All just to satisfy the “Save the Planet” morons. Oh, year… and make Al Gore, GE and others billions. Let me see… the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans have been around about 2 100ths of 1 percent of that time. There’s about 5 billion years left. Given the probability of an impact with another celestial body, true natural climate change caused by the sun or any of the other potential changes to the Earth, I doubt that we need to worry about saving the planet…. we won’t be around long enough for the Earth to even notice.

CC

Sir, I hope you never get lei’d again!

Harry Schell on April 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Over the last year or so I have been taking an informal survey of a key news metric – Google news searches for the term “global warming.” A year ago, the ratio of alarmist/skeptical articles was close to 100/1. About six months ago, the ratio was 90/10, Two months ago it was 80/20, and today it hit 50/50 for the first time

INC on April 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay

And with the power of the filibuster — and numerous Democrats bucking his plan to make electricity costs “skyrocket” and tax coal plants out of business entirely — it’s possible, even likely, that cap and trade won’t survive. Obama had……

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

Agree with an earlier post. We’re mobilizing the citizenry alright! Climate change is a great example of One World Govt. proponents trying to take away our rights on the pretext of a hoax! We need to understand what’s at stake alright! The heritage of freedom and individual rights fought for by our Founders. Mobilize the citizenry: Tea Parties on 4/15.

Problem has come to a head now because we reached our credit limit…

Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 3:17 PM

And you can’t live on credit forever.

Doctor Zero on April 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I’m a systems analyst… and have been for many many years. One of the primary problems we have with a system is how do we measure success…

Current Economists use the GDP to measure success, which is, IMO, really dumb. The GDP basicly totals up the amount of money which changes hands in a given timeframe… it is not a measurment of production.

Thus, inflation actualy causes the GDP to increase, as people save less, and spend more, for subsistance. Also, going into debt artificialy inflates the GDP number… and economists and the government then say we’re doing well.

IMO we’ve had an unsustainble economy for a number of years… as we produce less… and buy more from overseas. We’ve exported our wealth, but by going into debt, the amount of money changing hands increased, and it “looked” like we had a healthy economy.

A better measurement would be Production, with the balance of trade, and debt thrown in… and if you measure that way, we’ve been hurting for years.

Problem has come to a head now because we reached our credit limit…

Badger40

It was a long time ago but I remember life itself was an economics class for this young married EM. Attic apartment in Darmstadt with tiny space heater in the kitchen and a beat up Volkswagen that my wife had to help push-start on cold mornings. Ah, the memories.

BTW, Doc. My offer still stands. I would really like to drink a few beers with you one day and pick your brain.

AOTC

Agent of the Cross on April 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Nothing would make me happier, assuming interstate travel is still allowed. I should probably put a smiley face after that… but I just can’t make myself hit the keys.

Yeah, people don’t understand that the health of an economy is better measured by it energy use, than by how much money is spent.

The more productive the economy, the more energy us used for that production… and the better the economy, the more excess wealth is availble to do things which also consume energy.

No modern economy has ever expanded when starved for energy…

But like borrowing our way out of debt… they think think they can expand the economy, by depriving it of energy… plain stupid.

Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

That’s a very profound observation. I think much of the enthusiasm for socialism and command economies comes from confusion between the ideas of “money” and “wealth.” Money is piles of paper and coin, or numbers on an electronic balance sheet. Obama can just wave his hand and create more of it. There’s little difficulty involved in printing up another trillion dollars worth of bills, or adding a few zeroes onto a computerized government-controlled bank account.

Wealth is what people do with money, and energy is an indispensable part of that. An advanced society with artificially restricted energy supply, or artificially inflated energy costs, is like a primitive society that lost half its horses to a plague, or finds half its laborers and warriors weak from malnutrition. Time is money… how productive is time spent in the dark? The pharaohs of Egypt had far more wealth than I ever will, but they could never have some of the things I can purchase with a tiny portion of my wealth, like Internet access, toothpaste, or aspirin. Energy is the essential multiplier that makes a 2009 dollar worth far more than an 1809 pile of gold, even when adjusted for inflation.

