Blog Archives

Al Gore in Britain

It seems Al Gore has arrived in Britain. Literally, in Biden-speak, and figuratively in reality-speak.

From Christopher Booker at The Telegraph:

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

The source of the madness? The “wisdom” of the “settled science” of manmade global warming. And it means in Britain, you might not be able to afford to warm yourself. (Something about Taxman comes to mind…)

Within seven years this new tax will rise to £30 a ton, and by 2030 to £70 a ton, making it wholly uneconomical to generate any more electricity from the coal and gas-fired power stations that last week were still supplying two thirds of our electricity.

Since the wisdom of the politicians in Britain is insanity, the obvious lesson is you reap what you sow. And as a corollary, voters need to think carefully about why they’re sowing madness.


Military correctness as a weapon of mass destruction

orthodoxyDo you think all senior military leaders achieve their positions based on competence, insight and wisdom, dedication to duty, or integrity?

If so, perhaps this will dissuade you:

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Be not confused: the military has many aspects from the progressive playbook that are always at work. That is, From each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his adherence to today’s political dogma.

If you still don’t believe military correctness is a weapon of mass destruction, think about George Casey, one of its many poster generals.

What’s the career key? The ability to please one’s superiors is essential to achieving rank. The ability to produce tangible national security benefits may be desired, but is certainly not required.

If we were at war (total war, where national survival or essential national interests were on the line), America would not tolerate such a system. Because we’re not, we do.

In the meantime, salute the orthodoxy—no matter how stupid it may be—and succeed.

Two of the left’s favorite eco-terrorists

rooThe New York Times says Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.

So what’s a great sinner to do? Perhaps establish a process of buying carbon indulgences with one’s travel miles or even easier, just rely on your liberal bona fides.

This topic only needs to be addressed because the very same New York Times observed Hillary Clinton’s main claim to fame in her tenure as Secretary of State seems to be that she traveled many miles.

In an airplane.

And yet another publication wryly observed, “If diplomatic achievements were measured by the number of countries visited, Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the most accomplished U.S. secretary of state in history.”


Yes, those suffering under the debilitating intellectual effects of libotomies often confuse 1) activity with adding value and 2) intentions with outcomes.

Under Secretary Clinton, shuttle diplomacy was exchanged in favor of shuttle activity. Shuttle activity, to paraphrase the Secretary herself, ‘Is what it is,’ but don’t pretend it’s anything else. After all, What difference does it make?

Of course, there’s another eco-terrorist, selflessly planning to rack up the carbon sins in the name of saving the small people from themselves. (And it isn’t even the easily mocked super-crony capitalist/crazed sex-poodle Al Gore.)

‘Do as I say and not as I do’ is a recurring—and annoying—liberal theme.

His loyalty is to power, not process

A green-police alert from Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal on a slice of President Obama’s inaugural speech and the greenunists’ way-ahead:

The president’s climate shout-out sent the green community into flurries of ecstasy, with grand hopes of a new push for cap-and-trade in Congress, or of a redoubled U.S. commitment to a global carbon pact. It fell to Mrs. [Senator Barbara] Boxer [D-CA] to tamp down those ambitions, even as she reassured her devotees that there is more than one way to skin the climate cat.

“A lot of you press me . . . on: ‘Where is the bill on climate change? Where is the bill?’ There doesn’t have to be a bill,” Mrs. Boxer explained in a briefing the day after Mr. Obama’s speech. “I’m telling you right now, EPA has the authority in the transportation sector, the electricity sector, and the industrial sector under the Clean Air Act” to do everything that legislation might otherwise do.

In other words, with the election over, all pretense is gone. Democrats won’t waste political capital on a doomed cap-and-trade bill. Yet they’ll get their carbon program all the same, by deputizing the EPA to impose sweeping new rules and using their Senate majority to block any GOP effort to check the agency’s power grab. The further upside? Brute regulation is not only certain and efficient, it allows vulnerable Democrats to foist any blame on a lame-duck administration.

