From Global Cooling to Global Cooling

Back in the 1970s, Time magazine and other major media outlets published a series of articles about the coming ice age. For those of you who have forgotten, or are too young to have experienced this environmental fear campaign, I kid you not. On June 24, 1974, they published an article titled, "Science, Another Ice Age?" By 1977, it was a done deal, as indicated by their cover story, "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age," illustrated here.

But it was also in 1977 that scientific opinion started to shift toward global warming. In early 1978 the New York Times reported that a poll of climate scientists found them evenly divided on whether there would be warming, cooling, or no particular change. But the balance among the handful of top experts had shifted strongly toward the likelihood of warming.

The climate change issue became more politicized in the 1980s, as more and more people became aware of the issue. But not everyone thought more greeenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, were a bad thing. The most comforting ideas came from a respected scientist, Sherwood Idso, who published arguments that greenhouse gas emissions would not warm the Earth or bring any other harm to climate. Better still, by fertilizing crops, the increase of CO2 would bring tremendous benefits. His book, Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? came down entirely on the side of Friend. In his opinion, the increase of CO2 "is something to be encouraged and not suppressed."

The controversy over climate change continued throughout the 1990s until today, culminating in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. At this point, Gore's position was that the debate was over, that global warming was a fact. This lasted until we found out that some of the researchers cooked some of their books, and not all the data was correct, nor was all the analysis done correctly. In fact, some of the data is missing. This has been referred to as ClimateGate, a huge cover-up.

Then the climate began to show signs of change again, but this time cooling instead of warming. When the Obama administration took over in 2009, global warming was no longer the preferred term; climate change or disruptive climate change became the new descriptive terminology.

But we're now back to where we started. The next event will be global cooling, some predict. As James Delingpole writes:

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist…. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations. [emphasis mine]

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

With so many people and governments pushing for de-carbonization, and the taxes and policies that have been and would be put in place, can we really believe which way the climate is going? Is cutting back on carbon dioxide a good thing?

Al Gore's global warming scare may turn out to be the biggest hoax of the century. But I think if we just wait a few decades, it might be back in vogue. In the meantime, my message to my government: You can no longer use global warming as an excuse to steal more of my money.

And by the way, where is Al Gore?

California Cows?

Wonder why some states, like California, are a bugetary and legislative nightmare? Well, from the Slatest:

A state budget was due three months ago, but California lawmakers have not been idle. Amongst their legislative handiwork this year: a bill that would bar foreign cows from appearing in California milk ads as California cows, reports the Wall Street Journal. The bill's author, Ted Lieu (D) said filming parts of the ads in New Zealand was "very misleading." The milk board denies using overseas bovines in place of California ones. "The only images of cows filmed in New Zealand are foreign cows, unhappy cows from all the world, auditioning to become a California cow," said the board's vice president of advertising. California lawmakers have also busied themselves with the creation of "Motorcycle Awareness Month," a "Cuss Free Week," and a "Lobster Management Enhancement Advisory Committee." Last but not least, state senators battled over a bill that would change the state rock. At the moment, it's serpentine, but Sen. Gloria Romero (D) wants to see it replaced. "We shouldn't have a known carcinogen as the California state rock," she said. The bill is currently stuck in committee.

The orginal appeared in the WSJ.

Is Obama from Planet X?

Yesterday, Obama said: "We've proposed to freeze discretionary spending for three years, to start whittling down some of the debt that I inherited."

Please, don't let facts get in the way of still blaming Bush for your troubles.

The recession is over?

The recession was over in June of 2009. That is one way of putting it. More accurately, one would say that Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, which was in a free-fall, bottomed out around June 2009 and began rising again. But we are not yet out of the recession.

The recession, in my opinion, is not "over" until we reach both GDP and employment levels of 2007. We are not there yet. If the government would get out of the way, the recovery would be faster.

Randall Hoven, who in April called the "end" of the recession as June 2009, has this to say about the current situation:

There are two hypotheses, at least. One hypothesis is the standard story of the government-as-savior crowd. TARP and other bailouts fixed the financial crisis and Obama's stimulus stopped the economic recession that resulted. Without either one, things would have been worse, much worse.

Here is another hypothesis. We had a recession, just like the other 10 times since World War II. As in every other such case, this recession would have ended in about a year if government had done nothing in particular. But this time, the extra costs and uncertainties caused by government "fixes" in fact prolonged and deepened this recession and threatened a double-dip or stalling out of economic activity.

