Gay Patriot Header Image

More Bizarro-World Economics

Remember this promise: “We’re going to solve the health care crisis by adding millions and millions of poor people to the health care system. We’re going to force insurers and providers to provide more services to them. But this will result in massive savings, affordability, and lower costs for everyone!”

Yeah, that.

Well, those same Bizarro-World Economists are making a new promise: “We’re going to solve global warming by putting severe limits on the use of carbon-based fuels. We’re going to put severe limits on industry to force them to emit less carbon. But this will result in “co-benefits” that result in economic growth and prosperity for all!

How well do you reckon that will work out?


[Is "Co-Benefit" even a word?]

Climate change is real

…It’s just probably not man-made.

Bruce re-tweeted this graphic from Sam Thiessen’s stream. I don’t necessarily agree with its exact argument about volcanism. But it is a nifty reminder that we’ve always had climate swings – and our latest swing is within the natural norms:

swings in global temperatures, 2500 BC to 2007 AD

From what I understand (feel free to update me/everyone in the comments), the man-made CO2 increases are insufficient to explain any of these swings, and recent atmospheric measurements show a distinct *lack* of effects or “signature” that should come from any CO2 Greenhouse effect.

Given that, and given the normality of global climate change, there is precious little reason to blame it on humankind. The major advocates of Blaming Man are people with axes to grind: they want to keep getting their multi-billions of research & conference grants, they want their companies to be given government subsidies, they want world socialism, etc.

The Senate Democrats’ Global Warming Slumber Party

Liz Warren’s hair braiding was a big hit (her people are really good at that). But overall, the Democrats’ all night slumber party to stop the climate from changing was basically a command performance for their billionaire donors, who stood off to the sides clapping “Dance, puppets, dance!” The donors hope the Democrats will pass more “Climate Change” legislation; i.e. more billions in borrowed money pouring into the pockets of wealthy donors, as with Solyndra, Fisker, GrennTech Automotive, and A123 Batteries. However, most analysts conclude the exercise was just a bunch of hot air; despite their large senate majority, Democrats are not proposing the radical climate change legislation their donors demand… yet.

Personally, I’m just grateful there were no erotic pillow-fights. Senate Democrats aren’t exactly eye-candy.

Last Week in Global Warming

In case you missed these (as I had):

1) Climate scientist Roy W. Spencer‘s takedown of the Global Warming ‘Nazis’:

On February 20th, the noted meteorologist, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, fed up with being called a “denier” of global warming, posted a commentary on his blog titled “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis.”

“When politicians and scientists started calling people like me ‘deniers’, they crossed the line. They are still doing it,” said Dr. Spencer. “They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.” The Holocaust happened, but global warming’s latest natural cycle ended about 17 years ago and, as a lot of people have noticed, it has been getting cold since then.

“Like the Nazis,” said Dr. Spencer, “they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause…”

2) Greenpeace co-founder questions ‘Climate Change’ ideology. From Breitbart’s coverage:

Mr Moore, 67, told a U.S. Senate Committee: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

“Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

…”I describe the climate change movement as a combination of an extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. It’s a very, very dangerous social phenomenon. It causes them to think they have the right to dictate what we do.”

More from the Washington Times coverage: (more…)

The Perspective Gap and Fox News

My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past.  But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.

Naturally the online leftist rag Salon can’t understand why anyone would feel upset or bothered by the direction of the country in the era of the glorious Obama, and so one of its contributors, Edwin Lyngar, has written a laughable piece about “elderly white rage” which places the blame on that favorite bogeyman of the contemporary left, Fox News.   I learned of the article when various liberals and leftists I know–including one I’ve taken to calling a MINO (a moderate in name only)–linked to it on social media.  I just glanced past it until one of them approvingly quoted one of the more ridiculous passages from the article.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not elderly, nor am I viewer of Fox News.   I mostly avoid the whole TV news genre, preferring to get my information from other sources.  The full title of the article reads: “I lost my dad to Fox News: How a generation was captured by thrashing hysteria.”  The author, who describes himself as “overeducated in the humanities” with both an MFA in Creative Writing from Antioch University (not exactly a bastion of conservative thinkers) and an MA in Writing from the University of Nevada, Reno unwittingly demonstrates the way shallow generalizations count as somehow being deep thought by those who advocate a politically correct perspective.