Indeed, unless the President decides to authorize additional presidential terms via Executive Order, why should anyone expect him to honor the balance of powers between the executive, Congress, and the judiciary when his minions can instead impose their own version of “legislation via regulation”?

While the issue of adding a carbon tax is far more complex and less subject to Congressional non-participation, recall the greens are more defined by what they’re against (“man-made global warming,” fossil fuels, etc.) than by what they favor.

Remember when they called George W. Bush a divisive unilateralist?

This Administration—and things in general—will not end well.

What’s worse, obesity, smoking, or starvation?

Americans used to smoke more. Americans used to be slimmer. Americans now smoke less and are fatter. Correlation or causation?

When the economy was humming along, more people worried about global warming climate change. Now, in addition to having little credible science to support it, there’s also little appetite (so to speak) for the corrective action to global warming climate change, that is, growth-starving economic suicide.

So maybe we can somehow use our non-appetite for global warming’s climate change’s corrective actions as an anti-obesity tool?

Today, movies earn a PG-13 rating for smoking. Tomorrow, perhaps the actor consuming a 32 ounce Slurpee will drive such parental alarms.

The global alarmists crank it up

Super-shrill climate alarmist James Hansen, who has staked whatever is left of his tattered reputation to the bogus invented-by-men crisis once called “global warming,” is attempting to crank the fear factor up to eleven.

It was one thing when he had political top cover from guys like Al Gore and another when he had the global warming conspiracy covering his backside, all empowered by a fairly reasonable U.S. economy. But things change.

Now Gore is a divorced and disgraced sex-poodle with a failing cable network with a carbon footprint that’s bigger than Shaq’s Nikes. Meanwhile, the proverbial top has blown—several times—off the global warming cover-up. Finally, under President Obama, the economy is in the septic tank while the federal debt towers far beyond the troposphere. Those seas that are rising? Red ink.

But that means it’s time for guys like Hansen to double down. They keep on betting even though they’ve lost all their intellectual capital, credibility, and competence.

If it wasn’t so darn annoying, it would be quite sad.

The new Elmer Gantry

Elmer Gantry is a story, and was later a film, about a con man selling religion.

It would seem some of our climate “scientists” are today’s Elmer Gantry, selling manmade global warming. But it’s hard to make much of a scare unless you have an adequate platform from which to scare with. A magazine is a useful start. A self-serious one. A self-serious one like Nature.

From Christopher Booker at The Telegraph:

One of the most vociferous cheerleaders in the cause has been the Nature, which calls itself “the world’s most prestigious weekly journal of science”.

Of course, prestigious is not the same as accurate.

Whenever some landmark event in the story is approaching – such as a world climate conference or a new report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Nature can be relied on to come up with a new paper purporting to refute one of the more embarrassing objections to the orthodox theory. However thoroughly such a paper is then dismantled by expert critics, it will remain established as a pillar of the orthodoxy.

It isn’t unreasonable to ask what the “science” of global warming has wrought. Is it:

a) the most disturbing corruption of the peer-review process in 60 years?

b) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed computer models?

c) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed inputs to its computer models?

d) all the above?

Based on Booker’s article, the answer is “d.”

Now, a year ahead of the IPCC’s next major report, Nature has again provoked controversy with an article, by Jeremy Shakun et al, claiming to disprove what has long been seen as one of the most awkward facts for warmist theory. This is the evidence of ice cores which shows that, for millennia, rising levels of carbon dioxide have not preceded rising temperatures but have followed them, as warming releases more CO2 from the mighty carbon sink of the oceans.

As can be seen in full on WUWT, one of its expert contributors, Willis Eschenbach, has now carefully plotted all Shakun’s data, to show how it does not confirm his headline thesis at all. Even the Nature article admits that, when the earth was emerging from the last ice age some 15,000 years ago, it was temperatures that rose first, later followed by rises in CO2. But when Eschenbach downloaded all the CO2 data he could find, he came up with a startling discovery. Shakun had only used one CO2 data source – and he had mysteriously cut off his graph about 6,000 years ago.