The $3.5 trillion is going to percolate and then explode like the monster in “Alien” somewhere down the line.

The over-50 demographic is among the most organized and enthusiastic block of voters in the country, and they remember Carter sittting there like an idiot, telling them to put on sweaters and turn down their heaters. The first whiff of that nonsense wafting from Obama will be the end of him. Most Democrat office holders remember Carter and remember that lesson, so cap and trade is in for a rough ride.

Doctor Zero on April 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Well said. But Obama has a different distraction in mind for them. Healthcare “reform”. He’ll appeal to their civic duty by saying cap & trade is “for the children” (never mind that they’ll be poorer children). At the same time, he’ll promise the old people better healthcare, managed by the government. Since they haven’t seen this scam yet, they might buy it.

Unless they talk to their Canadian friends when they visit for their annual healthcare needs…

“The Dow is up 1! The adults are in charge.”

This vote is extremely significant–there’s actuall a veto-proof majority against cap & trade on CO2. A lot of coal-state (and coal-burning) Democrats probably saw cap & trade as a massive transfer of wealth (via high electricity bills) from their states to other states and countries. Sanity has prevailed in the Senate.

Besides, a lot of northern and midwestern states are getting hit by lots of March and April snowstorms, and people there are probably HOPING for global warming.

I don’t think Specter will desert the filibuster on cap&trade–PA is a big coal state, and Specter will need votes from western PA coal country to be re-elected.

This could drive a stake through the Obama version of Hillarycare, because Obama was relying on cap & trade “revenues” to fund nationalized health care, and will people want skyrocketing power costs to get health care insurance?

To get an idea of the scale of cap&trade, most energy experts believe that a price of $30/ton of CO2 is needed to significantly effect energy choices. Assuming a thermal effciency of 35%, this comes out to about 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH) generated from coal, and about 1.7 cents per KWH from natural gas. For a typical household using 30 KWH per day, this means an increase of $30 per month in electric bills in coal-burning states. In addition, all businesses will pay higher electric bills, and pass on the extra costs to consumers. Subways and commuter rail lines will also pass on extra costs to consumers.

It would be also easier to enforce cap&trade on stationary sources (such as power plants) than mobile sources (cars and trucks) Would cap and trade penalize railways which use electric power, to favor truck transport, which is much less efficient? Hmmm, speaking of unintended consequences!

Doctor Zero on April 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Yeah, people don’t understand that the health of an economy is better measured by it energy use, than by how much money is spent.

The more productive the economy, the more energy us used for that production… and the better the economy, the more excess wealth is availble to do things which also consume energy.

No modern economy has ever expanded when starved for energy…

But like borrowing our way out of debt… they think think they can expand the economy, by depriving it of energy… plain stupid.

The over-50 demographic is among the most organized and enthusiastic block of voters in the country, and they remember Carter sittting there like an idiot, telling them to put on sweaters and turn down their heaters. The first whiff of that nonsense wafting from Obama will be the end of him. Most Democrat office holders remember Carter and remember that lesson, so cap and trade is in for a rough ride.

Doctor Zero on April 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

100% correct as usual, Doctor Zero. As a teen growing up during the Carter Administration, the US went from a world power to a pathetic toothless paper tiger. I told both of my boys (17 and 14) last year that if the “Dear Leader” was elected it would be the second coming of the Carter days. I was wrong. It’s going to be much, much worse.

BTW, Doc. My offer still stands. I would really like to drink a few beers with you one day and pick your brain.

AOTC

Doctor Zero on April 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

You should be a guest blogger when AP or Ed go on vacation. Few commenters are able to string together multiple paragraphs that are both informative and highly persuasive.

Professor Blather used to be that kind of poster, but I believe he enlisted in the military and he rarely posts comments anymore.