As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and  unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations.  Let’s start with the opening paragraph:

Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation.  They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.

Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.”  Say what?  That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning.  Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals.  And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable.  Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously.  Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.

The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:

enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.

When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po


The left-wing Apocalypse

City Journal has a wonderful piece from Pascal Bruckner on “climate change” as the left-wing version of the Apocalypse: a dogma, anti-technology, impervious to reason, wherein Gaia (the new left-wing God) rains destruction upon humanity as punishment for its sin of not living by leftism.

Around the turn of the twenty-first century, a paradigm shift in our thinking took place: we decided that the era of revolutions was over and that the era of catastrophes had begun…

How did this change happen? Over the last half-century, leftist intellectuals have identified two great scapegoats for the world’s woes. First, Marxism designated capitalism as responsible for human misery. Second, “Third World” ideology, disappointed by the bourgeois indulgences of the working class, targeted the West… The guilty party that environmentalism now accuses—mankind itself, in its will to dominate the planet—is essentially a composite of the previous two, a capitalism invented by a West that oppresses peoples and destroys the earth…“There are only two solutions,” Bolivian president Evo Morales declared in 2009. “Either capitalism dies, or Mother Earth dies.”

So the planet has become the new proletariat that must be saved from exploitation—if necessary, by reducing the number of human beings…

There’s more.

Via NRO (Stanley Kurtz), who delves into a different angle: how left-wing environmentalism lets rich, white college kids join the ranks of the oppressed. “Global warming allows the upper-middle-class to join the proletariat, cloaking erstwhile oppressors in the mantle of righteous victimhood.”

Global Cooling

A few days old, but it deserves wider acknowledgment. “A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.”

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles…

…The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013…

…changing predictions have led to the UN’s climate change’s body holding a crisis meeting…

I’ll bet they have. Global Warmism is a Big business on its own, as well as a key justification for Big Government. They all gotta protect their funding and profits.

More here:

Arctic ice in August, 2013 much larger than 2012

Why release global warming speech to liberal supporters (before delivering it)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:02 pm - June 25, 2013.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Random Thoughts


The public won’t officially see or hear President Obama’s climate change speech before he delivers it this afternoon at Georgetown University, but liberal supporters already have it — and are even commenting on it hours in advance.

Did W ever release a speech to conservative supporters before delivering it?  Just askin’.

Wouldn’t have thought a post-partisan kind of guy would do a thing like this.

As Gabriel Malor notes at Ace:

The President, still in search of a topic change, will today give a speech about global warming. He’s going to sidestep Congress and crack down on power plants via the EPA.

Seems like the guy is trying to rally his liberal base.  Wonder why that is.

Al Gore: Romney-rich

From Bloomberg[1]: Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat

In 1999, Al Gore…had a net worth of about $1.7 million…In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million [of which Gore] grossed an estimated $70 million…

Two weeks later, Gore exercised options, at $7.48 a share, on 59,000 shares of Apple Inc. stock…about a $30 million payday…

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900 percent increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation,”…

Gore also had his share of flubs, most of them in his efforts at green-tech investing…

The article goes on to report praise of Gore – from people who likely got money or power by being connected with him. And to give numerous examples of Gore making money from, in essence, being well-connected. Here is one pair:

After losing to Bush [in 2000], he had enough wealth by March 2008 to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group…founded by his buddy, Canadian billionaire Jeffrey Skoll…

By the time of the Capricorn investment, he was already starting to rake in cash from Generation Investment Management – - a fund that incorporates “sustainability” into its investment approach. [ed: I read that as government "green" subsidies] Gore co-founded GIM in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director David W. Blood. [ed: Goldman-Sachs are top Obama donors]

Public filings show that in 2008 through 2011 London-based GIM racked up almost 140 million pounds ($218 million) in profits to be split among its 26 partners.