When the additional data was fed in, it clearly showed CO2 continuing to rise after this point, for thousands of years, at the same time as temperatures went into a long decline.

So, to summarize, CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a precursor. And of course, if the earth emerged from the last ice age 15,000 years ago, the wheels tend to fall off the whole manmade part of manmade climate change.

The link for the Nature article is here but as Johnnie Cochran might say, scientists can make the model work, although the inputs are berserk.

The “settled science” of manmade global warming is again shown to be neither settled, nor science.

Psychological Studies Which Explain the Warmers

A mind, as they say, is a terrible thing.

The terrible minds of the global warmers can generally be explained in one (or more) of several ways, which are often closely related.

Follow the money: scientists want grant money which can infer power and prestige. Grant money will not be provided to confirm what’s already known, ergo, myths like “man’s activity is warming the earth to dangerous levels” must be created to win grants, and in time, to sustain them. Similarly, rent seekers, crony capitalists, and the regulatory-capture minded endorse global warming to feather their own nests.

Just following orders: scientists want to be please the grant provider, to fit in with the situation, and to do what is expected of them. Hence the “settled science” claim possesses great power even if it isn’t settled, let alone is it science. This also supports the idea that warmers are satisfying the needs of the grant provider.

Cognitive dissonance:

People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.

Warmers will edit out inconvenient truths—sometimes consciously, as seen in the Climategate scandals, and sometimes not—that don’t align with their mental models or interests.

False consensus bias. How do you explain the need to paint manmade global warming non-believers as flat-earthers, denialists, etc.? When you can’t attack the facts, attack the man:

In reality people show a number of predictable biases when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes. And these biases help to show exactly why we need psychology experiments and why we can’t rely on our intuitions about the behaviour of others.

Conforming to the norm.

…many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.

Loss aversion (global warmers desperately want to avoid losing the power, and positional gains they have made by endorsing manmade global warming) and behavioral economics (global warmers make their decisions with biases towards promoting their own self-interest) both hold explanatory power as well.

It seems that much of the thinking behind the manmade global warming community is reminiscent of the quote attributed to Pauline Kael:

“How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him?”

Once again, man is the only creature who can lie to himself.

The King of Denial

My second favorite secular observation is this: man is the only creature who can lie to himself. The observation has life-application across-the-board and especially—and sadly—in politics.

In this case, the observation has to do with the President’s speech today, a veritable smorgasbord of densely packed assertions, which included the following:

Cap-and-trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. The first president to talk about cap-and-trade was George H.W. Bush. Now you’ve got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let’s gut the EPA.

We shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection? Can I get a shout out for all the straw men out there? (I now pause while I hold my hand to my ear and lean forward towards my audience.)

My hypothesis is that the President is lying to himself. I consider that to be less dishonorable than lying to us, which is also a possibility (as is a some combination of self-deception and attempted mass deception, I suppose).

But going back to the quote, the George H.W. Bush presidency, as Ezra Klein could tell us after a quick Wikipedia search, ended in January 1993. As such, a call for a market-based solution would have been made in the general context of ignorance: that is, the bogus and non-science of “manmade climate change” was not much known in the era of Bush the Elder. It is now.

Similarly, no one from the George H.W. Bush Administration likely thought through the potentially catastrophic costs (a 2010 Senate bill would slash GDP up to $2.1 trillion) of cap-and-trade, nor the job losses (a 2009 House bill would create, by one estimate, 2.3 to 2.7 million job losses per year for multiple years, through 2030).

Quibbling, I recall from an honor code context, is this:

To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

While the President can make jokes about his Biden-like missile defense gaffe, his Administration will find more policy success if they quit avoiding the truth and deal with issues honestly, whether it’s the federal budget, entitlements, taxes, the deficit, foreign policy, national security, or energy. Do I expect this to occur? No.

As it is, everything is about getting reelected, which entails finding scapegoats for the Administration’s own shortfalls, running away from the President’s record, and building—and burning—straw men, with malice and forethought.