Neither hypothesis can be "proved," since all we know is what government did and what happened. We do not know what might have happened had we done something else.

But here is my take. The times we let government do the most to "fix" a recession, meaning the Great Depression and our current Great Recession, were the very times the economy did the worst. When government let things more or less alone, the economy recovered fairly quickly and with minimal damage.

We also have the academic studies by, of all people, Christina Romer, Obama's initial chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, that say fiscal policies (e.g. government spending or "stimuli") did not get us out of the Great Depression or any of our post-war recessions.

The analogy is bleeding a patient. If the doctors bleed a patient and he gets better, they take credit. If the patient gets worse, the doctors say he was not bled enough.

Paul Krugman is the quintessential Dr. James Craik of our day. Krugman seriously believes that Japan's problem was that it was not bled enough! Enough stimuli to cause a debt of 200% of GDP, highest in the developed world, resulting in two decades of near non-existent growth, and Krugman still says more bleeding needed. (Do facts ever matter to these guys?)

I think, at this point, we have enough evidence for both bleeding as a medical cure and fiscal stimulus as an economic cure that we can stop killing patients by bleeding them to death.

Government needs to get out of the way. Government can't manage the economy, a fact proven by history over and over again.

Why Nancy Pelosi should be fired

Remember when she said that Congress had to pass the health care bill so they could find out what was in it?

Well, that was enough for me to want her out, but now she's really stuck on stupid.

“What I believe the American people deserve is a tax cut for the middle class,” Pelosi said. “And without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we’re going to do is to say at the end of the day the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place, and that’s what I have to say on the subject.”

Really? You propose cutting my taxes? But extending the Bush tax rates is not a tax cut. Repeat after me: This is not a tax cut. Get it? Let me explain. If taxes go down, that's a tax cut. If taxes remain the same, that is NOT a tax cut. And if they go up, that is a tax increase. Easy, huh? Not for Pelosi. But I think she is actually twisting the language on purpose. How about this: She's a liar.

And the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts? What Obama tax cuts? Is she living on the same planet?

People of San Francisco: Fire this woman, please.

Why Harry "The War is Lost" Reid should be fired

This shows just how big Reid's ego and elitist attitude have grown. In praising Chris Coons, Democrat nominee for Senate in Delaware, who will face Christine O'Donnell, Reid called him "my pet" as a way of praising him. Twice! The Hill reports that he made the remarks on the Capitol steps.

"I'm going to be very honest with you - Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate," Reid said.

Perhaps Reid is under the mistaken impression he is a revered national figure, and that voters in a state on the other side of the continent from Nevada would regard it as an honor to be represented by his pet. Most sane people, however, would see this as a way of saying Coons is not his own man, and will be a tool of the unpopular Leader.

If that isn't enough, Reid wrote for The Hill Tuesday he is adding the DREAM Act into the Defense appropriations bill that will be taken up by the Senate next week.

The DREAM Act would give special amnesty status to illegal aliens attending college, putting them on a path to citizenship. It also includes provisions for those in this country illegally who would serve in the military.

The appropriations bill is already in big trouble as it seeks to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gays from openly serving in the military -- long before the study of the impact to the military has been completed.

Sen. John McCain said yesterday about Reid's manipulation:

"This is turning legislation related to our national defense and military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through the Senate," he said. "What's worse, the majority leader is pushing this controversial agenda under the cover of supporting our troops, knowing that the National Defense Authorization Act is a must-pass bill, and whatever else is in it will inevitably become law as a result."

Then Reid comes back to defend his antics:

Sen. McCain should know better than anyone that patriots who step up to serve our grateful nation should be offered a path to citizenship, and that anyone who volunteers to serve should be welcomed regardless of their sexual orientation."

Sen. Reid, there are no illegal immigrants serving in the military, to the best of my knowledge, and I spent 25 years in the Air Force. If they are, they have well-forged documentation, which would probably land them in a military prison if caught (the military takes a dim view of fraud). At the very least, they would be given a less-than-honorable discharge. However, if you're talking about giving those who were brought here under 15 years of age by their parents, and have clean records, and qualify for military service, and if they are willing to serve, that they are then given a path to citizenship, I'd be OK with that. But college? Not so sure on that one. And I really don't care about sexual orientation, unless you flaunt it in my face.

In addition, the Defense appropriations bill as currently constituted also provides for elective abortions to be performed at military hospitals. You know what? If some woman wants to abort her child, go for it. But I do not want to support that with my tax dollars.

Will the good people of Nevada please fire this guy in November?