Posts Made By: Dave Snope

...that global tropical cyclone activity has been at or near all-time lows the last few years, has been dropping since 2006, even though according to NASA GISS this has been the warmest decade on record. 2010 had the fewest cyclones in the modern record, even though it was claimed to be the warmist year on record. 2009 was one of the lowest years on record even though it was a warmer El Nino period.

There is absolutely no historical correlation to tropical storm energy and global temperature. None. The WMO says it. The NOAA says it. The NHC records show it.

Likewise there is no correlation to CO2. Look at a plot of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Look at a plot of global cyclone energy or count. No correlation. Zero. Nada. Zilch. You can't wish it to be true, no matter how badly you want to.

The only correlations that can be found are in computer simulations of future activity and these don't work at all when you plug in historical data. They are a sham.

With the high cost of electricity in the socialist state of California, it costs more per mile to drive the Volt on electricity than it does on gas. So you're losing money driving it, even though other people are paying you to drive it with subsidies. YMMV in other states, some of who pay half of CA pays for consumer electricity. But wait, there's more: with the inefficiencies of generating and transmitting electricity from fossil fuels, your carbon emissions are actually more per mile driving a Volt on electricity than driving it on gas.

So, if you have faith in the so-called greenhouse effect, don't make other people pay for your ride just so you can pollute more. Buy a little gas powered Scion or one of the mini-Hondas or Toyotas, and feel good that your total enviromental impact is much less.

And all those agencies are mandating how we live every aspect of our lives, making it more expensive, more difficult, more time-consuming. And they are packed with people making $100K plus salaries with benefits for life.

They are the Nomenklatura.

Wait, where will all the terrorists get their education? Where else will they get chemical engineering, electronics engineering, pilot training, and a good "blame America first" perspective if they can't go to U.S. universities?

That reminds me of the last time I heard from the giant scientific mind of Suzuki: The 2010 Winter Olympics.

“I’ve watched in horror as the snow has just melted away from Cypress Mountain,” Suzuki said, referring to the 2010 Olympic Games snowboarding and freestyle skiing venue. The view from Vancouver, Suzuki and others say, provides a glimpse into the future for the Winter Olympics.

While Cypress Mountain was receiving common coastal rain conditions that it is notorious for among skiers, the other Olympic venue at nearby Whistler had received 400 inches of snow, and ski areas all over the west had one of the snowiest seasons on record and had more snow than they knew what to do with. But from his house window with it's incredible coastal and mountain views, Suzuki judged the commonplace conditions a horror show.

Floyd Blue said:

So, based on how many miles you drive, how much would you save if you bought a new car for say, $30,000 or so that got 2-3x the gas mileage? I figure that if my car gets 16 mpg and I drive it 10,000 miles a year at $4 a gal, that would save me $833 a year if it got 3x the gas mileage. I also would say that the $833 would maybe cover 3 payments on the car, maybe! So, the next 9 months I would jut be paying for the car.

The math has never worked for cars like the Prius. Gas would have to cost at least $10/gallon to even consider it an economic choice. A simple 35 mpg Corolla or equivalent is hard to beat at $7000 less than a Prius.

If the new car in question is a plug-in hybrid, and you live in an expensive electricity state like California, it may cost you more to operate the the new car on electricity than it does on gas.

This from Edmunds road test of the Volt:
We paid an average of $0.31 per kilowatt-hour of electricity and $3.31 per gallon of 91 octane swill, so the arithmetic tells us that the running cost of this Volt tester while in our care was equivalent to a gas-only car that achieves 30.9 mpg on 91 octane. It also turns out the Volt's miles driven on electricity cost us more money than if it'd simply consumed gasoline instead.

If you are concerned about emissions, running the car on electricity will have a greater "carbon footprint" per mile than running it on gasoline. Although the EPA calls this a zero emissions vehicle in electric mode, the honest approach is measure the carbon emissions at the electric power plant required to inefficiently transmit electricity over long distances to your car.

If you don't require any background in science, mathematics, physics, economics, agriculture, history, and human nature, these people could almost pass for normal.

Just ask EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Van Jones and the followers at PowerShift 2011 (or if you just want to watch some girls pull down their pants):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWNbJeY2uaE&feature=player_embedded

I don't think that anybody will disagree that, depending on who's data you look at, it has warmed between 0.4 to 1.5 degrees C from the time of the Little Ice Age to the El Nino peak of 1998.

Of course, it has cooled since 1998, and much of the warming up til then has been attributed to siting of temperature stations on airport runways, asphalt parking lots, and next to air conditioners.

I think it's safe to say that there has been 0.5C of warming since Washington's miserable soldiers froze their feet off in in Pennsylvania fields. But it's not warmer now than in the 1930's. A basic unweighted, well-sited thermometer record can show you that.

Mark hoefler said:

Reagonomics doesn't work - the trickle down affect is just to little of a trickle. My opinion of course.

I'll bite. With a question. Why do you claim that Reagomics didn't work. What left you feeling unsatisfied?

Let's look at a few facts which seem to indicate that cutting taxes worked amazingly well.

Federal revenues doubled during Reagan's term in office, after cutting tax rates. The only explanation for a doubling of tax revenues after a steep cut in tax rates is a massive stimulation of the economy. So supply side seemed to work most excellently.

How about jobs, and minorities? In late 1982, Reagan’s second year in office, the unemployment rate for blacks was 20.4 percent. By 1989, his last year, the black unemployment rate had fallen to 11.4 percent -- a 9 percent drop. In late 1982, the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 15.3 percent. By 1989, it had fallen to 8 percent. In 1982, according to the Census Bureau, there were 308,000 black-owned businesses. By 1987, the number had increased to 424,000, up 38 percent. The number of all U.S. businesses was up 14 percent. Receipts for black-owned businesses went from less than $10 billion to nearly $20 billion -- a 100 percent increase. That trickle down worked great for jobs and minorities. Reagan should have been a hero for blacks. But he didn't get credit because he wasn't a Democrat, he was from the party of Martin Luther King that amended the constition to give blacks equal rights, then later passed the civil rights act.

Dems will always bring up the deficit at this point, but that has nothing to do with revenues, jobs, and whether trickle-down economics worked. That has to do with spending.

History shows us that every time a president cut taxes, democrat or republican, federal revenues increased and the economy was stimulated and jobs were created. So why do people say that it doesn't work?

Of course the converse holds as well: raise taxes, depress the economy, increased unemployment. Why would things be any different this time?

P.S. Your typing is completely legible, you're doing great!

A fundamental tenet of all man-made global warming theory is that the sea-level rise should be accelerating due to the theorized greenhouse effect from 20th century CO2 emmisions.

The fact is that sea levels have been rising continuously for the past 22,000 years, and that rise has been decelerating for the past 8,000 years as the earth becomes further removed from the last ice-age mininum.

And now, as shown in this latest data, the sea level rise has been declining for four straight years.

Bottom line: there has been no acceleration in sea level rise over the last 100 years of increased man-made CO2 emissions. There is, instead, deceleration.

How many times have we heard over the last 20 years that our coastal cities will be under water? Including claims from top AGW scientists (and of course politicians and MSM) that would have already had cities underwater before now? How do the AGW alarmists explain this major hole in their falling-sky claims?

Why, in a rational world, aren't they being almost completely defunded and told not to come back to the trough until they have a theory that is supportable by measurements that show some sort of deviation from long-term interglacial trends, or even short-term ENSO trends? To date, they have not.