The difference between scientists and warmers

From the New York Times:

…when a group of physicists going by the acronym Opera announced in September that a batch of the strange subatomic particles known as neutrinos had traveled faster than the speed of light in a 457-mile trip through the earth, the first response among many physicists was to wonder what had gone wrong with the experiment.


Last week another team of physicists whose apparatus lives right next door to the Opera group — under Gran Sasso mountain in Italy — reported that they had clocked neutrinos, produced in an accelerator at CERN, outside Geneva, racing over the same path to Gran Sasso at the speed of light and not a whit faster. Which is exactly how fast scientists had always thought the enigmatic particles, with barely zilch for mass, should go.


…scientists — even Einstein — proceed by trial and error.

“We are allowed to be wrong,” she [Laura Patrizii, an Opera member from the University of Bologna] said.

There is one exception to Dr. Patrizii’s rule of thumb: manmade global warming and climate “science.”

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.

The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned.

Sometimes, it’s just as the song Rocket Man tells us: And all this science, I don’t understand. It’s just my job five days a week.

And all this climate science, I don’t understand.

Choosing Your Own Facts

Daniel Patrick Moynihan told us we’re not entitled to our own facts, but he was wrong. Both politicos and economists, at minimum, are allowed to pick their own facts. And Moynihan was a politician himself.

So consider what Andrew Lo of MIT serves up in his meta-review of 21 books that purport to explain the financial crisis. Among the findings:

Many of us like to think of financial economics as a science, but complex events like the financial crisis suggest that this conceit may be more wishful thinking than reality. John Maynard Keynes had even greater ambitions for economics when he wrote, “If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid”. Instead, we’re now more likely to be thought of as astrologers, making pronouncements and predictions without any basis in fact or empirical evidence.

I love Lo’s humbleness in the above paragraph. He reminds me of… a dentist.

Now if we could just get the warmers to think of themselves in the same light.

A Global Warming Salute from Beyond the Grave by Johnny Cochran

Perhaps you remember the double murder, the low speed chase, and the trial of the century, to include the blunder by the prosecution?

In case refreshing is required, that blunder resulted in prosecutors having OJ Simpson try on (while wearing rubber gloves) a shriveled and shrunken-by-blood glove. The blunder led to the Johnny Cochran admonition “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”

Today we have the global warming apologists similarly explaining away the subterfuge/fraud/deception/ethical slip-up perpetrated by Peter Gleick.

The Johnny Cochran-lite explanation goes like this: Gleick may have lied, but he’s well justified.

Want more? OK: Gleick may be a liar but the earth’s still on fire. The models may not work, but deniers are berserk. The stick may be broke, but doubters are the joke. The facts hit the fan, but it’s all caused by man.

I could do this all day.

Fight global warming; it’s for the children (that is, it’s for the children of the scientists shaking down the government and others for massive grants).

Fake but accurate, writ large? No, still fake and inaccurate.

Prominent global warmunist: the truth is, I’m a liar

global warmingLet’s see if I have this right: a prominent global warmunist is sent

an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.

Said warmunist then

attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.

Ethics? They’re for the little people. What happened next?

The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document..

WARNING: multiple sneer quotes follow. Let the reader beware.

Decoded, the last quote means many of the “facts” in the original document were not substantiated.

“Fake but true,” “lying for the truth,” “it’s for the children,” and “Where’s my grant money?!” all come to mind.

Or perhaps we should send the whole Peter Gleick story down the memory hole for an old fashioned re-write. After all, “In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist.”

And that last line might explain the plea that “the science of global warming is settled.”

Compare and Contrast: Obama 2013 Budget and Manmade Global Warming

It’s interesting (to me, anyway) to ponder the similarities and dissimilarities between Obama’s 2013 budget and the manmade global warming community.

The President’s 2013 budget is inherently unserious as is the presumption of manmade global warming.

The 2013 budget attempts to take credit for House-driven debt limit adjustments and war “savings” that were never a part of the baseline. Manmade global warming attempts to assign fault where none exists and uses doctored data.

