Environmental Talk

We don’t want to scare your kids …

Laurie David, producer of An Inconvenient Truth and wife of Curb Your Enthusiasm’s Larry David, has a new book she’s written with Cambria Gordon. Cambria is “an active environmentalist and a former award-winning advertising copywriter, who now pursues children’s writing full-time.”

Their new book is called, A Down-To-Earth Guide to Global Warming, and according to the publisher is “written for ages 8 and up.”

Presumably, kids above seven years old won’t be scared about all this talk of people frying in the street, drowning in floods or succumbing to insect-borne plagues of Biblical proportions.

Look for another “kid’s book” to come out this summer. Jason Voorhees’ Down-To-Earth Guide to Camping.

We do …

Or buy the two book gift-pack and keep your kids in line for years to come.

global warming, climate change, Laurie David, Cambria Gordon, Down-To-Earth-Guide to Global Warming, Down To Earth Guide, Jason, Friday the 13th,

“You don’t need anyone or anything to touch yourself and giggle.”

I was on the pavement, thinking about the government, when it occurred to me that Dr. Phil often sounds a lot like a younger Bob Dylan.

A quick trip to the Dr. Phil Random Quote Generator, confirmed my suspicion that much of the advice from TV’s most famous shrink since Frasier takes the form of the classic Dylan line, “You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows . . .. ”

Regardless of whether you get your advice from Bob Dylan or Dr. Phil, I think we can all admit that the first step in any healing process is to acknowledge that there’s a problem. If a recent story in the Daytona Beach News Journal is any indication, we may finally be getting to that point in the whole climate change debate.

The paper featured a story over the weekend highlighting the notion that people are admitting that the whole climate change issue is complex and that there is room for further scientific debate on the topic.

James Wanliss, a space physicist who teaches at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, teaches an honors course titled The Politics and Science of Fear. He notes that in the case of global warming, what is presented to the public is “one side of an issue with many dimensions.”

Wanliss also says:

“I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals … Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science.”

To his credit, Wanliss shows both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle to his classes.

The fact that the discussion is turning toward a need for balance is a good sign.

global warming, climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, Great Global Warming Swindle, Embry-Riddle University, Bob Dylan, Dr. Phil, Wanliss

Give a hoot - don’t pollute

We’ve heard from a number of people (Al Gore, Kofi Annan, David King, et. al) over the past year how global warming is more of a threat than terrorism.

I’m not a professional handicapper but, given the choice of a bus ride in Baghdad or a guided tour of the Kilimanjaro glacier, I think I’ll take my chances on the glacier trek.

Silly rhetoric aside, if we were to assume that these two threats are both equally serious, there’s only one course of action: we need to make sure that terrorists around the world reduce their carbon footprint.

It’s about time that Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida did their part to help combat global warming. The UN should insist that, going forward, all missile delivery systems be solar powered (or carbon offsets purchased) and that any car bombs should only be wired to hybrid cars.

With mandatory recycling, our spy planes should have a much easier time spotting blue recyclable containers outside the caves in Afghanistan.

Everybody wins.

Together we can make a difference . . .

global warming, climate change, Al Gore, Kofi Annan, David King, terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, recycle

Global warming? . . . then, why all the long-sleeved shirts?

An article at dailypress.com, a paper in Virginia that has some serious self-esteem problems (why isn’t the paper’s name capitalized?), brings us the heart-warming story of fifth-graders who did their final project on global warming:

Burbank fifth-graders investigate global warming
SPECIAL TO THE DAILY PRESS
May 10, 2007
HAMPTON — The fifth-graders at Paul Burbank Elementary School in Hampton are required to work on an exhibition project as part of the International Baccalaureate program. The subject of the inquiry must be a real-life issue or problem that is local or global and is of sufficient scope and significance to warrant an extended investigation.

Wait, are these kids attending the Sorbonne? What the heck is an “International Baccalaureate program” for fifth-graders? Did they get college credit for changing the light bulbs in their classroom?

The “international” part probably refers to the fact that there’s one Asian kid in the class.