There are more examples; you can read the whole thing. What I find interesting is:

  • The latest confirmation that, actually, Democrats are the party of the super-rich.
  • The Gore-Romney contrast; how each man got rich. Romney did it by adding to the economy’s productive power[2]. Gore did it by exploiting his connections to the American government’s power and largesse, and also by pandering to the prejudices of various anti-Americans.[3]


Something positive

Americans still love the Second Amendment. Obama’s efforts to demagogue gun rights aren’t really working.

UPDATE: I’m also grateful this morning that America is still far from being as bad as Venezuela.

And yesterday, a Reuters article showed that Global Warming hysteria may be starting to recede, even among some climate scienticians:

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

“My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years,” said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

UPDATE: In latest news, America is also still not Argentina.


There was a LOT of Global Warming interrupting our drive from Spartanburg to York in South Carolina this afternoon.

An hour drive took two hours. And my goodness, do people in the South NOT know how to drive!!!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)




Our Agenda-Driven Press Corps

In his post yesterday about the Los Angeles shooter, Jeff pointed out the noteworthy lamestream media silence on certain key elements of the shooter’s manifesto.  Indeed, as Noah Rothman notes today at Mediaite: When crazed shooters can’t be linked to the Tea Party, the media displays admirable restraint.  The story of the shooter in Los Angeles, in fact, is–like several other recent shooters–only of interest to the press corps to the extent that it helps feed the narrative about “gun violence” and the need for more gun-control.  Elements of the story that don’t fit with the narrative are omitted, and especially those elements that contradict the narrative or help to fuel competing narratives.  Because the Los Angeles shooter’s manifesto complains about perceived “racism,” this could theoretically turn into a story about how the racial grievance industry has created a monster, but of course it never will because that is not an agenda the media has any interest in promoting.

Most of the times these days it seems that the press corps is pushing several different agenda items at one time, and news stories are only of interest or worth covering to the extent that they help advance one of those agenda items.  Rather than report the facts and let things fall where they may, the press tries to shoehorn as many stories as possible into the service of one agenda item or another.   The other day, for instance, I woke up to this story on NPR explaining that:  “The gun violence that scars some Chicago neighborhoods has been a plague for one woman. Shirley Chambers first lost a child to gunfire in the mid 1990s. In 2000, a daughter and a son were shot to death just months apart. On Monday, Chambers buried her last child.”  The story could have focused on the horrible failure of gun-control in Chicago, it could have talked about the problems with gangs in the city or crime related to drugs, it could have talked about the plight of inner-city blacks caught up in a dysfunctional culture, but it didn’t do anything like that.  No, the story had to be forced to fit the current narrative about the evils of “gun violence.”

But it’s not just “gun violence.”  As I write, a huge winter storm is bearing down on the Northeast.  When I spent a few years in New England in the 1980s, this sort of thing was to be expected and was known simply as “winter.”  These days, every storm of any magnitude is a big story, people are encouraged to panic and to scurry about, and inevitably, the articles begin to appear linking the storm to “climate change.”

Other common themes of note these days include the repeated focus on “bullying” as a way of pushing “anti-bullying programs” and “anti-bullying” legislation.  Hence, this horrible story is of interest to the media because it is seen as a way of advancing the “anti-bullying” agenda.  In years past, it may have been reported simply as a brutal fight in a school yard, but not any more.   I’m curious to know more about the attacker, but the story doesn’t tell us, nor does the journalist who wrote the story have any interest in reporting what the actual issues in this case are, because doing so would only undermine the “anti-bullying” agenda.  Even NFL cheerleaders are of interest largely to the extent that they can help advance the cause.

