Global Warming - Brought to you by The Climate-Industrial Complex

If you've talked to me or read this blog at all in the past you are probably already aware of my stance on Anthropogenic Global Warming -- I think it's basically an overblown farce designed and presented by rich scare-mongers (like Al Gore) to give people something abstract to worry about and line their pockets with cash in the process.

Now the U.S. House and Senate are debating a European style "Climate Change" bill, complete with handouts to the worst carbon-emitters, coal companies, and this weekend the Copenhagen Climate Council is hosting the World Business Summit on Climate Change hoping, as Bjorn Lomborg writes in today's Wall Street Journal "to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December."

Lomborg continues:

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

So really, these businesses stand to gain significantly from radical (and radically expensive) climate change legislation being pushed on countries rich and stupid enough to sign their citizens up.

And don't believe for a second that these "green jobs" being "created" by the clean energy companies are free:

Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created. [My emphasis added.]

So with the global economy in the state that it is in (not so good), do we really need to be costing tax payers billions of dollars in additional taxes while at the same time ensuring that many more will join me in the ranks of the unemployed? That doesn't sound like good policy to me, it sounds like pandering to some self-serving interest groups.

President Dwight D Eisenhower famously worried about the Cold-War era Military-Industrial Complex that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." The same can now be said about the unholy alliance of self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners making up the new Climate-Industrial Complex.

*****
Also, I highly recommend Mr Lomborg's 2007 book, "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." Among other things, it is an eye opening look at how much good we could be doing with all the money we are throwing at global warming -- like eradicating malaria, providing everyone in the world with clean drinking water, or controlling AIDS.

Biden "guarantees" International Crisis

This may be one of "say it ain't so" Joe Biden's most significant slips of the tongue yet. Yesterday he let it slip that he believes that within six months of Obama's presumptive election the world will test us with an international crisis. He goes on to babble about the "little people" showing the way and ends trying to prop up the utter lack of experience his running mate possesses, but the important part was already out of the bag.

The rest of the world doesn't trust an Obama presidency. The rest of the world looks at an Obama presidency as an opportunity to exploit our new found weakness in leadership and judgement. The rest of the world looks to take advantage of an inept President Obama to further their totalitarian fantasies. I am honestly truly frightened of what an Obama presidency may bring to America and the world.

If you want a little more convincing, listen to these two clips from Glenn Beck's radio show Monday.
YouTube - Glenn Beck Radio - Biden "guarantees" International Crisis
YouTube - Glenn Beck Radio - Biden "guarantees" International Crisis 2
Glenn, as usual in my opinion, goes a little overboard on the fear and conspiracy, but the message remains valid.

Save the world this election. Vote republican.

Isn't GM was loosing market share? Not in Russia!

Evidently Reuters' Russian correspondent is not terribly familiar with American auto makers, that, or there has been some major restructuring going on that I somehow missed.

In the article "Russians laud size, not fuel economy at car show," published this morning at Forbes.com, Simon Shuster (apparently not the publishing house owned by Viacom- which is spelled differently anyway) seemed to claim that General Motors ("Chevy" to you normal folk) makes both the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Ford Focus.

...visitors on press day flocked to be photographed in front of GM's Jeep Grand Cherokee...

General Motors, whose fuel-efficient Ford Focus is the best selling foreign car in Russia...

[emphasis mine]

Now, they may do things a little differently over in Mother Russia, and I know they have a bad reputation for copyright, trademark, and patent violations, but I am nearly positive that Chrysler makes the Jeep Grand Cherokee and that Ford makes the Focus. I keep track of this sort of thing.

Silly Ruskies, cars are for capitalists! As is copy editing, apparently.

British Research Makes Amazing Discovery!

I was completely shocked when I read this headline from the London Daily Mail: "Petite, leggy women with big busts are the most sexually attractive, study reveals." I was apparently duped by our American media and Hollywood stereotypes into believing that guys liked linebackers. Lucky for me, the study revealed the hidden truth: "that women with low 'body masculinity' - who are short with long legs and a larger bust - are highly desirable to men."

Phew, well, I'm glad that's cleared up now. Thanks, no doubt, to a government sponsored "study." At least it was British taxpayer money.


Along the same (panty) lines... the hottest thing in underwear for the upcoming fall season is "vintage underwear that pays homage to Hollywood glamour and Fifties pin-ups."

Just thought you should know.

This week on the web

Here's a mish-mash of stuff that I accumulated over the past week that I mean to blog about, but never got the chance. I may have to start doing this every week, or at least when I think about it. It's kinda like James Taranto's Best of the Web Today on WSJ.com, but not daily, and quite a bit less clever. I may have to start doing this every week, or at least when I think about it.

Still uncomfortable with Obama and his elitist arrogance? You're probably just subtly racist. (link)

Steve Tobak explores the alternative-energy bubble on CNet news. "What, you don't believe that there's an alternative-energy bubble? Then you're just not paying attention." (link)

"With [Moqtada al] Sadr's 'retirement,' we've taken another long stride" towards a irreversable victory in Iraq. (link)

"Coffee Served Right" (wing) at the Conservative Café in Crown Point, Indiana. "Latte-swilling liberals welcome, too." (link) & (link)

"China breaks Olympic promises on rights, media, pollution" -- Are we supprised by this? (link)

Busweiser (Anheuser-Busch)'s takeover by Belgian InBev may have been motivated by European corporate taxes that are nearly half of what Anheuser-Busch payed in America. How does that happen?! (link)

"Suddenly being green is not cool any more" in Britian. (link)

Well, there ya have it. I read and posted those articles, so I think they're probably worth a little bit of your time to read. If you have some time, that is.

Can your afford it?

The saying used to go, "I can't afford to vote republican," but given Barack Obama's stated presidential goals, such as spending an additional $65 billion a year of American taxpayer money ($2,500 a year each) to "cut worldwide poverty in half," a wholly unrealistic goal in the first place, it would be much more realistic to sloganize, "I can't afford to vote Obama."

Read the IBD's series on Obama's ideas here.

Single Payer Healthcare, eh?

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

Sound like a good situation to you? It sure doesn't to me, but if it does, make sure you vote Obama this November. (haha)

Claude Castonguay, "the father of Quebec medicare," and consequently, the entire Canadian single payer healthcare system, now advocates giving a greater role to the long-shunned private sector. "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay.

Apparently, they were wrong. But don't tell liberal legislators and lobiests in the States that -- don't even try to break the delision that Big Government can fix everything for everyone, even when it has been demonstrated (in Canada and elsewhere) that it cannot.

British Woman Banned From Entering New Zealand Because She Is Too Fat

And you thought the United State's immigration laws were crazy!

Oh, Shit.

(Article)

Australia gives up on parenting

The Australian government recently announced a $189 million, taxpayer funded plan to curb online porn. Does that seem like they are overstepping their bounds by just a little? Since when was it government's duty to keep my dirty little courser off of porn sites?

And even though that $189 million is Australian dollars, it's still a big ol' chunk of money that could probably be better spent.

To take it one step further, the Australian Parliament is evaluating a proposal that would impose jail time on anyone caught "trafficking" pornographic videos. And by trafficking, they mean possessing five or more.

What happened to the Australia that wasn't a socialist nanny-state?