The 2013 budget sticks future generations with bills that cannot be paid. The manmade global warming community similarly wants to stick future generations with unaffordable–and unnecessary–bills (cap and trade; transfers from developed nations to less developed nations; economically unviable solutions like carbon sequestering; subsidies for non-competitive green technologies which are not ready for prime time).

The 2013 budget is a reflection of failed economic policies. The manmade global warming community is a collection of intellectually and integrity bankrupted rent seekers, crony capitalists, and legislative capture devices.

The 2013 budget cannot stand up under the scrutiny of open and honest review and neither can the “science” (those are sneer quotes, not scare quotes) perpetrated by the manmade global warming community.

The 2013 budget ignores the failures of the Western welfare state; the manmade global warming community ignores honest scientific discovery and process integrity.

The 2013 budget reflects a fundamental philosophy that the state can best decide for the people; the manmade global warming community attempted to close discussion on the topic by leaning on the pseudo-authority of bogus “settled science.”

One area where the 2013 budget and the manmade global warming community differ is this: in 2009 the President promised he’d half the budget deficit by the end of his term, a ‘seashells, bubbles, and unicorns’ based non-factual assessment. The global warmunists offered that if we didn’t follow their urgent direction, if their offer was shunned, we might as well be walking on the Sun.

Breaking News From Al Gore’s Green Machine

angry-red-goreBob Woodward has this to say about the Gorafice:

…sitting next to Gore is taxing. In fact, it’s unpleasant.

Hmm. Consider Woodward a quick study. After all, it appears to have taken Tipper Gore 40 years to discover the same thing.

It would seem Woodward means taxing, as in difficult, demanding, unpleasant, strenuous, challenging, and tiring. However, he could also mean it in the tax Gore and his minions are well familiar with; cap-and-trade, Kyoto, crony capitalism, tariff, excise, due, toll, and levy.

Consider the “settled science” of the man-made Warmunists when reading the following quote from Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production:

In normal circumstances, people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them, which makes them aware they have lost credibility. In the Third Reich there were no such correctives, especially for those who belonged to the upper stratum. On the contrary, every self-deception was multiplied as in a hall of distorting mirrors, becoming a repeatedly confirmed picture of a fantastical dream world which no longer bore any relationship to the grim outside world. In those mirrors I could see nothing but my own face reproduced many times over.

Climategate two point oh (or alternatively, Part Deux) has provided yet another look behind the Gorafice-led Warmunists’ curtain, and it ain’t that pretty at all.

Hockey, anyone? I have quite a few sticks available and can’t even give them away…

Bad Climate News: Global Winding

(Fake AP) The bad climate news continues with an emerging weather phenomenon called global winding.

Global winding in California caused power outages, school closings, and property damage. In Utah, global winding was responsible for overturning semi-rigs and toppling backyard swing sets. Global winding is said to affect children, women, and minorities most.

The need to address global winding is urgent. If action is not taken in the next two years, the earth is likely to become permanently windy, and at dangerous levels. One way to address the issue, according to the IPCC, a highly-disreputable arm of the United Nations, is to control the wind by controlling greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide with sequestration programs, cap-and-trade efforts, higher energy costs, and offering incentives for people to die at an early age.

Former IPCC Chair (now incarcerated in Bogota, Columbia on drug and gun-running charges), and railroad engineer Franz Gupta had this to say: “Global winding is as big a risk to humanity as crystal meth, human trafficking, and Bruce Willis movies. It’s impossible for me to overstate how urgent it is that we take action immediately, before polar bears are blown into the Arctic Sea, or even worse.”

Respected entrepreneur Donald Trump is said to already be pursuing solutions to global winding, just as committed environmentalist Al Gore once did for global warming.

Global winding was first suggested in the 2006 documentary Happy Feet, with more settled scientific evidence presented in the just-released Happy Feet Two.

Am I Weird Enough Yet?

Note: I call this parody.  If you must, read the original here.)