And of course, gay issues are another big agenda item for the press corps, but only insofar as gays and lesbians can be portrayed as either victims (of hate or discrimination or abuse) or as inspiring and selfless humanitarians.  Hence, this story about a supposedly “gay” dog in Tennessee was picked up by the national press because it helped advance the narrative that people in “red states” are stupid bigots who hate gays;  in truth, it is really a story about how there are people in all states who shouldn’t own dogs either because they are irresponsible and self-centered or because they have no knowledge or understanding of normal canine behavior.  Had the dog been euthanized after having been abandoned by a gangster or a meth addict in the inner city, you can be certain it wouldn’t have made the news.

Why don’t advocates of global warming making weather forecasts?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:15 am - January 30, 2013.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

As we shiver here in Los Angeles with unseasonably cold temperatures which seem to have spread beyond the Southland, I wonder again where is all the global warming the the various environmentalists around town have promised.

It seems that whenever I ask them if there’s a formula to forecast the weather for the coming years, they hem and haw and promise that it will be warmer, but few offer actual temperature ranges.  Last week on Powerline, John Hinderaker posted a piece suggesting why this may be.

John cited a number of failed predictions of the past, notably those made by Paul R. Ehrlich, asking whether the Stanford biologist was the most consistently wrong man in history.  in 1968, Ehrlich made many predictions, forecasting, for example, mass starvation in the 1970s and depletion of the world’s resources in the 1980s.  Those of us who survived those decades know just how wrong he was.

In an update to his post, John quips, “Note that the global warming hoaxers have learned from their forebears: they generally avoid making predictions that are falsifiable in a time frame that would cut off their gravy train.”  So that’s why they don’t offer such predictions; they don’t want to provide data which might allow skeptics to question their science.

Will legacy media give same attention to scientist recanting global warming alarmism as it gave supposed skeptic supposedly changing his mind (on global warming)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 pm - April 24, 2012.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Media Bias

In December, we reported (along with other conservative bloggers) that a Media-hyped global warming “skeptic” was no such thing.

Wonder if Yahoo! (who led with a story about said supposed skeptic) will similarly hype this story about a global warming alarmist recanting:

Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were ‘alarmist’.

Lovelock admits he “made a mistake”:

The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. . . .  We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world

[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

He told MSNBC that “he now thinks he had been ‘extrapolating too far.’”  (MSNBC link via Instapundit.)  Well, at least MSNBC has reported the story.  Wonder if other left-leaning media outlets will do the same.

Media-hyped global warming “skeptic” was no such thing

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:52 pm - October 30, 2011.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Media Bias

Yahoo! is leading this morning (PST) with tales of a global warming skeptic suddenly seeing the light — and embracing the gospel of climate change.

Interesting they should choose to feature this “skeptic” on a day like today (at least for those of you on the east coast):

Only there’s a problem with this, um, well, former “skeptic.” Problem is, as Don Surber found with just a few key strokes and mouse clicks. that the

. . . “skeptic” in question — physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley — embraced the theory of man-made global warming 30 years ago. An online search easily disproved his claim of skepticism. He co-authored a book, “Physics For Future Presidents,” that explained climate change among other things. Now he has re-branded himself a former skeptic — the better to sell global warming.

(Last link via Instapundit.)  Guess we just can’t let facts get in the way of liberal shibboleths.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sonicfrog who follows this stuff from closely than I encourages me to link “this article as an addendum to your post. One of the main scientists working on the BEST project is calling Muller to task for his recent publicity seeking actions. Here is a nice quote to show how vacuous the reporters claim of Mullers certainty really is:” (more…)

Al Gore Gets Angry at Himself? (in Public!)

That’s what this headline today on AOL’s homepage suggests:

Seems Mr. Gore’s none too happy with the state of public opinion:

Four years ago, when he won the Nobel, 71 percent said they believed that carbon emissions were causing global warming. Four years later, after a crushing recession, Climategate, and an epic failure at Copenhagen, only 44 percent say they believe it. Meanwhile, 69 percent say it’s likely that global-warming scientists have falsified climate research.

