Radioactive Communist Zombies

New Climate Threat: Anesthesia

Remember the days before anesthesia?  No, you probably don't.  But maybe you've seen the military hospital scene in Gone With the Wind.

Anyway, little did you realize that this great medical achievement was contributing to climate change.  You go in for some needed surgery, come out a climate criminal.

HealthDay reports:

Researchers determined that the use of these anesthetics by a busy hospital can contribute as much to climate change as the emissions from 100 to 1,200 cars a year, depending on the type of anesthetic used, said University of California anesthesiologist Dr. Susan M. Ryan and fellow study author Claus J. Nielsen, a computer scientist at the University of Oslo in Norway . . .

These anesthetics undergo very little metabolic change in the body, the researchers noted. When they're exhaled by patients, they're almost exactly the same as they were when administered by anesthetist. The anesthetics "usually are vented out of the building as medical waste gases," the study authors wrote in a news release. "Most of the organic anesthetic gases remain for a long time in the atmosphere where they have the potential to act as greenhouse gases."

So putting you to sleep for surgery is contributing to climate change.  Seems nothing we humans do is not harmful to the planet.  Which may be why some envirowackos think we should all be dead.

Or, I supposed, dedicated environmentalists could refuse anesthesia.  We could give them a bullet to bite on, I suppose.

Presidential Aide Warns on Climate Change

A presidential aide warned that climate change is going to have real consequences in 30 years.  As the AP reports:

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent [in 30 years].

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Oh my.  We'd better get straight to work stopping climate change.

Only one problem.  The aide was Patrick Moynihan, the President was Richard Nixon, and the year was 1969.  And the year New York and Washington D.C. were to be gone?  The year 2000.

Last I looked, New York and Washington D.C. were fine.

But what does this tell us about the "science" of global warming climate change?  Forty years ago they were predicting 10-foot sea level increases by 2000.  Didn't happen.  They were predicting 7 degree increases in temperature.  Didn't happen.

So how should we respond to today's predictions of gloom and doom?  I'd frankly put as much credence into their predictions as I would Moynihan's.  That is: none.

Anthropogenic Climate Change . . . 10,000 Years Ago.

According to a study just released, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, humans were affecting the climate:

The research, which combined fossil data with climate modeling, revealed that the extinction of woolly mammoths - driven in part by human hunting - may have caused changes in vegetation that, in turn, warmed Siberia and neighboring Beringia by about 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 to 0.2 degrees Celsius).

"Beringia"?

So, humans have been affecting the climate long before the industrial age.

What lesson should we take from this?  That the earth is so fragile even early man affected the climate?  Uhm, no.  The lesson is: the climate has always been changing and man (and animals) have been affecting it since they climbed out of the primordial slime.  And the earth took it all in stride.  Climate change as been going on for millions of years both natural and man-made.  And we're all still here.

Probably the majority of the latest bout of climate change is natural.  And the climate will change again, some say for the cooler.

Senate Rejects Reining in the EPA

Well, the bad news today is that the Senate rejected a resolution that would have stopped the EPA power grab of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

That means the EPA will start controlling a huge amount of the economy in the name of "saving" the planet from climate change that has been going on for millions of years.

Maybe we can take this back up after the 2010 elections.

But this is just what are faltering economy needs: near total control by the EPA.

Don't think it'll happen?  The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires regulation of emissions down to 250 tons per year.  The EPA is going to try to only regulate emissions from sources putting out 100,000 tons per year.  But I guarantee you environmental groups will sue to force the EPA to control sources putting out 250 tons.  And that could be large houses.

Well, it was a slim hope anyway.  Would have had to make it through the House and past an Obama promised veto.  But at least 47 Senators, including some Democrats, voted for common sense and not environmental wackoism.

Climate Change: Greens Latest Scam to Control You

I'm not here to argue the scientific basis or facts of anthropogenic climate change (nee, global warming).  I believe there is enough doubt in the "settled science" that it's not worth destroying our economy over (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  (I could link more but I won't.)

And we are not short of oil.  In fact, proven reserves as of January 1, 2009 are 1,342,207,000,000 barrels (1.34 trillion) according to the Department of Energy.  And that's just proven reserves as we keep finding more and more oil.

According to this website, the world burns about 85,085,664 barrels of oil per day.  Sounds like a lot but simple math shows that's enough to last the world 43 years at current consumption levels and current proven reserves.  And some say there's another trillion barrels out there if we'd just go find it.  And that's another 32 years worth of oil.  So that's 75 years worth of oil probably out there.  We are not short of oil.

So why are we putting in stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, forcing cars to be downsized, underpowered, and less safe?  Why are some calling for a tax on burning fossil fuels.  Why are incandescent light bulbs being banned?

Why?  Because of the theory that humans are causing climate change.  It's the moving goal posts.  First environmentalists went for low-hanging fruit: cleaning up the water and the air.  And we did that and I'm glad we did (I've been in countries where they haven't).  But that wasn't good enough, so we had to clean up aerosols, and sulfates, and other less harmful pollutants.  But that wasn't enough, so now the very CO₂ from combustion of hydrocarbons is "pollution."

And the reason for that is: the greens' desire to run your life.  Climate change gives them the ultimate excuse to put them in charge of your life.  Nearly everything you do is bad for the environment, so nearly everything you do needs to be controlled by the over-whelming government control of the greens' wet dreams.  The greens want to rule by diktat.  Democracy is too messy.  The masses might not vote to impoverish themselves.

