Gingrich Slams CNN's King

I think Newt Gingrich might come close to approaching my level of contempt for the so-called “profession” of so-called “journalism”:


Newt, I really applaud you for that takedown!
WELL DONE!

A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

You know the Dims have REALLY jumped the shark when even the New York Times calls them out for their regulatory insanity!

Quoting [gasp] The New York Times:

“When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law…

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.”

Click the image & read the rest:

Want some reality-based solutions?
Develop our vast domestic resources
Stop being so gullible on the topic of climate change.
Don’t fall for the lies spread by fracking hysteria mongers.

New Entry for 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

Quoting Bernard Goldberg
(emphasis is mine):

“Back in 2005 I wrote a book called 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America – and Al Franken is #37. It was about the chuckleheads in our culture and politics who were, well, screwing up America…

If I were updating the book now, in 2012, there’d be a lot of contenders for the list – almost everybody on MSNBC, for example – but no one would deserve to be there more than the new Democratic National Chair … Debbie Wasserman Shultz. She would make the list – maybe even topping it at number one – if for no other reason than she’s breathtakingly obnoxious. Every time she opens her mouth, you have to figure that it’s a vote for some Republican – ANY Republican. What were the Democrats thinking when they picked her as the face and voice of their party? By the way, I’m not ruling out the possibility that’s she’s a mole for the GOP, that she’s there because of some really, really cool Republican dirty trick.”

I could not agree more!
Click the image & read the rest:

117 Year Flat Temperature Trend in Texas

The previous post examined the lies surrounding the 2011 Texas drought. Most of the propagandists exploiting that drought also made hay about 2011 recording the second highest Texas temperatures on record.

Here are a few “minor” details the propagandists would rather ignore:

1) Peer reviewed science has found a 30% warming bias in NOAA temperature data.

2) The hottest year on record in Texas was 1921.

3) The entire 117 year temperature record shows an absolutely FLAT temperature trend rate of 0.00F per decade (without accounting for the warming bias documented in point #1).

Click the image to enlarge it:

Click here to reproduce the above chart.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Texas Drought is NOT Indicator of Climate Change

According to NOAA’s NCDC (see chart below), 2011 was the driest year on record in Texas.

As expected, the usual propagandists are exploiting this drought to the hilt. The following Google search currently results in almost 5 million results:
Texas drought "global warming" OR "climate change"

But, there are a few “minor” details about that NCDC data which the utterly dishonest propagandists deliberately ignore. Such as:

1) The second driest year was 1917 (with 0.7% more precipitation than 2011). The record high precipitation was set in 1919 (just two years later).

2) The third driest year was 1956 (with 4% more rain than 2011). The very next year (1957) witnessed the 8th highest precipitation in the 117 years of available records.

3) The precipitation trend rate since 1895 shows Texas precipitation is increasing at a rate of 0.02 inches per decade (about as flat a trend line as you can get).

So, history suggests that Texas will probably recover from this drought in a year or two (by which time, the utterly dishonest, purely political propagandists will be telling some new set of bald faced lies).

Click the image to enlarge it:

Click here to reproduce the above chart.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Does Wind Power INCREASE CO2 Emissions?

1) Let’s start by noting that the global hysteria over CO2 emissions is utterly unjustified.

2) We already know that Ethanol did exactly the opposite of everything it was purported to do.

3) Now, we see (below) that wind power (also heavily subsidized by governments) may very well do the same.

Quoting Dutch physicist C. le Pair:

“Wind generated electricity requires back-up capacity of conventional power stations. This capacity is required to deliver electricity to consumers when wind supply is falling short. To have the non-wind power stations ramp up or down to compensate for the stochastic wind variations causes extra efficiency loss for such power stations…

Wind energy easily costs more than it yields, not only in monetary terms, but also in non-sustainable energy use. Thus it will easily increase rather than decrease CO2 emission.”

Click the image & read the rest:

Click here for commentary from the Far Left U.K. Guardian.

Click here for the Civitas Report
Click here for more on wind power follies.

80 Year USA Cooling Trend for December

1) This post deals with USA temperatures.
2) Click here to address global temperature trends.
3) Click here to reproduce each NOAA graph below.
4) Note the warming bias (about 30%) in NOAA data.

80 Year USA Cooling Trend for December.
Click the image to enlarge it:

Please! Tell me again who thinks it is a good idea to utterly waste $45 TRILLION in order to pretend we can micromanage climate change. Kyoto has already PROVEN that we can waste all the money we want and we will not even come CLOSE to changing the global temperature in any way which could even be measured.

Furthermore, history tells us that the estimate of $45 TRILLION would balloon into at LEAST a full order of magnitude above that figure.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.