Capitalism: The Real Villain in the Saga of Global Warming

Like many conservatives, indeed, many of no particular political affiliation or ideological bent, I am skeptical of the creed of global warming for a great variety of reasons. First, the “science” seems more speculative than sound, based upon computer models dependent on dubious data. In addition, it just seems another excuse for liberals to push their favorite answer to all problems and to demonize their favorite villains. Not to mention the fact that some use this supposed science to explain all manner of extraordinary natural phenomena, as if earthquakes, cold spells, and hurricanes never occurred before the dawn of the Industrial Age.

It seems that every time liberals talk up the threat of global warming, they propose some vast new regulatory scheme, increasing the power of the state and reducing the freedom of individuals and enterprise. It’s all about control and vilifying that most hated economic system, capitalism. Yesterday, in writing about the president’s latest attack on “climate change deniers”, Doug Powers offers an interesting commentary on the dogma of global warming:

Gas prices are around $4 a gallon — and in some areas pushing $5 a gallon — and Chicago is seeing their lowest springtime temperatures since the 1940s. This means it’s the perfect time to talk about what needs to be done to combat global warming before our brains thaw out for a season called “summer” that used to be caused by earth tilt and the sun but is now blamed on capitalism.

Well, in the worldview of some, at least since the mid-nineteenth century, capitalism has been to blame all manner of ills — and not just global warming.

Judge offers (possibly temporary) boost to California economy

California, as I’ve noted before, has two major problems, the first is a budget out of balance.  And on that score, I commend the governor’s yeoman’s efforts to stop the flow of red ink.  On the second issue, however, he seems AWOL.   That problem relates to the burdens the state’s myriad taxes and regulations place on entrepreneurs.  Reduce some of those tax rates, eliminate certain business fees and cut the red tape and this state will (literally and figuratively) be back in business.

The Golden State would regain its luster.

The state’s most burdensome regulations are perhaps its cap-and-trade policy and other laws which have established some pretty draconian environmental standards.  And Governor Brown, while having become far more aware of the burdens government regulations place on job-creating businesses than when he first helmed the state, seems adamant in his support for these laws.

While he won’t budge, via Sister Toldjah (via Michelle Malkin‘s Buzzworthy), we learn that a judge has placed a hold on California’s global warming program:

A San Francisco superior court judge has put California’s sweeping plan to curb greenhouse gas pollution on hold, saying the state did not adequately evaluate alternatives to its cap-and-trade program.

In a 35-page decision, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith said the Air Resources Board had failed to consider public comments on the proposed measures before adopting the plan, which affects a broad swath of the state’s economy.

In particular, the judge noted, officials gave short shrift to analyzing a carbon fee, or carbon tax, devoting a “scant two paragraphs to this important alternative” to a market-based trading system in their December 2008 plan. . . . (more…)

Global warming is surely to blame

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:30 pm - February 8, 2011.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico:

Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region’s coldest weather in six decades.

Serengeti Zoo owner Alberto Hernandez says 14 parrots, 13 serpents, five iguanas, two crocodiles and a capuchin monkey died. He said Saturday that power failures cut off electrical heating at the zoo in the town of Aldama.

Emphasis added.  Coldest weather in six decades? Must be global warming. I mean, it has to be, right? Al Gore all but said as much. What else could it be?

You Mean, Himalayan Glaciers Aren’t Melting?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:02 pm - January 30, 2011.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

Remember all the dire warnings about how growing carbon emissions were warming the environment and causing the glaciers to melt, seas to rise and people to become mean.   Well, that turns out not to be the case, at least about the glaciers in the Himalayas:

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

You mean the ice flows are growing rather than shrinking!?!?!   Al Gore could not be reached for comment.