To their credit, the kids “wanted to get different perspectives, so several guest speakers were invited to share their viewpoints.” The case for global warming was presented by “Pat McCormick from Hampton University, who has received numerous awards from NASA and has written more than 430 scientific articles.”

Climate change skeptics were represented by a homeless guy who admits he sometimes gets chills if he doesn’t have enough to drink.

In the end, a good time was had by all as the students “presented the program to the student body and the school community” and “created interactive games and other activities to involve the students and parents.”

One of the more popular games was “Pin the Blame on the Oil Companies” in which students are spun around, blindfolded, and given a nail-gun and a 450-page legal brief and asked to attach it to a variety of cardboard replicas of Halliburton, Mobil and Exxon corporate logos.

Climate change skeptics manned a booth outside the presentation with a petition to force local elementary schools to bring back dodgeball.

global warming, climate change, future leaders of America, Halliburton, Mobil, Exxon, daily press, dodgeball, Jeff Foxworthy, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader,

“I can tell by your game, you’re gonna start a flame . . . “

Is it me or is half the country on fire?

The wildfire control situation in this country is going almost as well as the war on drugs.

Since wildfires are generally considered to be bad things, and global warming is responsible for all the bad things that have occurred, are occurring or will occur, you knew it was only a matter of time before someone linked climate change to the latest headline stories about wildfires.

Let’s see if we can get at a few basic facts . . .

Dry conditions tend to exacerbate the effects of a wildfire. There are, however, other conditions that also affect the damage caused by wildfires including wind patterns and relative density of the areas being burned.

The western United States has seen an increase in the frequency of wildfires over the past 30 years at a time when global temperatures have been increasing steadily.

Those who would attribute the rise in wildfires to global warming take this as proof of the perils of a rising global temperature.

It all sounds reasonable in a simple, connect-the-dots kind of way.

One of the most sophisticated and comprehensive studies on the subject was the subject of a recent article in Global Change Biology. (I only buy it for the pictures, I don’t read the articles).

The study used satellite data from the NOAA and NASA to look at global wildfire data. Not to go all Tom Clancy on you, but here’s the basic methodology as described by the World Climate Report website:

They collected the 8 km resolution global satellite-based AVHRR (Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer) data from July 1981 to December 2000. They developed a computer algorithm that could spot pixels that had recently burned, and the algorithm could basically count the number of burned pixels, calculate total burn area, and determine percentage of burned area for any defined region of the world. The global and regional data were ultimately assembled on a monthly basis.

I know . . . I’m going to take time out for a beer right here.

Okay, I’m back.

The study concluded “… no significant upward or downward global trend was found in the burned area data.”

Interestingly, the study did confirm that the Western United States was one of the areas that had experienced an increase in activity.

There is something for everybody in this study, depending on which part of the report you want to cherry-pick your facts from . . . which means we’ve got lovely parting gifts for both the climate change Casandras and the global warming skeptics.

This is a common tactic you’ll see from both sides: taking localized data and interweaving it with global findings. In this case, it would appear that we would need to refer to the phenomenon as American warming, not global warming, if we wanted to keep things consistent. Not that consistency’s ever been a stumbling block in the whole climate change rugby scrum.

As a last word on the subject, I’ve done a study that will be appearing in an upcoming peer-reviewed edition of TV Guide. Without going into a lot of scientific detail (mostly because there was none), my research shows that the number of Wildfire episodes on ABC-Family has gone up dramatically in the last two years and closely mirrors the global temperature trend of my apartment.

There’s already quite a buzz with people talking about stuff like Nobel Science prizes and such, but really, it’s my love of science (or is that mixology?) that keeps me going.

Global warming causes Wildfire

global warming, climate change, wildfires, Wildfire, ABC Family, World Climate Report, Global Change Biology, NOAA, NASA, TV Guide

“I’m envious . . . of your relaxed attitude toward global warming.”

With all the hype and hysteria from both sides of the climate change spaghetti fight, it’s rare to find a calm, rational article on the topic. You might have to go all the way to Germany to do it.

