Monday, May 29, 2017

An ignorant Australian Greenie

I put up yesterday some arrogant, elitist comments from an Australian Greenie.  The Greenie, Dayne Pratzky, also uttered  some ignorant Leftist stereotypes about the USA. Because it is rich and powerful, all Leftists hate the USA.  Even American Leftists do. A conservative American  reader was rightly incensed at the unbalanced comments.  And has replied to them.  First the comments then the reply:

“I’m a custodian of society, we all are. If you don’t want to live in a gun-filled and drug-filled society like America, you’ve got to fight to keep Australia the way it is now.”

We are a country of 326 million of which 325 million are not criminals. There are a lot of drug users but by far the majority of the population are not drug addicts. We become alarmed when 100 people in a small state overdose on illegal and tainted drugs. I will not miss nor will I grieve for  these misfits but I will support trying to protect the citizens from these drugs. Pharmaceutical companies continue to find ways to make life more comfortable but leave it to some to find the drug world a place to retreat into to avoid all of life's responsibilities.

Our constitution makes it very clear that the forefathers had a built in fear of government, to the extent that they wrote in a single demand that citizens would never be disarmed so as to safeguard against powerful people strong arming the removal of all rights. Many people miss the fact that such freedoms come with responsibility as well as risks of abuse. People own guns for all kinds of reasons, some for pleasure, some for protection, some for crime.

We are a long way from armed uprising but the possibility remains in the minds of government people. Almost every state in the Union has more armed citizens than the entire standing army and you can bet that even the army would not stand on the side of a tyrant government. Every citizen has at least one bullet, it is called a vote.

Our second amendment does not endorse crime, rather crime uses what ever advantage it can gain. Drugs are another issue but it is people that use drugs that make the issue.  Our country is under siege both from in and from without. It will always be that way as long as there is big profit in drugs.

In is people like Pratzky that our constitution protects us from.

Trump will cause the planet to fry

That's a defensible conclusion if you accept Warmist assumptions but it is presented as more than theory.  We read below for instance: "America contributes so much to rising temperatures".  Does it?  It contributes a lot of CO2 but CO2 rises and temperature rises don't synchronize

Earth is likely to reach more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the U.S. retreats from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That's because America contributes so much to rising temperatures.

President Donald Trump, who once proclaimed global warming a Chinese hoax, said in a tweet Saturday that he would make his "final decision" next week on whether the United States stays in or leaves the 2015 Paris climate change accord in which nearly every nation agreed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions.

Global leaders, at a summit in Sicily, have urged him to stay. Earlier in the week, Pope Francis made that case with a gift of his papal encyclical on the environment when Trump visited the Vatican.

In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analyzed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects.

Scientists said it would worsen an already bad problem and make it far more difficult to prevent crossing a dangerous global temperature threshold.

Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year. When it adds up year after year, scientists said that is enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.

"If we lag, the noose tightens," said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change.

One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.

Scientists are split on how reasonable and likely that scenario is.

Many said because of cheap natural gas that displaces coal and growing adoption of renewable energy sources, it is unlikely that the U.S. would stop reducing its carbon pollution even if it abandoned the accord, so the effect would likely be smaller.

Others say it could be worse because other countries might follow a U.S. exit, leading to more emissions from both the U.S. and the rest.

Another computer simulation team put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit).

One of the few scientists who plays down the harm of the U.S. possibly leaving the agreement is Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the scientist credited with coming up with the 2 degree goal.

"Ten years ago (a U.S. exit) would have shocked the planet," Schellnhuber said. "Today if the U.S. really chooses to leave the Paris agreement, the world will move on with building a clean and secure future."

Not so, said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe: "There will be ripple effects from the United States' choices across the world."


Is This Really the Worst Ever?
As summer approaches, let’s look at some comparisons and talk hurricanes. Let’s look at the past 10 summers.

Much of the U.S. is around 1 degree Fahrenheit above normal on average. Now take a look at the summers of the 1930s.

While there are some places 0.5-1 F below normal, much of the nation’s midsection is 2-4 F above normal, which means arguably it was warmer then than the past 10 summers. The point is that when it comes to extremes, it looks worse in the 1930s.

Now keep in mind that we have had a lot of urban sprawl over the last 30 years. The South is much more populated. The satellite era of temperatures started in the late 1970s, so the same measuring techniques used today may have made the 1930s even hotter. We only know how hot it was based on thermometers.

Satellites see all, which is one of my arguments as to why comparing temperatures over 120 years becomes a red herring since there was no way to measure temperatures the way we do now back in decades like the 1930s. Still, it has warmed in the past 30 years. I am not arguing that point. But saying it’s the warmest in 120 years when you did not measure temperatures the same way is questionable at best. And certainly the “worst ever” missives have reason for skepticism.

Let’s move to precipitation — and keep in mind, we had three major drought years in the past 10 in the nation’s midsection, But, lo and behold, the 10-year summer rain totals show nothing so extreme.

Doesn’t look that bad. What’s more, there is a lot of wet weather in the nation’s midsection where we can grow food to feed people. Looks more like a blessing than a curse.

For the record, the latest percentage of the nation covered by drought is at the lowest point ever recorded since this measuring tool was started in 2000.

Another case of climate extremes? Yeah. Extremely beneficial. Keep in mind that Florida in the last 10 years is above normal and one or two tropical systems could reverse the current dry area very quickly.

Now to the 1930s.

