Don't Drink the Water

Since I was following this development, I came across this story.  The premise here is that because XTO was purchased by Exxon, that this will attract environmental consciousness to the practice of how they extract natural gas, because we all know that Exxon Mobil is the corporate embodiment of pure evil.  XTO injects chemical-laced water 1,000s of feet below the surface of the earth, this fractures the shale deposits, and the gas comes out.  Radical environmentalist, in their relentless quest to ensure that no resource is ever consumed, are worried that putting chemicals thousands of feet below the surface of the earth could contaminate the water tables that lie thousands of feet above the gas deposits.

Stories like this reaffirm my tendency to never take environmentalists seriously.  We are told by the climate doom-mongers that we need to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere, but when a company comes up with a viable alternative these environmentalists’ comrades in arms find some other ecopalypse for us to worry about.

A while back, my friend asked me if I thought global warming was just a big liberal conspiracy.  I think our rigourous scientists at the prestigious climatology department of East Anglia University have settled this matter.  However, my response to this question would be to look at the liberal solutions to any environmental “problem.”  For the average soft green, liberal, leftist, democrat environmentalist there is one obscenely predictable solution for preventing environmental doom: Exerting government power through regulation and taxation.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times regularly claims that clean-tech is the next big thing, and divorcing our economy from oil is this generation’s moonshot.  Then, rather than propose moonshot ideas, he usually comes to the conclusion that we need to start taxing carbon.

I have recently been reading Superfreakonomics, and the authors suggest that we can cool the planet by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from hoses suspended by balloons.  This would cost a couple hundred million dollars as opposed to cap and trade which would cost trillions.  This is a moonshot idea.  Of course to really come up with and execute a moonshot idea like this, we would actually need some scientists.

The Department of Commerce promotes job creation, economic growth, sustainable development, and

improved living standards for all Americans, by working in partnership with business, universities,

communities, and workers to:

1.  Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in the global

marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the nation’s economic

infrastructure;

2. Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and technology and an

unrivaled information base; and,

3. Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation’s resources

and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities.

Since the Commerce Department has been doing an excellent job at creating jobs, promoting economic growth building American competitiveness, we should be delighted that Gary Locke has been in China trying to figure out a way to encourage China curb its carbon emissions.  Guess who he thinks should pay for China’s emissions?

Chinese industry?  Nope.

Chinese taxpayers? Nope.

American Consumers?  Ding, Ding, Ding!  You guessed it.  While this was an inherently stupid statement to make from someone who appears to be inherently stupid, then it is nice to see that Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee sent a 14 question letter to Locke to explain his position.  It will be interesting to see Locke’s response, because any answer to these questions will only make Locke look more stupid than he already does.  Of course, he is backing off the statement now.

Surprisingly, the Chinese were in favor of this idea.  I wonder what they think would happen to the demand for all the cheap crap they produce if the prices were artificially inflated to cover the cost of carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, the chorus of third-world countries stating that they are not interested at all in destroying their economies with global warming quackery is growing louder and louder.

Sell outs

I was surprised when the Waxman Markey climate change ponzi scheme passed the House, that all three Utahn congressman opposed it.  Jim Matheson, Utah’s shining democrat, voted against it despite his reputation as something of an environmental crusader.  His statements against the bill can be read here.  

Matheson’s comments on the bill make me wonder what these 8 sell-out Republicans were thinking when they voted for the bill.  I need to point out, that Matheson believes we must fight climate change and reduce energy dependence, and his arguments against the bill can’t easily be dismissed as the rantings of an unbeliever who won’t accept the “facts” of scientific bullies.

He claims the bill will destroy the derivatives market.  The bill will create unfair regional transfers of wealth when not-so-windy states with a lot of coal (like Utah) have to pay windy states with no coal (like ???) to burn coal.  In short, his criticisms seem to worth considering, but Pelosi’s Congress seems pretty committed to hurry.  After all, they need to get as much crap sticking to the wall before Americans figure out what is going on.