An article in Der Spiegel Online presents a balanced view of the global warming debate.

But how bad is climate change really? Will global warming trigger plagues of Biblical proportions? Can we look forward to endless droughts and catastrophic floods?
Or … could rising temperatures lead to higher crop yields and more tourism in many places? In other words, is humanity actually creating new paradises?

The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Climate change will undoubtedly have losers — but it will also have winners. There will be a reshuffling of climate zones on earth. And there is something else that we can already say with certainty: The end of the world isn’t coming any time soon.

The article goes on to note that many of the more recent computer modeling efforts have presented a less dire outlook:

… more detailed simulations have allowed climate researchers to paint a considerably less dire picture than in the past — gone is the talk of giant storms, the melting of the Antarctic ice shield and flooding of major cities.

Improved regionalized models also show that climate change can bring not only drawbacks, but also significant benefits …

The article is worth reading, if only for the refreshing tone it takes (presenting points by both sides, acknowledging basic facts, not relying on hype and hysteria, etc.) in examining some of the issues surrounding the current climate change discussion.

global warming, climate change, computer simulations, Germany,

Mothers Against Binge Time Travel

In an effort to raise awareness about binge travel, M.A.B.T. has provided the following chart to help you understand the effects of vacation on the average person. These levels are approximate and should be adjusted for height, body weight, income level and which fraternity you belong to . . .

Vacation Allowed in Concentration (VAC) Affect on Motor Skills

– At 2 weeks half-assed to moderate workers begin to feel some effects of being away from the job

– At 4 weeks most people begin to feel relaxed

– At 6 weeks judgment is somewhat impaired, people are less able to make rational decisions about their capabilities (eg. amount of money it would take to retire in Costa Rica, weekly hooker budget, cost to FedEx penicillin to third world country, etc.)

– At 8 weeks there is a definite impairment of muscle coordination due to a steady diet of pina coladas and local cuisine; moped driving skills decrease as you become more fearful after multiple near-death experiences; this is legal level for vacation intoxication in some states

– At 10 weeks there is a clear deterioration of reaction time and control when the local law officer finds you asleep in a hammock with his daughter; this is legally f**ed in most countries

– At 12 weeks vomiting usually occurs as a result of realizing you’re out of money and you spent your last dollar on an international phone card to call your boss to beg for your job back; sickness can happen unless this level of not working is reached slowly over time (as in the case of a long-time union member) or in the instance of a politician who has developed a tolerance to tax-payer funded junkets

– At 15 balance and movement are impaired possibly as a result of sun-stroke from passing out at noon on the beach . . . or malaria . . . or something worse. This vacation level is the equivalent of half a month at the Playboy Mansion

– At 30 weeks, many people lose consciousness

– At 40 weeks most people lose consciousness; some die or serve as the inspiration for a sequel to Midnight Express

– At 45 weeks breathing stops as you realize you just hit PowerBall and don’t have to work another day in your life; this is a fatal dose for most people other than Lindsay Lohan

An after-school special in the making . . .

An ancient philosopher once said, “Moderation is best.” The ancient Greeks didn’t have a word for “buzz kill” or Anna Nicole Smith, so that pronouncement was allowed to stand, unchallenged, for centuries.

By now, we’re all familiar with the pitfalls of binge drinking such as a hysterical laughter, a breakdown in inhibitions, and wild, no-regrets sex. Wait . . . have I got that whole pitfall thing right?

Oh, sure, there’s the skull-splitting hangover and projectile vomiting the next day, but let’s face it, that all becomes part of the legend of a weekend you and your roommate will be talking about for the rest of your lives.

If you’re like a lot of us, chances are some of your best binge drinking and partying has been done when you’re on vacation in some strange and exotic location like Cancun, Jamaica or Philadelphia.

But now, there’s an unlikely global warming activist saying that we all need to cut down on binge travel.

Mark Ellingham advanced the following point of view in this past Sunday’s UK Guardian:

“It is hard to say the positive impact traveling has can ever outweigh the damage done by simply traveling to the destination … Balancing all the positives and negatives, I’m not convinced there is such a thing as a ‘responsible’ or ‘ethical’ holiday.”

And after that . . . it gets weird. You see, Mark is the founder and publisher of Rough Guides, a series of travel books that, for over 25 years, has urged people to get out and explore the world.

Only now, you have to walk.

This reminds me of the Dennis Miller line, “A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.”

Personally, I find it somewhat insulting that Ellingham, having satiated his own desire to see the world, now wants to declare that pleasure off-limits to the rest of us. But, just in case we don’t listen . . . he’ll still keep publishing his guidebooks. The paper from all those books might just be enough of a carbon offset to allow me to go to Thailand this summer . . .

Let’s see if we can tally up the scorecard here . . . my parents got to experience free love, experiment with drugs and travel the world. Me? I get to try out celibacy and Red Bull while I ride my bike to the mall.

Excuse me if I’m not leaping at that deal.

I’m glad Mark Ellingham got to see all the places he wanted to before he died. I’ve got a few places I’d still like to visit.

I’d love to discuss this further but I gotta catch a plane . . .

global warming, climate change, Mark Ellingham, Rough Guides, travel, carbon footprint, Pat Roberston, Dennis Miller, Red Bull, celibacy, Philadelphia, Cancun, Jamaica, Thailand, Anna Nicole Smith,

“I never thought it would end like this . . . “

I believe there are some people associated with the climate change movement who are motivated by a benevolent desire toward their fellow humans and sincerely feel they can make a difference by shrinking their carbon footprint or by recycling certain resources.

I have no quarrel with those people . . . as long as they leave me free to make my own choices.

Unfortunately, the broader movement and underlying philosophy of the global warming movement is about power and control.

This morning’s headline scan turned up three articles that, consciously or not, give us an insight into the climate change endgame.

The people at the Optimum Population Trust are the latest political opportunists to jump on the climate change bandwagon. Forget using CFL light bulbs, it’s your kids that are the real problem:

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights … The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.”

Apparently, we need to not have kids in order to save the environment for the kids we don’t have. Gotcha.

Professor Guillebaud adds that rich countries should be particularly concerned because the children in these countries will have a larger carbon footprint than those children in poorer countries.

Congratulations, Professor, you’ve just created the climate change equivalent of one of the most repulsive religious concepts ever invented - Original Sin.

In San Antonio, Al Gore spoke of a “spiritual crisis” (notice a theme developing here?) and urged the following “solutions” as noted in the San Antonio Express-News:

“Gore also called for a business pollution tax that would be used to offset or eliminate employment and payroll taxes and for the creation of a federal mortgage institution that would help offset the cost of building environmentally friendly homes.”

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a politician and power-luster (oops, sorry for the redundancy) a solution of taxes, some more taxes and another bureaucracy must seem like a reasonable solution.

Completing the day’s headline trifecta are the lunatic ravings of Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Reading Watson is enough to make you not open any packages you get in the mail for the next five years. Among his proposals and assertions:

“I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement … We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion … We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas … In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities.”

The naked hatred of humanity and the worship of nature for its own sake (cockroaches are entitled to go where they choose, humans aren’t) are two sides of the same coin.

If we are truly concerned for the world in which our children will grow up, we need to embrace the concept of individual rights and resist attempts by politicians and social engineers to impose their version of what’s “good” on the rest of us.

global warming, climate change, Al Gore, Sea Shepard Conservation Society, individual rights, Guillebaud, hatred of man, hatred of humanity, power, control

“Happy ending?”

The United Nations is holding the part of this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Bangkok, Thailand.

In between lap dances, delegates are attempting hash out a climate change document that is politically acceptable to all parties. Some of the topics under discussion are “language regarding the Kyoto protocol . . , the true costs of cutting emissions and how they will be borne, and the role of nuclear power.”

As you might expect, it is difficult to hash out an agreement when you start from the premise that everything causes global warming and all the effects of global warming are bad.

It seems nobody wants to be fingered as the bad guy responsible for the predicted ultimate demise of life on this planet. Go figure.

First, it was the oil companies and SUV owners that were to blame for global warming. Pretty standard procedure - blame it on the rich people and corporations . . . ho-hum.

Things got a bit more interesting when UN issued a 400-page report placing the majority of blame for climate change on cows. According to the UN report, methane is 20 times more potent in fostering global warming than carbon dioxide.

All of which brings us to the latest target of blame: rice paddies.

When rice paddies are flooded during the growing process, a large amount of methane is released. In fact, UN sources concluded “rice production was a main cause of rising methane emissions in the 20th century.”

Great. It wasn’t enough that the Kyoto Protocol was going to cover factory and car emissions, now we’re going to have to reduce consumption of Chinese food back to pre-1990 levels.

Personally, I think it’s all part of an evil plan by Olive Garden to take over the world.

“I guess it would be nice . . . ”

Wen-I Chang recently completed the Gaia Hotel and Spa, an environmentally friendly hotel located in California’s Napa Valley.

How environmentally friendly is it?

Guests at the hotel won’t find a Gideon’s bible in their nightstand, but instead will be treated to a complimentary copy of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Somebody should warn Mr. Chang about the holy war he’s liable to start. I’m currently taking bets on how long it is before Pat Robertson or some other member of the religious right comes out and condemns this “blasphemy.” I’m putting the over/under at around 12 hours.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the coming free-for-all will be fun to watch. I’m tired of the same old religions fighting. Watching the Jews and Palestinians battle is like watching old tapes of Sugar Ray Robinson and Jake La Motta - you can expect a good fight but you know the Israelis (like Robinson) are going to take five out of six fights.

Sunnis vs. Shiites? Please. This is like watching a featherweight fight. You’re impressed by the energy and enthusiasm, but you have no idea who either fighter is.

Religions, like boxing, thrive on match-ups. Which is why this new bout is so exciting. It shapes up to be a classic fight between the reigning heavyweight champion, Christianity and the up-and-coming religion of Climate Change Environmentalism.

It’s CCD vs CCE in a battle for the ages.

Let’s take a look at the tale of the tape between Christianity in the red corner and Environmentalism in the green corner:

Spokesperson/Savior: Jesus vs. Al Gore
Both failed to carry their home state first time around and both rose again after being pronounced dead. Gore’s political rebirth was not quite as impressive as Jesus’ actual resurrection. Both spokespersons groomed disciples to carry forth their message of faith. Jesus walked on water but never managed to snag an Oscar. Son of God has slight edge on charisma - he was able to captivate audiences without using Power Point.
Advantage: Christianity

Promise We Hope Spokesman/Savior Keeps: “I Will Come Again” vs. “I Won’t Run Again”
Close call here. Even if Jesus did come again, there is some question as to whether anyone would believe it. What could He possibly do that hasn’t already been done by David Blaine? While there’s no question a verified Jesus sighting would be front page news, you have to wonder if the SoG could withstand the scrutiny of his every quote being videotaped and posted/mashed on YouTube. On the other hand, Gore can only go downhill from here. He already has access to heads of state, the UN and Julia Roberts with none of the responsibility and stress of daily Presidential duties. We still don’t understand why he hasn’t dumped Tipper and started partying with Lindsay Lohan or Scarlett Johanssen.
Advantage: Climate Change Environmentalism

Article of Faith: “You’ll get your reward in Heaven” vs. “If we do nothing, the human race will cease to exist in 50 years”
It would seem like a no-brainer to party hard for 50 years and then get your reward in heaven, thereby enjoying the best of both worlds: guilt-free, hedonistic pleasure here on Earth and eternal bliss in the hereafter. All of which would have been fine until the global warming advocates started insisting that climate change was a “moral issue.” Talk about a buzz-kill. You mean to tell me my chances of getting into Heaven depend on whether or not I recycle and own a Prius? Luckily, both religions provide you with an out. Christianity has confession and Environmentalism has carbon credits. Either way you’ve got a way to absolve yourself of your sins and still make it past the velvet rope into the big Hard Rock Cafe in the sky.
Advantage: Draw

Punishment for Sins: “Plagues, floods and eternal damnation” vs. “Plagues, floods and having to hear Laurie David say, ‘I told you so.’”
Suddenly, endless hellfire looks a lot more appealing. If the climate change folks are correct, you’ll probably be used to the heat by that time, anyway.
Advantage: Christianity

Official Bible of the Religion: The Bible vs. An Inconvenient Truth
Both books contain are filled with scary prophecies and wild tales about a great flood. If you can believe two of every animal fit on the Ark, then you probably don’t have any problem with the Statue of Liberty being under water in your lifetime. The main difference: the Bible wasn’t pretending to be a scientific presentation. Goodie bags at the Oscars after-party don’t match free food and wine provided by Jesus at the outdoor preach-fest at the Sea of Galilee.
Advantage: Christianity

Most Famous Betrayer: Judas vs. Dr. Claude Allegre
Judas obviously had a better public relations firm since, even 2000 years later, his name is still synonymous with “betrayal” while few people outside of climate science have even heard of Dr. Allegre. At least Judas also got 10 pieces of silver out of the deal. Dr. Allegre appears to have switched positions due to scientific integrity.
Advantage: Christianity

Drastic Method Proposed for Dealing with Non-Believers: The Spanish Inquisition vs. Proposed “Nuremberg” Trials for Climate Change Skeptics
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. On the other hand, attempts to forcibly silence climate change skeptics can be expected to appear with unsettling frequency in today’s news headlines. There is still debate in the Catholic Church about whether it was appropriate to apologize for the Inquisition. Apologies from heavy-handed climate change advocates won’t be coming anytime soon. Faced with the choice of being stretched on the rack or being forced to use fluorescent bulbs, it makes sense to lay out a little cash ahead of time for more expensive lighting. We can only hope that 600-years from now a comedy sketch group will be able to bring some humor to the global warming debate. Until then, it’s every heretic for himself.
Advantage: Climate Change Environmentalism

Religion’s Benevolent Outlook Doesn’t Extend To: Gays vs. Michael Crichton
Being shunned, being vilified, encouraged to under go “deprogramming,” being denied basic rights . . . these are just some of the actions taken against those considered to be in violation of the religion’s moral law. Not that there’s anything wrong with being Michael Crichton . . .
Advantage: Climate Change Environmentalism

There you have it. Christianity looks to have the edge on paper, but it should be a good fight. And the best part: we’ve all got ringside seats.

global warming, climate change, Christianity, environmentalism, environmentalism as religion, Michael Crichton, George Michael, Laurie David, Wen-I Chang, Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa, Spanish Inquisition, Judas, Jesus, Claude Allegre, Sunnis, Shiites, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake La Motta

How green is my Napa Valley?

As the story goes, Wen-I Chang became an environmentalist in 1999 when he couldn’t get a glass of water in a California restaurant due to a water shortage. He decided to cut his time in the shower every day down from eight minutes to two minutes. Even better, Chang figured he could also become an environmental capitalist and began building green hotels.

His latest venture is the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa. The hotel features waterless urinals, solar lighting and recycled paper. It also features tax relief from the town’s transient occupancy tax to the tune of one million dollars over three years.

It’s a little bit easier being green when the green is denominated in $50s and $100s.

Many other municipalities are following suit in promoting a “green” agenda. San Francisco is giving priority to green projects, allowing developers to start building in as little as four weeks versus a usual eight month wait for regular projects. Chang was able to waive a $100,000 environmental impact fee in constructing a previous hotel in Anderson, California.

Government subsidies of projects or industries is not new. Atlantic City subsidized the gambling industry and many cities subsidize their professional sports teams. The problem with subsidies is the same as with all other government “incentives” to business (including taxes and socially engineered legislation in the “public interest”) - it puts power over private enterprise in the hands of a few politicians instead of leaving it to the choice of individuals in the market place.

Inevitably, government involvement leads to inefficiency, increased bureaucracy and to higher costs in the future. Costs that taxpayers are asked required to subsidize further. A quick look at the education system, the Post Office and Amtrak will confirm that.

We applaud Mr. Chang’s efforts to build a hotel that is profitable and environmentally friendly. Mr Chang estimates he is saving 25% on electricity and 50% on water by adopting various green technologies.

Mr. Chang had a long history of building profitable regular hotels before becoming, of his own volition, an advocate of green construction. He, like others, is obviously capable of making a decision on his own.

Let’s leave the government out of it.

global warming, climate change, Wen-I Chang, Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa, Napa Valley, government subsidies, green technology, Post Office, education, Amtrak

“Il entre chaud ici . . .”

One of the fascinating things about the global warming debate is how everything is evidence for global warming and all the effects of global warming are disastrous.

Of course, most of this is hype but it is passed off as if it were mainstream science.

A short reality check would take care of at least some of the negativity surrounding global warming. The Sunbelt and the I-85 corridor from Raleigh, NC to Atlanta, GA are among the fastest growing areas of the country at the expense of the Northeast and Midwest. If increasing global temperatures are so bad, why do people continue to migrate to warmer places to live? Is it that all these people just couldn’t wait to experience global warming in 50 years, they had to experience it right now?

Earlier this month, I compiled a list of “record” cold articles with the warning that it would be a good idea to keep them in mind when we started hearing all the hot temperatures = global warming headlines this summer. Funny thing, we didn’t even have to wait that long.

The following article from Breitbart.com is a typical example of how much nonsense is presented as if it was common knowledge:

Hottest April in France since 1950
France this year had its hottest April since 1950, with the average temperature four degrees Celsius higher than the usual 10 degrees (50 Fahrenheit), the national weather office said Monday.

In the northern half of France, averages recorded between the first and the 24 of April were between 8 and 12 degrees higher than the seasonal norm, said Meteo France.

1950 was the year reliable temperature measurements from 22 stations across France were begun.

Record April temperatures across Europe have led to fears of drought.

Amid growing fears over global warming, experts say average temperatures have already risen 0.74 degrees Celsius over the past century and predict that they will rise another four degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

Smuggled into the article here is the not-so-implied connection between France’s hot temperatures and global warming. If record hot temperatures in France signal global warming, shouldn’t record cold temperatures in New York be given equal weight as evidence of global cooling?

If the planet was cooling in March and warming in April, there’s only one conclusion we can draw . . . Mother Earth has malaria.

Okay, both the “cold” evidence and the “hot” evidence are equally as preposterous as jumping off points as proof of any kind of direction of climate change.

To make matters worse the author of the article engages in one last bit of sleight-of-hand before signing off. He/she notes that temperatures have warmed about three-quarters of a degree in the last century and somehow manages to say experts “predict” that the temperature is going to warm four degrees in the next century.

The global warming debate is far reaching enough that you could probably find an “expert” to say temperatures were going to warm 50 degrees over the next century.

But the reality of the situation is that it is simply ludicrous to assume, as a matter of course, that the warming rate of the last century is suddenly going to become five times as great over the next century.

For even more perspective, let’s take a look at the projected global temperature changes from a suite of models cited in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note that the blue line near the bottom of the ranges is simply the straight line extrapolation of observed temperature changes.

No one has accused the IPCC of having anything approaching a skeptical bias toward the question of global warming and yet not a single one of the models chosen for inclusion in the report breaks the four degree barrier.

Certainly it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on anyone arguing that the observed rate of temperature increase of the past 25 years (which is an already accelerated rate when compared to the past century’s increase) is going to do anything more than continue at the current pace.

At the current rate, the global temperature will increase over the next 100 years by a little over one degree Celsius or roughly the increase seen over the last 150 years.

Remember how New York sank under the ocean in the last century, how millions of species died out and how many wars were started over dwindling food supplies? Yeah, me neither.

Doom sayers have been around since the time of the Pharaohs. The French even have a saying for it: “La plus ca change, la plus c’est la meme chose.”

global warming, climate change, France, bikini, IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, prophets of doom, doom sayers, malaria, Mother Earth,