Every time I listen to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota talk about manmade climate change as a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and others in order to get money, I’m reminded of one of my favorite movie lines that Jack Nicholson offers to Louise Bryant regarding comrade-in-arms Jack Reed in the film Reds: “Jack dreams that he can hustle the American working man, who’s one dream is that he could be rich enough not to work, into a revolution led by ‘his’ party.” Wait, strike that whole thought and let me start over. Try this…

Thanks to Al Gore and his altruistic army of government scientists, we have a nearly comprehensive knowledge of the settled science of manmade global warming. So when Texas governor Rick Perry rejects global warming — while his own state is on fire — we know he must be wrong, because fires cannot happen when it’s cold outside. Not only that, there’s the statement by the Texas Forest Service from last week which said: “Recently discovered weather data from ancient papayas scrolls dating back to infinity shows that no one on the face of this earth has ever fought fires in these extreme conditions.”

If you doubt any of this, remember the first rule of global warming: we must defer to authority.  For you and me, that means the wise global warmunists set the rules. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding” and that means some “traditional” explanations have to be modified in order to demonstrate the truth of scientifically settled manmade global warming. Sometimes this is hot means cold, wet means dry, droughts mean floods, calm means wind, and snow means sun. Yes, it’s a bit confusing, but it’s still necessary. Here’s the explanation from Heidi Hough, a global warmunist in Texas: “As we poison the earth with carbon dioxide, our atmosphere seems to sometimes become warmer and sometimes colder, and things change. The sun has nothing to do with any of these changes; we know that from the data we’ve made up. And then a miracle occurs, only in this case it’s a bad miracle.”

On Sept. 9, CNN reported “Texas had the distinction of experiencing the warmest summer on record of any state in America, with an average of 86.8 degrees. Dallas residents sweltered for 40 consecutive days of grueling 100-plus degree temperatures. … Temperature-related energy demands soared more than 22 percent above the norm this summer, the largest increase since record-keeping of energy demands began more than a century ago.” Although high-quality, reasonably-priced, Chinese-manufactured air conditioning units were available, think how much more effective it would have been to instead have these toasty Texans just fan themselves.

There is still some we don’t know about how climate change except that it’s settled, it’s manmade, and that any cost I don’t have to pay is worth bearing. (Because I’ve invested huge amounts of intellectual and personal capital in this effort, I know it’s no hoax.) We need to start taking steps, as our government scientists urge, “to start seriously spending on managing the unmanageable.” If you want a quick primer on the latest global warming, surf over to Mr. Gore’s web page There, contributors will be making up data in real time and changing modeling algorithms as needed.

Not only has the settled science of manmade global warming come under attack lately, so has the economics of green jobs. Here the critics have a point that I’ll try and ignore: I wasn’t surprised to read that the solar panel company Solarboondoggle, which got $535 million in taxpayer loan guarantees to make solar panels in America, filed for bankruptcy protection two weeks ago and laid off 1,100 workers. Yes, this story is an embarrassment to the green jobs movement, but the death by bankruptcy was a collaboration of the worst Democratic and Republican impulses to manufacture things in America.

There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a Chinese-based manufacturing capability which reduces labor costs to those traditionally associated with re-education camps and therefore creates sustained consumer demand for green products. Of course, as an emerging nation, China should still call for a U.S. carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade tax or exhalation tax or water vapor tax or other system that favors green jobs in order to revert the United States to an agrarian society, reduce consumption, depopulate the earth, reduce U.S. national power, and therefore, preserve my own personal peace and affluence.

President Obama has chosen not to push for these taxes based on political survival and has wisely opted to bypass legislation in lieu of regulations and crony capitalism, sometimes called “government funding.” In the area of regulation, he deserves great credit for just being alive and beyond that, all glory and power.

So what do we have? Science-settled manmade global warming; a need for revenue to balance the budget; much-needed Chinese clean-tech jobs. We need less dependence on oil, regardless of its source, which means we must increase the cost of finding, exploiting, refining, and using oil. With decreasing American incomes, unemployment, and the deficit, it amazes me that our current crop of politicians still won’t ask the public to sacrifice their futures for what America’s best thinkers know to be best for them.