For example, The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Alan Carlin, produced a report that was critical of current accepted truths of global warming science, and his report was entirely censored by the EPA.  You can read the emails discussing this blatant act of censorship.  You can also read the actual report that was censored.  Everyone at least ought to read the executive summary to get an idea of the kind of scientific evidence that is being censored and suppressed.  The rushed way in which this censorship occurred is characteristic of the way democrats and Obama in particular seem to be running things.  The cool college professor seems less concerned about hearing all sides of an argument and proceeding with the best available information.  

I can accept the fact that most Americans are ignorant or lazy, and so they are an easy group to swindle.  However, what I can’t understand is why some of my smarter friends pass off what is going to be another trillion dollar train wreck on the Obama/Pelosi one-way-track to bankruptcy.  If the science of global warming is so convincing and so sound, then why do dissenters need to be silenced and censored?  If someone is wrong, isn’t the best form of censorship to let them speak out?

The idea of anthropogenic global warming is more like a liberal’s wet dream than it is a liberal conspiracy.  To understand this claim, you have to understand the paradigm through which I view environmentalism.  Most Americans seem to view environmentalism this way:  Liberals are environmental crusaders that want to save the planet from the ravages of markets and industry vs. Conservatives who want to completely ignore the environmental impact of markets and industry as they greedily pursue profit.  This misrepresentation of the debate over environmentalism has atrophied the conservative side of the debate.

However, the modern environmentalist movement was started by a conservative, and despite the fact that conservative environmentalism seems to be an oxymoron to most, conservative environmentalism most likely has the best answers to today’s environmental problems than most liberal envirowackos.

Peter Huber’s book, Hard Green is probably the best book for laying out the conservative’s environmental sensibilities. For an example of how Huber thinks about environmental issues, you can read Bound to Burn. Here are some good quotes:
“Green jobs” means Americans paying other Americans to chase carbon while the rest of the world builds new power plants and factories.

Computer models demonstrated that [nuclear] meltdowns were highly unlikely and that the costs of a meltdown, should one occur, would be manageable—but greens scoffed: huge computer models couldn’t be trusted. So we ended up burning much more coal. The software shoe is on the other foot now; the machines that said nukes wouldn’t melt now say that the ice caps will.

We don’t control the global supply of carbon.

You can read the rest of the article to see the basic conclusion that I will also make.  Even if humans are contributing to an increase in carbon emissions, there is little that those who adhere to liberal ideologies can do to stop this.  Whether you call it a conspiracy or a wet dream, the reason why liberals cling to global warmingism and their regulatory guns is because liberalism wants to micromanage everything it possibly can.  From car companies, to banks, to molecules, modern liberalism is waxing quite confident that it can effectively manage just anything where markets have “failed.”  However, to the modern liberal, real results matter less than perceived ones, which makes global warming a perfect tool for psychological exploitation.  It is easy to see how labeling something that intends to control things as ephemeral as molecules and emotions as a conspiracy isn’t too far-fetched.  However, I’ll stick with my stance, that controlling the climate of the planet is just too juicy of an opportunity for the average liberal to pass up.

Meanwhile, the liberal’s solutions to prevent global warming does more to discredit the theory than any discussion of scientific evidence.

I am the kind of person that usually tries to ignore PETA. I also usually try to ignore my two-year-old when she engages in negative behavior to try to get my attention. I also tried to ignore the stray cat that my neighbors were feeding a few years ago when it used to climb on my patio and get fur all over my patio furniture. However, eventually I trapped the cat in an animal trap and called animal control. It wasn’t too long before I started getting threatening notes on my door from my neighbors to bring their cat back. I usually try to ignore threatening notes from psychotic neighbors, but sometimes negative behavior needs to be openly mocked. For some reason, people who really love animals are hardwired to become excessively crazy whenever someone who is indifferent or hostile to animals does something they don’t agree with. More to the point, I really love chocolate. If I am with people in a setting where chocolate is being served and someone there absolutely detests chocolate, I DON’T protest. I rationally conclude that there will just be more chocolate for me. Logical neural paths such as this seem to be severely underdeveloped in the brains of people who love animals. This neural underdevelopment is what makes a group like PETA so dangerous.

