) Steward lists his eight straightforward key questions that climate science dodged for decades and which must be addressed before cash-strapped governments ever again vote to fatten UN coffers:

  1. Why can’t warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
  2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
  3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
  4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
  5. Why did many of Earth’s major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man’s CO2 emissions?
  6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth’s CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
  7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
  8. Why are correlations of Earth’s temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth’s temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into wilful fraud is that these ‘researchers’ were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis.

Governments and voters may now fairly infer that for the last 30 years a clique of government climate scientists in English-speaking nations deliberately wasted millions toying with unfeasible toy models hoping (but failing) to concoct a causal link between carbon and climate.

Two Degrees Celsius Drop in Temperatures ‘Plucked out of Thin Air’

The evidence for fraud gets more compelling when we add to the mix the leaked Climategate 2.0 emails of November 2011. Our conscientious friendly whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, England (UEA) shows us that government climatologists secretly concede the science to back Kyoto is paper-thin.

A main requirement is that the treaty demands a two degree Celsius drop in global temperatures. But top UEA climate scientist, Professor Jones, admits that no scientific basis was ever established for the “2 degrees Celsius” benchmark. Jones admits:

The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means…. I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

[Phil Jones email to C. Kremer; Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM]

Thus opinion trumps hard evidence in the topsy-turvy world of climate science as further substantiated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Buried deep in the 2007 IPCC Report is the disturbing fact that climatologists admit to “low” or “very low” understanding of 13 of the 15 factors that drive climate. [1.]

No wonder Professor Jones chose to break the law and refuse to honor Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from independent researchers. There was so little evidence to back all those doomsaying climate claims and Jones didn’t want to be caught giving policymakers mere opinions (dressed as ‘fact’). He and his co-conspirators needed to keep milking that research cash cow. All the while, gleeful that their scientists were giving them ammunition to concoct apocalyptic scenarios to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, the politicians went along with the scam. Just follow the money, as they say.

As Icecap reports, Penn State University, a hub of climate alarm, alone acquired $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. After the Sandusky child sex scandal the world now sees just how Penn State values profit over principle.

The US government alone spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010. Such munificence can buy a lot of ‘consensus’ in university laboratories. Opinionated and ill-informed faux climate science was thus used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations.

That hotchpotch treaty, designed to severely restrict human emissions of an essential life-giving gas (CO2), offered nothing for the planet while impoverishing humanity by crippling industrial development.

Canada Saves Taxpayer Billions in Moment of Climate Realism

In short, Kyoto was never about climate change but more probably a nefarious UN vehicle for global population control and wealth redistribution – a veritable gravy train for corrupt and opinionated ideologues. No wonder Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, denounced Kyoto as one of Canada’s “biggest” policy errors. At the earliest opportunity (Monday 12, December 2011) the Canadian government sensibly invoked its legal rights and withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.

By bailing out of the UN’s climate Ponzi scheme Canada will now save itself having to pay $US14 billion ($A13.94 billion) in needless penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada reacted to the news with the expected doomsayer hyperbole: “The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto.”

Yet Canada’s environment minister aptly summed up the lunacy of the extreme cost of climate legislation, as it would be:

“the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.”

Thus by consideration of the aforesaid paucity of hard evidence and Leighton Steward’s Eight Unanswered Questions the Kyoto Protocol deserves to be tossed into the trash can of history. Rest assured, Canada will be just the first of a glut of nations abandoning pointless and moribund UN ‘emissions targets’ that do more harm than good.

Taxpayers have a right to demand this secretive, corrupt and wasteful culture in government science be swept away. It urgently needs replacing with a new era of principled, open and objective science.

[1.] IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis; 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing.

John O’Sullivan is a science writer and legal analyst, coordinator of the ‘Slayers’ and founder member of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, Climategate 2, Climategate 2.0, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Tokelau isn’t Tanking

With COP17 CON17 going on, the shrillness of those who want to make big bucks off the global warming scam is increasing exponentially.

Today we have the Honorable Foua Toloa, head of Government of Tokelau in the Pacific, who believes the island’s 1,400 inhabitants are at grave risk from climate change lack of money. Of course him, and others in charge of low-lying (emphasis on lying) islands worldwide are hoping to cash in on the global warming gravy-train.

You can look at the graph below showing the south Pacific sea-levels at Tuvalu, which is adjacent to Tokelau, and see just how much that sea-level is rising (not).

You can also look at the below graph of the south Pacific. While, yes there is an overall uptrend of 2.73 millimeters per year, note the downtrend that is starting in 2010. Also note that 2.73 millimeters = 0.107480315 inches. Or, a whopping 10th of an inch a year.

Tokelau is 5 meters above sea-level. 5 meters = 16.4041995 feet. Divide 16.4 feet (196.850394 inches) by 0.107480315 inches per year sea-level rise and we find it will take a mere 1,831.5 years for Tokelau to be completely submerged.

You have to ask yourself what all the rush is about? Being submerged in 1,832.5 years? Or, helping the United Nations clown circus by BS’ing everyone in order to get hundreds of billions of dollars sucked from productive countries via phony carbon trading scams and carbon taxes?

You can read more about the low lying that is going on from Andrew Bolt here.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Tokelau isn’t Tanking

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Science, Sea-Level

Yet Another Reason to Bury the Bullet Train in California

What started as a $33 billion project, then recently mushroomed into a $98.6 billion project, that only one week later mushroomed into a $117.6 billion dollar project, now has another problem.  This problem, no doubt, will again raise the already astronomical costs of the bullet train that Californians will not only get stuck paying for, but will probably be stuck subsidizing for almost eternity.

It now seems that the grand plan to tunnel under San Jose, California isn’t so grand after all. According to yet another study:

“We have looked at this very thoroughly and done very detailed engineering for this,” said Dan Leavitt, the authority’s deputy director, about the tunnel option. “It is not a constructable scenario for high-speed rail.”

In a nutshell this means the transportation hub in San Jose will need to be built above ground, which means that they’ll have to spend more money buying up property that they would not have had to purchase if the underground station was viable.

Meanwhile, in what appears to be a fit of delusion, instead of telling the state to shove it, the City of San Jose will continue to spend more tax dollars studying this, even though budget problems have reduced the number of police and fire personnel on duty.

The Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown also appear to be delusional about this costly and unneeded train to nowhere. It is  seriously not funny that this fiasco continues to spend money needed elsewhere.  California’s budget deficit is now expected to have a $13 billion budget deficit by mid-year that will cause $2 billion in automatic spending cuts, many in education.

Meanwhile, the Board of Regents of California State University, who raised tuition 15.5% last November just voted yesterday to again increase tuition by another 9%. This is a total increase in just one year of 25.5%.  If you want to know what this costs students in dollars here it is:

The price of a year at CSU has risen steadily for years. Next fall, basic tuition will be $5,970. With a mandatory fee averaging $1,047 across the 23-campus system, the price will stand at $7,017. That’s more than triple what it cost in 2002-03.

It is a total shame that the State Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown don’t pull the plug on the bullet train boondoggle that continues to grow in size and cost and may accelerate putting the State of California into bankruptcy before it’s over and done with. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, this has to be it.

The only thing green about this project is the obscene amounts of money that will be spent on a boondoggle that will only green the pockets of unions, who evidently have much of California’s government in their hip pockets.

Let’s not forget the United States debt just hit $15 trillion yesterday. How about paying bills before spending on boondoggles?

We urge you to read more of the gory details of this CO2 Insanity at the source below.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Comments Off on Yet Another Reason to Bury the Bullet Train in California

Filed under Bullet Train, California, California Bullet Trani, California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Construction, Green Tech, Politics