Environmentalism and the mother of all environmental causes, climate change, are simply excuses to control and run your life for you per the desires of the leftists.  There was a time when the environment needed cleaning.  But no more burning rivers, the ecomentalists need more excuses to control you.  And global warming climate change is the perfect excuse.

Global Warming Lawsuit

Blogging has been light (okay, non-existent) because I was out of town Wednesday and Thursday on business.  So sorry to my loyal readers (both of them).

A while back we discussed global warming lawsuits.  Well, according to the "On the Docket" blog over at Forbes, they are not being very successful.  (You should be thankful for that.)  According to blogger Daniel Fisher:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided, in a convoluted and dissent-provoking way, not to decide a politically charged global-warming lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP, AES, Dow Chemical and most of the rest of the American industrial establishment.

In an order issued this afternoon, five judges on the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal of a lower-court decision throwing out the case. The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to cause global warming, rising waters, hurricanes and all manner of other natural disasters. A lower court dismissed the case, saying the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue and the core issues were political, not judicial, in nature.

But that won't be the end of the story . . . nooooooo [links original]:

Not to worry. Global warming is the next tobacco -- or maybe asbestos -- and deep-pocketed lawyers including Steve Berman , who served as a "special attorney general" for the states in the tobacco case, want to see this through. So far a court in the Ninth Circuit has dismissed a case and the Second Circuit has waved one through. At the heart of it all is a dispute over whether lawyers and judges can determine whether and which companies must pay for global warming, or whether this is a matter for legislators to decide. Look for a Supreme Court appeal soon.

Just think . . . if you can extract billions of dollars from U.S. industry for supposed damage caused by creating wealth, employing people, providing products people want, you can . . . well, screw up the economy big time.  But some lawyers will get very rich.

Scientists Say: Here Comes Global Cooling

While the EPA is getting ready to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mostly CO₂) under the Clean Air Act and about every week there's a new bill to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. Senate, some scientists are saying global warming is over and it's time to get ready for global cooling.  (Well, the climate has cooled for the past 10 years or so.)  As Investors' Business Daily reports in an unsigned editorial:

"Global warming is over — at least for a few decades," Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told the gathering. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for greater concern."

Easterbrook and 74 other presenters at the conference said what everyone already knows, having shoveled record amounts of global warming off our sidewalks and driveways last winter.

Yep, it's getting chilly.

Another presenter, James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is happening now.

He pointed to data provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab showing snow records from the last 10 years exceeding the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.

And you thought the science was settled on anthropogenic global warming?  That's because all the mainstream media listens to are the alarmist who have a stake in global warming (usually in the form of money to fund their research).

If this were just a scientific curiosity, that'd be one thing.  But policy is being made in the name of "stopping" global warming (viz, EPA) which will reduce your freedoms and your wealth (not to mention take all the fun out of driving).

But can we at least admit there's some doubt about anthropogenic global warming and maybe it's all just natural?

EPA's GHG Rules are Out

The EPA has come out with its rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  They're not as bad as the EPA originally stated but they are bad enough.  According to the New Yuck Times:

Starting in July 2011, new sources of at least 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year and any existing plants that increase emissions by 75,000 tons will have to seek permits, the agency said.

In the first two years, the E.P.A. expects the rule to affect about 15,550 sources, including coal-fired plants, refineries, cement manufacturers, solid waste landfills and other large polluters, said Gina McCarthy, the agency’s assistant administrator.

The EPA had originally (in perhaps a bait and switch move) said they were going to regulate down to 25,000 tons per year, which would affect farms and large apartment buildings.  So the EPA backed off a little.  Which is good and bad.  Good because it's not as bad as it could have been but bad because it shouldn't be at all.  Regulating GHG (mostly CO₂) through the Clean Air Act is asinine.

Also, just wait for environmental groups to sue the EPA to force it to regulate GHGs down to 250 tons per year as required by the Clean Air Act.  And that could include large private homes.

And more permits, more costs, and more hassle is just what businesses need as we try to recover from the Great Recession.

We're All Doomed (In 300 Years)

Well, might as well give up now.  According to Australian and American "scientists," the Earth may be too hot to be inhabitable by humans come 2300.

Climate change could make much of the world too hot for human habitation within just three centuries, research released Tuesday showed.

Scientists from Australia's University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the United States found that rising temperatures in some places could mean humans would be unable to adapt or survive.

"It would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about seven degrees Celsius (13 Fahrenheit), calling the habitability of some regions into question," the researchers said in a paper.

(Funny, but 13 degrees Fahrenheit is about the difference between Seattle and Phoenix, I bet.)  Here's the problem, these soi-disant scientists took a trend and extrapolated it out far into the future, and bang, the Earth is too hot to handle.

Researcher Professor Steven Sherwood said there was no chance of the earth heating up to seven degrees this century, but there was a serious risk that the continued burning of fossil fuels could create the problem by 2300.

First of all, I'd be surprised if we're still burning fossil fuels in 2100, let alone 2300.  Second of all, you can't take a trend and run the line out to infinity and call it a trend.

But scientists need funding and saying we're all doomed certainly will get attention, and probably more government money.  Even if it is all crap.

The Seas are Not Rising

Remember when Obama said the oceans would stop rising?  Well, apparently he's right.  But it's nothing he did.  You see, the seas aren't going to rise anyway:

[A]ccording to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."

So the seas might rise between zero and 8 inches?  Total?  Boy, am I worried about the future, now.  I think that might reach my ankles.