People whose decisions are driven more by pathos than logos can certainly surprise you with their idiocy. For example in this article, by Eric Snider we find that PETA is looking to buy SeaWorld. That’s just great. Apparently they are going to move all of the animals to a sanctuary and hopefully return them to the wild some day. The attractions that formerly featured animals will soon feature virtual reality shows of marine life in action. Sorry PETA, but SeaWorld is an animal rights love fest. Have they seen the lame show where cats do stupid things like walk across tight ropes. And these aren’t just any cats. These cats were rescued from shelters and taught to do tricks, so everyone go rescue a cat from a shelter.

Anyway, my point is that most of the animals in SeaWorld are pretty pampered. True, they are exploited for entertainment value by a matter of degree. However, this exploitation is minimal. Imagine what SeaWorld could be in a world without PETA. Has anyone ever seen killer whales toss penguins 30 feet into the air before eating them. I would pay a lot more to see a bunch of penguins dropped into Shamu’s tank than I would to see a bunch of overweight tourists get soaked.

Also, replacing real animals with virtual reality seems a little hypocritical to me. Why is it that PETA is so adamant that I experience the dirty reality of a slaughterhouse, but SeaWorld’s desire that I experience the reality of marine life is criminal? If PETA does get its way and manages to buy SeaWorld, I presume we have at least one last hope to see Shamu in action. We can cross our fingers that a network like Fox can manage to steal Shamu from PETA’s sanctuary and create a new reality TV series: Shamu vs. Wild.

You are probably thinking that the possibility of PETA buying SeaWorld is plenty of content for one blog post, but there is more. Apparently PETA is trying to get the British army to stop using bearskin for the hats worn by the guards at Buckinham Palace. Read here for more. Where PETA’s stance on this issue is predictably lame, I find the origin of these hats far more interesting. Apparently they are symbols of mockery towards the French. Apparently during the Battle of Waterloo, the French thought wearing these hats would psychologically disable their enemies with fear. I’m sorry, but that is so French. Instead of trying to win a battle by killing more of your opponent than they kill of you, the French try to win a battle by wearing funny hats. Anyway this got me thinking about how we can use more animals in the military. I know that if it wasn’t for the massive industry of turning pigs into glycerine for munitions, we probably would have lost WWII. I also know that we have genetically engineered dogs to smell explosives. There are also dolphins who have been trained to detect mines. Whoa… sorry. I forgot we are talking about PETA and the bearskin hats. It turns out, they want to replace this iconic piece of headwear with a synthetic substitute. I thought the dictionary’s definition for “synthetic” is “made from oil.” If this perfectly sound assumption is correct, then apparently PETA would rather substitute real bearskin with an oil byproduct thus accelerating global warming and solidifying the extinction of at least polar bears and possibly other animals. Great idea. In fact, it seems that PETA’s answer to everything is to replace reality with synthetics and virtual reality. Well, then PETA can figure out a way to turn the dog crap on my lawn into virtual reality dog crap. Or maybe they can replace the woodpecker that pecked a hole through my restaurant’s wall with a synthetic woodpecker. Or, better yet, maybe we can replace PETA with an army of animatronic robots, becuase PETA and reality don’t mix.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvooqbW9dz4

It might be time for the global warming alarmists to find a new spokes-animal for their cause.  Through semantic manipulation, global warming alarmists have done an effective enough job at convincing us that these bears are poor helpless creatures that can’t defend themselves against our carbon emissions.  This kind of semantic manipulation is probably what causes events like what happened in a German zoo yesterday.  Apparently a woman decided to jump into the polar bear enclosure, and not surprisingly she was attacked by these poor defenseless animals.  The published story doesn’t say what her motive was, but it is not very hard to fill in the gaps.  This story has liberal, envirowacko written all over it, and I think Al Gore should be held personally responsible for this attack.  Of course this isn’t the first attack of its kind.  It is kind of unfortunate that polar bear populations naturally exist so far away from liberal population centers.  At least nathab.com is offering trips to go see polar bears in their natural habitats.  This would be a great way to find a polar bear to hug.  I think all liberals should go, before these poor animals are extinct.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-xn46ZxBow