And you wonder why there was a dust bowl? Yes, it’s partly because of agricultural practices then, but this is flat out harsh!

The drought severity index reflects that. Now here’s something important: When you look at precipitation totals in the Southwest, they are not that far below normal. Yet the drought severity is greater, because when there is little rain on average, very slight deviations below normal will make the index in that area, relative to the area, greater. The evaporation rates are much higher also, so two inches below normal where there should be 10 inches of rain is a lot bigger deal than two inches below normal where there should be 60 inches. But let me concede the Southwest.

The fact is the heartland of the country where we grow food has been in great shape overall. You can’t have perfect weather everywhere; it’s inherent in nature to have conflict. “Average” can be a misnomer, occurring rarely, as the average is made up of the back and forth that one is likely to see in the weather and climate. To be that dry in the Southwest, it had to be compared to a 30-year average that must have been wetter at times. As you saw this past winter, wet can return very quickly.

But again, look at the drought severity of the 1930s.

So are the current times really as bad as it’s ever been, especially when one considers where the drought has occurred?

What about hurricanes? On the Saffir-Simpson scale, there have been no major hurricanes since 2005 to hit the U.S. Look at the 1930s.

That was followed by this in the ‘40s and '50s. So when was it worse?

By the way, if you want to take a look at the upcoming hurricane season — and I do think there is a good chance of a major hit — check out our forecast here.

You know, when I was younger, my dad used to always say to me: “Joe, you would not believe how bad the weather was in the '30s, '40s and 50s.” I used to think, “Yeah right,” but I was bored with the weather so much that I went back and looked … and looked … and looked. And I found myself looking at events I still have trouble believing happened. So when someone says, “This is the worst ever,” believe me, there are plenty of examples of events and patterns that look comparable, and in many cases beyond what people say about today.

SOURCE.  (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine For Plowing His Own Field

A California farmer is facing a $2.8 million fine for failing to get a permit to plow his own field.

John Duarte bought 450 acres of land near Modesto in 2012 and is now being sued by the federal government for plowing near areas the government considers to be "waters of the United States."

USA Today reports:

A farmer faces trial in federal court this summer and a $2.8 million fine for failing to get a permit to plow his field and plant wheat in Tehama County.

A lawyer for Duarte Nursery said the case is important because it could set a precedent requiring other farmers to obtain costly, time-consuming permits just to plow.

"The case is the first time that we're aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops," said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. The libertarian-leaning nonprofit fights for private property rights and limited government.

 "We're not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations," Francois said.

The case will head to trial in August. The government claims that Duarte violated the Clean Water Act because he did not obtain a permit to work near the wetlands.

Francois, the attorney for Duarte, said farmers plowing their fields are exempt from federal rules.

Duarte plowed to a depth of between 4 and 7 inches.


Trump Must Resist Pressure From Foreign Leaders to Cave in on Global Warming

As National Public Radio reported last week, “President Trump is expected to face pressure from European Union leaders … to keep the U.S. in the Paris Climate Treaty.”

Leaders from those foreign nations should prepare for disappointment.

The start of the G-7 summit, held in the swanky coastal town of Taormina, located on the island of Sicily, just happens to be the one-year anniversary of Trump’s famous energy policy speech in Bismarck, North Dakota.

Then-candidate Trump made clear that his administration would “cancel the Paris climate agreement,” both because it was bad for America and because it violated our nation’s laws:

President [Barack] Obama entered the United States into the Paris climate accord unilaterally and without the permission of Congress. This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much our energy and how much we use right here in America. So foreign bureaucrats are gonna be controlling what we’re using and what we’re doing on our land in our country. No way. No way.

A lot can change in 365 days, but the fundamental flaws of the Paris Agreement that Trump identified have not.

Speaking to NPR’s Ari Shapiro last week, Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden rightly noted that “[o]f course it is the U.S.’s sovereign decision” on whether to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

America is a geographically diverse and expansive nation, which makes comprehensive global regulatory schemes difficult to implement without massive disruption.

In fact, during a recent speech in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump said “it is estimated that for compliance with the [Paris Agreement] could ultimately shrink America’s [gross domestic product] by $2.5 trillion … ”

The numbers get even worse, according to Heritage Foundation research.

By 2035, household electricity expenditures will increase between 13 to 20 percent, family of four income loss will exceed $20,000, and there will be more than 200,000 fewer manufacturing jobs due to the “policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris Agreement [that] will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy.”

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, 21 states have either voluntary renewable energy standards or no standards, and 20 of those voted for Trump last November. Trump also won manufacturing states with mandatory renewable standards—states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Many of those voters found their voice in Trump.

Shell’s van Beurden told NPR that pulling out of the Paris Agreement would put the United States “off-site for such an important societal debate” and strongly implied that it would undermine America’s ability to “have a strong, meaningful, and impactful voice at all tables around the world.”

Of course, we have seen what happens when an American president kowtows to global elites in an effort to be heard and loved.

During his infamous apology tour, Obama told a group of foreign leaders that “with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”

He apologized to the Europeans for the “times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Trump’s election was a repudiation of that approach.

The path forward for the Trump administration is clear, and it begins with following through on the president’s pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Doing so would restore certainty for America’s job creators and make it more difficult for future administrations to abuse the global warming agreement and advance destructive policy initiatives.

Enduring policy victories are the foundation upon which legacies are built.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   main.html or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: