March 23, 2007
Sudden Impact
From the comments on
this Althouse post, on the
"No Impact" project—a chilling comment that I fear may be right on the money:
Every day, the GW [Global Warming] faithful act more and more like cultists. I give it about another year before we start reading about how mass suicides are really voluntary carbon-reduction efforts.
Via Insty.
UPDATE: Bidinotto has more.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:08 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sounds like natural selection at work to me.
Posted by: leelu at March 23, 2007 09:06 AM (KFuCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 20, 2007
"Pitch Your Offsets"
Ace is offering
sex offsets, for those whose libertine lifestyles bring them wrenching guilt:
I haven't been with a woman since college, and have had little other sex during this time frame. Given the way I look, my attitude, my lack of charm, and the fact I make crap money writing a stupid moronblog—I don't expect this to change much in the ensuing years.
Especially because I'm beyond my "good years." If those were my good years, Dear Lord, I quake at the thought of middle age. So please send me some money.
Personally, I can offer gin offsets. That is, if you feel your inadequate intake of gin is putting juniper farmers out of business, I can baptize you in the sweet healing waters of a virtual martini. Send me money, and I'll drink more gin, thereby priming the juniper berry economy and bringing you boozey redemption.
UPDATE: Hackbarth has an interesting take on the potential of "checkbook environmentalism." Sure, it's funny to watch hypocritical limousine liberals use their impressive disposable incomes to dispose of guilt, but does the idea have potential for sober adults?
Carbon credits is a new market still in development. Trial and error is the name of the game. Rules need to be established that define a carbon credit. Once thatÂ’s in effect we should see the establishment of carbon credit exchanges like those for stocks, bonds, and commodities. Developing such carbon credit markets engages the powerful force of self-interest and capitalizes on dispersed knowledge which may reduce more carbon dioxide emissions at a lower cost than top-down government-mandated regulations.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Saving the world from a harmless, essential trace(some 380 parts per MILLION) gas is on par with the silliest missions mankind has ever concocted, undertaken. We'll envy those guys that speculated on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
When we we all learn that it's all about wealth transfer? And like the first Socialist that saw his neighbor building a wonderful dwelling out of stone and killed him for it when it was completed, today's social engineers can only propose taking the wealth that Capitalism has created and transferring it into their pockets, with a few shekels (dinars with Socialists?) given to developing nations as an aside. That's the only "green" that matters in this whole exercise.
By the way, the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange will be the exclusive marketplaces for the trading carbon credits. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley--currently the "wind beneath Nancy Pelosi's wings" in these matter before Congress will be the primary US beneficiaries of their "cap-and-trade schemes." The outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in the Dec. 18 Wall Street Journal, cap-and-trade “would cost the average American family more than $2,700 a year while having no measurable impact on global temperature.” I see that as a conservative estimate. And you do know that brokers make money up or down in the market, don't you? Think of that the next time one calls you when you are on the toilet in the morning, getting ready to go to work. They don't even thank you for buying them their new cars, even.
Posted by: Darrell at March 20, 2007 08:35 PM (zuGmj)
2
LMA, can't we just send you gin? We'd hate to see you squander our offsets on food or something frivolous like that.
Posted by: Darrell at March 20, 2007 09:11 PM (zuGmj)
3
Funny you should say that: I am, at this moment, drinking gin that you sent me for Christmas. This is from that tiny little bottle of good old Tanqueray. (Yes--I have a few of those left! Yum!)
This is the first dirty martini I've consumed since my stay in Washington, D.C. The first hard liquor, in fact, since I got back from the East Coast. (On airplanes, I consume bloody Marys, for some reason: probably a craving for vitamin C.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 21, 2007 02:17 AM (0CbUL)
4
And, yeah--my jury is still out on the "greenhouse effect" as a contributor to global warming. And it's out on global warming itself as a for-sure-and-certain Bad Thing.
However, a lot of the activity that comes under the rubric of "avoiding global warming" has potentially bitchin' side effects, such as: 1) encouraging alternative energy sources, and thereby hastening the day when we can tell the Saudis/Iranians to fuck themselves, and 2) keeping pollution at a manageable level in the cities. As a chick with sensitive lungs and lots of allergies--who prefers blue skies to brown ones--I don't see anything to cry about when it comes to better air.
Don't get me wrong: I'm pro-capitalist. But I love the idea that countries we consider "developing" now will be using better technology than we did at the equivalent phases in our own development. Go with God, my brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 21, 2007 02:32 AM (0CbUL)
5
Every dollar misspent on nonsense is a further delay in achieving energy independence. Every dollar spent by industry 'fighting' Demon CO2 will be paid back by the consumer. And it is a dollar that would be better spent on anything of real value, like alternative fuels research. Just imagine the world where the New World Odor(sic) is finally funded--with at least a $Trillion from the US economy alone. Where do you think the funds to fight the War on Terror will come from? It will have to move to the European "police action" response--doing nothing of any real value. Inspector Clouseau reporting for duty!
Posted by: Darrell at March 21, 2007 08:12 PM (MKplH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 15, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle
At least for now, Google Video has the entire UK documentary online
here.
It's an hour and a quarter long, so grab a whole carafe of coffee before you go over there. Very nicely done: it's accessible to non-scientists, too.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
March 13, 2007
Regarding Global Warming,
the news is not so much that Al Gore
exaggerated its potential consequences, and the degree of human responsibility for it; of course he did. The news is that even
The New York Times is pointing this out:
Critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
Now that is what I call climate change.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:51 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But, see, the deal is that people that do not believe in global warming as caused solely by Man have to prove that it isn't. That's the kind of science that the global warming adherents are using.
I love their whole "consensus" thing. At one time everyone believed the earth was flat. Science proved that wrong.
I'm sure, based on everything I have read, that man has some impact on temperatures around the world, but is it climate, or micro-climate?
And it just amazes me that those who believe feel that the Sun and natural earth forces play no part in the temps being up about 1 degree C since 1850. Just the emissions of a trace gas from objects that didn't even exist in the 1800's, and were not even all that widespread till the 1940's.
Posted by: William Teach at March 13, 2007 05:23 PM (doAuV)
2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1
"A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite" "...Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. "...They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Yeah, 1 degree C in 150 years or so. Considering that you needed 132 degrees F to make it a "balmy" 0 F, maybe you should have waited a few years to visit--like say 8000 years. Or stop watching Al Gore movies or looking at those pictures in Time where the Inuit are wearing Speedos.
Posted by: Darrell at March 13, 2007 07:34 PM (DhFIp)
3
I am waiting for (not hoping for, mind you) one of these global warming as caused by Man zealots to get attacked and killed by a polar bear. They don't seem to realize that they are an apex predator with a bad temper.
Posted by: William Teach at March 14, 2007 05:44 AM (TFSHk)
4
Of course that's "132 degrees F to make it to freezing" above. I'd still check the weather forecast before I went.
Posted by: Darrell at March 14, 2007 08:31 AM (4Ytvr)
5
I love it! A perfect post. Your tagline is brilliant. :-)
Posted by: Sissy Willis at March 14, 2007 09:24 AM (Q6JEL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 06, 2007
March 02, 2007
Priceless
In more ways
than one.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:01 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for fixing the link. I agree: _Priceless_
-Bob
Posted by: Bob at March 03, 2007 10:26 AM (2tBSJ)
2
I bet the IRS could put a price on it, if these non-arm's-length transfer payments result in lower tax liabilities.
Posted by: Darrell at March 03, 2007 01:16 PM (x/HAL)
3
OK.
Dumb question:
If I buy a 'carbon offset' from someone, what, exactly, am I supposed to be getting?
Aside, I mean, from a Warm Fuzzy Feeling?
Posted by: leelu at March 03, 2007 06:15 PM (KFuCy)
4
That would be: zip. It's all about the assuaging of guilt.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 03, 2007 06:23 PM (Zi15r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
37kb generated in CPU 0.0317, elapsed 0.1696 seconds.
211 queries taking 0.1583 seconds, 440 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.