I think that global warming alarmists are catching onto the dangers of having the polar bear be their lead cute and furry pathosmonger.  After all, they are showing themselves to be remarkably resilient to a fluctuations in climate.

Global warming alarmists have found other animals that they can exploit.  The latest choice is perhaps a far better choice than the polar bear: The American Pika.

Cute Little Guy

The reasons why the North American Pika would make a better spokescritter are many:

• They mostly inhabit states in the West who produce and burn a lot of coal.  Finding a victim that is closer to home in these states might help shift public attention away from economic self interest.
• They mostly live between 8,000 and 13,000 feet.  That is pretty high up in the mountains.  Since their habitat is out of sight/out of mind, we will have to believe whatever the “scientists” tell us about their populations.
• Scientists report that pikas can die within an hour if the outside temperature reaches above 23°C (75°F). According to wikipedia.
• They have a high tolerance for liberal hugging them.  If you jumped into their cage in the zoo, they probably wouldn’t try to kill you.

That third point is the kicker.  How any species ever evolved in the Intermountain West that could die within an hour if the temperature gets hotter than 75 degrees is beyond me.  An animal who seems to be so easy to drive to extinction is a far better choice for a spokesvarmint than polar bears.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjQddAAjk9M

Followers of this blog know that I am a big fan of radical activism.  It is no surprise that I am therefore a big fan of the new show on Animal Planet called Whale Wars.  At first one might think that this show might be like a glorified version of a cockfight, where you watch sperm whales fight against killer whales.  Unfortunately, it is about a group of mostly Canadian and Australian animal rights activists who wander around the Antarctic oceans in search of Japanese whaling ships.  When they find Japanese whaling ships, a bunch of hooligan activists jump in a zodiac boat and go throw bottles of rancid butter onto the decks of the ships.  Sometimes they sneak onto the whaling ships, put a bag of burning dog crap outside the door, knock, and run away.

Where I agree that we need to stop the Japanese from whaling, I also believe that chasing them around in zodiac rafts and throwing rancid butter at them is pretty stupid.  However, it does make for some good t.v.  After all, if we don’t stop the Japanese from whaling what will be our back-up plan for when we run out of oil.  However, like all radical activist, the crew of the Steve Irwin (yep that’s their boat) pick pretty weak targets.  If Animal Planet wants to see their ratings go through the roof, they should send these noble activists to try and deter killer whales from eating the babies of gray whales.  The show also might be a little irrelevant since the following video seems to be evidence that the whales are taking things into their own hands, or flippers.  The voice on this video definitely sounds Japanese:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f18nqm_f7CE

Anyway, since this turns out to be a pretty good t.v. show in that it points out how stupid environmental activists can be, I figured why not translate the same formula into other shows.  For example, wouldn’t Man vs. Wild be much better if animal rights activists were sent to follow Bear Grylls and try to scare away the animals that he captures for food?  Not only would we see if Bear Grylls can outwit nature, he would need to outwit the ideologues first before he could capture animals and eat them.  If I were an advertiser, I would pay big bucks to promote a show where Steve Irwin’s Second-Mate, Peter Hammarstedt pairs off against Bear Grylls in various ecosystems in a Darwinistic duel.  Will Bear Grylls be able to ensnare Peter, so that he can have his way eating the wildlife in the area, or will the wily Hammarstedt occupy Grylls with his activist tactics and save the unsuspecting fauna from being devoured?

Peter Hammarstedt

Bear Grylls

To see a killer whale training camp, watch the following video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsN63PRCW8