« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Democrats in Congress: Carbon neutrality for you; not for us.

To quote Glenn Reynolds: "I'll believe that it's a problem when the people telling me that it's a problem start acting like it's a problem."

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 2nd, 2009 at 02:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

While it’s really, really easy to laugh at the fact that the environmentalists’ march on the Capitol Power Plant is being hampered by a heavy snowstorm – to blatantly steal from one of my cobloggers, I’ve just come in from shoveling eight inches of global warming off of my front walkway – it’s…

Hold on. I’m actually still laughing.

OK.

Anyway, there is the minor little detail that Democrats in Congress are rather quick to dictate to the rest of us what we should and shouldn’t be doing for the environment, and rather slow to inconvenience themselves. They’ve had at least two years to implement changes and upgrades to the plant; heck, if they’re that worried about carbon emissions they could, I don’t know, turn the heat down to 65 degrees in the winter and turn up the air conditioning to 80 degrees in the summer. That would save them a lot of energy. For that matter, that would also give them some idea of what the less fortunate classes (i.e., everybody else) might be going through.

Yeah, I know: very Pollyanna of me. If the Democrats actually cared, they would have spent some money in their ongoing fiscal potlatch to modernize the plant, instead of using the revenue to pay off some lobbyist or another’s marker. Still, you have to at least try to call them on it.

Moe Lane

PS: Good job calling the snowstorm thing, Greg.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • LoveThatConstitution

    If you go to the demonstrator’s site themselves (www.capitolclimateaction.com) they probably dont get the irony of their post in “15 minutes out”:

    “People are bundled up in their warmest coats and staying active by chanting.”

    or how about “almost there”:

    “I don?t want to travel to DC from Frederick in the snow today.”

    and dont miss the photo gallery at the top where it shows someone wantonly destroying the planet with a can of spray paint…oh wait thats a protester. Shouldnt he/she be using crushed blueberries or something?

  • mikefisk

    Pfft… I keep my apartment at 62 degrees… costs a lot less to heat the place then, especially when it hits -10, like it did more than a few times this winter.

    Granted, I don’t see the Congress Chimps putting the thermostat below 72… you know, tropical climate and all.

  • Composer_Man

    That that enviro-eco-global-warming cottage industry is about nothing so much as control – over every aspect of life.

    If you know anything about history, you know that fascism flourishes when those in power can use a crisis to justify increased control over the lives of all. In the 30′s in America, FDR used the “Great” depression and then WWII (see “Liberal Fascism”, J. Goldberg).

    In our time, the Dems are using our current economic downturn and “global warming.” It’s sinister, really, don’t you think?

  • http://www.phxgonline.com phxg

    Sure, today will get up to 88? (take that Moe), but the major utility, Salt River Project and their little brother competitor APS have been pushing solar power for years. A customer can even choose to add the cost of their earth friendly electricity to their bill:

    EarthWise Energy is available in $3-per-month increments. This amount will be added to your monthly bill. You can choose $3 additional per month, or $6, $9 or $12. The amount you pay SRP for your regular electricity usage remains the same. –Link

    Just pay more to feel good. Good thing we also have the Palo Verde nuclear generating station just west of town providing 3.2 gigawatts of pure, 72? air conditioned living.

  • Vladimir

    … they had to look elsewhere in the budget when the cost of the Visitor Center went from $70 million to $700 million, or whatever. (Sounds kind of picky of me to be pointing out such ridiculously small numbers, now that we’ve been conditioned to billions and trillions.)

    But I digress. I wonder if the same cost estimators are at work on projecting what Obama’s Grand Plan will cost? Or is he using the guys that did the costs on The Big Dig?

  • 10ksnooker

    65 – 80 thermostat plan ourselves. Saves hundreds in electric costs.

    It’s common knowledge that you can’t be rational and liberal at the same time.

  • Next93

    The only bight spot in the current economy is that gas prices are down to $1.80. So NATURALLY the dems would pick this time to impose a moronic energy tax to solve a “problem” that they can’t prove exists.

    The scary thing is, this makes sense to 52% of the American audience electorate.

  • red4ever

    I don’t want to smell Congress sweating in the DC summer heat. Man, walking through the halls you can just smell a member coming. The sweat stink precedes them.

    I love how everytime is snows they claim that is part of global warming. No, being warm would be part of global warming. Snow is cold. If we are going to direct all our efforts to end this alleged scourge of warming by cooling things off, naturally occuring cold cannot also be a part of it. Pick a concept and stick with it for more than 5 iminutes please. Thank you.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    It has nothing to do with “warming,” per se. Rather, it’s extremes of climate and weather.

    Uh-huh.

    IMHO, the reality is that there really isn’t enough data to accurately predict the future climate of the planet. We have a lot of difficulty and dissension between meteorologists and climatologists about what will happen tomorrow, and we’re supposed to believe that there’s consensus about what will happen next century?

    Bah.

    Unless they’re saying, “we just don’t know for sure,” they are fools. All of them.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    Have you read “State of Fear” by Michel Chricton? The story is a little shallow, especially for Chricton (God rest his soul), but it’s bibliography is phenomenal.

  • Woody

    There are some dissonant voices out there in regards to global warming, but this is also how science works. Scientists create theories, other scientists test them, create variation, alternate models, etc… there never is 100% consensus.

    With that said, I find Scientific American to be a good source not directly funded by oil or alternative energy (granted they do take advertising):
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=final-report-humans-cause

  • DONTREADONME

    there is a big difference between a law or a hypothesis. Right now some scientists have a hypothesis and others do not believe the hypothesis is able to be tested to fullest extent to prove diffinitively that Global “Climate” Change a misnomer should be just earths climate variability is caused by human intervention. Again Scientific America, presented an interesting report on researcher findings, again not a definite answer. My example to all is qunatum mechnics is all about the best guess that fits the mathematics, but ever year we find out more about the big picture to learn that our treatment of QM in mathematics is quite elementary. Just a thought

  • Woody

    Yes, there is a big difference between a law and a hypothesis, but we’re talking about theories, and there are numerous scientific theories we accept the truth in, although there is no penultimate proof to be had.

    Einstein’s theory of relatively, while not “proven”, has been the basis for numerous academic and commercial developments. Darwin’s theory of evolution laid the groundwork for current genetic research. Even our understanding of gravity is “theoretical”.

    You are quite right about quantum mechanics, but people developing nanotechnology will certainly say the “theory” is worth acting on, even if our understanding turns out to be quite elementary. Einstein did the same thing to the notion of gravity as defined by Newton, but it doesn’t mean we go flying off the spinning planet.

    Sorry folks, there is large scientific consensus on global warming, even if it is just a theory.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    Your argument is specious: That there is a large “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming, so we should act upon this consensus as we do the consensus of quantum theory is comparing grapes to grapefruit.

    The major reason for accepting quantum theory is that, so far, there is absolutely no other principle that works for “small particle” physics.

    (Don’t argue with me on that: String Theory meshes well with quantum theory and actually helps to make quantum theory and Einsteinian physics work together)

    In any event, unlike quantum physics, there are plenty of other theories out there that work well and for which there is equally large “consensus” (love that word, don’t you?). Theories like solar activity cycles, ocean salinity thermal conveyors, and natural climatological cycles that have absolutely nothing to do with man’s interaction with the environment.

    Sorry, bud. There are plenty of other theories being bandied about, and unlike quantum physics AGW is just one of many equally viable theories.

    Oh, by the way, the definition of consensus is:

    con?sen?sus
    ? ?/k?n?s?ns?s/
    ?noun, plural -sus?es.
    1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
    2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

    As there are thousands of climatologists the world-over who disagree with the IPCC and other AGW “consensus” groups, it’s hardly a “consensus.”

  • DONTREADONME

    sometime make gross miscalculations. Theories are just that, they are not accepted laws of physics and are not always the final say, theories come closest to providing us as humans the answers to say launch a rocket into space, build lasers,

    Netwon law of gravity was practical enough on a small scale to mathematically represent laws of motion and the effects of gravity on falling objects. PE=mgh. Einstien formulated that space and time are dimensions of space and object made of matter consist with in bend the fabric space-time.

    Here is my example to compare proven Human cause Global Warming vs. no definitive proof for the effects caused by humans. Let us look at the equation of Kinetic Energy… using E(total)=KE+PE as equations to find energy of a moving or stationary object. This is an application of fundamental laws of physics or theory that works great in the laboratory, unfortunately in the great scheme of things there is the equation E=mc^2. So how can KE and PE be such small numbers compared to E=mc^2. I am trying to illustrate the scope of the use of equations or theories in everyday life that truly can not be used to represent the overall absolute. The Global climate is a dynamic system that relies on too many variables for my to agree with a few models that sets a few factors constant.

    Next point Darwin’s work had minimal to no impact on DNA and genetics, cell biology and its founders set the process in motion for DNA and genetics, which without Darwin the study of the cell and its mechanisms would have ultimately led to the founding of DNA and RNA.

    Finallhy, there is no such consensus that you speak about, I would venture to say that there are two sides to this story with no real evidence to prove definitively one way or the other. Sorry but no scientist in their right mine can commit on this until they have explained every single mechansism of the earth to inlcude, bio-feedback, chaning currents, solar activity, cyclical nature of the earths climate, plate techtonics, atmospheric constituents changes etc. When the model puts all of these into account in a dynamic model with 1000 supercomputers computing in parallel to account for all of the feedback mechanism of the earth, then tell me what is the human contribution, I am going to lay a theory down that humans at the moment have such a minimal impact that it is miniscule and probably wont register. Anyway, I agree to disagree with you on this one.