Saturday, August 12, 2006


Letter from Christopher C. Horner ( regarding the recent rise in CO2 emissions by the EU

The EEA has now updated its priceless 21 June 2005 chart which causes equally priceless expressions among Kyotophiles when I present it across the continent. See here

One year does of course not make a trend, though had emissions fallen it doubtless would have been reported as such. The actual trend remains obvious: EU emissions continue to rise. [Paging Dr. McCain, Dr. McCain, you are needed in the reality-check room].

At least the press account wasn't as misleading as last December's, pushed out to divert attention from the decision in Montreal to NOT amend Kyoto per Article 18 to make it binding, which said "on track to meet commitment to reduce emissions"; which is of course absurd but ritually accepted by outlets such as Reuters which took that a step further as cheerleader, and wrote a headline "Europe well ahead of track". Seriously. Find that trend in this data and there is a job in government waiting for you in Brussels.

Of note: I have previously written about those curiously changing (typically upward) 1990 EU baselines -- 15 years later (See here PDF) -- via which to date individual member states have fudged a cumulative total of 3.4% upward, or almost half of the EU-15 bubble obligation.

Given this, see the Note following the second chart on the EEA release:

"The base year emissions in this table are preliminary and the final emissions will be agreed in 2006 within Council Decision (2002/358/EC)....."

This, doubtless, will be worth the price of admission. "OK, gentlemen, how far out of compliance shall we agree we are, and how shall we allocate the violations? Who can afford what amount of credits?" Hold on to those old copies of prior baselines linked to in my paper, they'll be something to compare. Regardless, see the various baselines to date and await their "final answer" later in the year.

A REALLY drastic climate change -- just before written history began

The Sahara suddenly got a lot wetter about 8500 BC and then dried out again about 5300 BC -- all due to NATURAL climate fluctuations (unless those prehistoric Saharans had SUVs) and all very RECENTLY in geological terms. See the latest journal abstract on the subject below

Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day.

Abstract from "Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution" by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin

A Cartel Worse Than OPEC

At this moment, America faces one of the greatest threats to its economy and perhaps its very survival as a world power. A war is under way in the Middle East, source of 50% of the world's petroleum energy, which, if distribution were disrupted, could cause a world recession or worse. Terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, are waging war against Israel from bases in Lebanon and Palestine. Cross-border support is coming from Iran and Syria. Add to this the threat of Iran's development of nuclear weapons. To expect Hezbollah and Hamas to negotiate is hope in the extreme. The governments of both Lebanon and Palestine are powerless to reign in these two terrorist groups.

The entire region is at a flash point. A single spark could ignite this tinder box, wreaking havoc upon the U.S. economy, perhaps even its ability to wage war. An all-out war in the Middle East could seriously disrupt the 25% of total U.S. oil imports which comes from the Persian Gulf region. At best $100 per barrel oil is predicted by year's end. No one really knows.

There is one thing we do know. Congress has done absolutely nothing to develop domestic resources, to make America energy independent. The President presents energy plans which Congress rejects, summarily. And there is no executive follow-through. The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. Of this, 12 million barrels are imported.

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve stands at 727 million barrels, providing enough oil, at 12 million imported barrels per day, for 60 days. According to an agreement with the International Energy Agency, all 26 members must have a strategic petroleum reserve equal to 90 days of oil imports. The United States falls 30 days short. Canada, America's largest supplier of crude oil, has no reserve and in time of crisis would withhold exports. U.S. petroleum reserves accounted for as much as 3% of all known world reserves in 2004. That percentage places U.S. reserves at about 340 billion barrels of oil. To be totally self-sufficient, the United States, at the present rate of consumption, would have to use some 12 million barrels a day from the reserve. At that rate the reserves would last 75 years. In 75 years alternative resources for oil certainly will be found. As little as 2% of world oil reserves would replace imported oil for 45 years at today's rate of consumption.

New discoveries of oil reserves are reported regularly. On a trip in September 2005, this writer visited the oil rich country of Azerbaijan, along the Caspian Sea. News articles of the day reported enormous reserves found under the shallow Caspian Sea, reported to equal some of the oil rich areas of Saudi Arabia. This year a very large reserve was located in the Gulf of Mexico, some distance from the shore line of Texas. There is no shortage of oil or gas around the coast of the United States. Some 20 years ago, Phillips Petroleum sought permission to drill wells in the Bridger-Teton National Forest (gasp!) in Wyoming. The wells were to be capped and used only in case of a national emergency. Wyoming is one of America's richest states in energy resources. The request was denied.

Those who remember the 1973 Arab-Israeli War will recall the energy crisis that developed and the long lines at the gas pumps. The United States had joined in support of Israel. Nearly all Middle East oil imports were cut off. When the oil started flowing again, the price of crude oil was no longer $4.50 a barrel. It rose to $40 per barrel, causing a world recession.

Today the United States faces a cartel far more destructive of America's energy independence than OPEC's nine nations. This new cartel is composed of an assortment of envirocrat groups posing as environmentalists, endangered species advocates, animal rights promoters, property rights destroyers and assorted ice-age fanciers turned global warmers. Leaders among these envirocrats are Greenpeace, the Green Party, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Earth First, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Wilderness Society and Defenders of Wildlife, to name a few. Individuals such as former Presidential candidates Ralph Nader and former Vice President Albert A. Gore, Jr. are prominent spokesmen for the envirocrat causes.

What has become the obvious intent of this cartel is the destruction of America's access to its own resources. Examples are: "protection" of a spotted owl despite near destruction of the timber industry in Oregon and Washington; desperately needed petroleum reserves set aside in Alaska to protect the sex habits of the caribou; the set-aside of vitally needed sulfur-free coal reserves in Utah; and denial of offshore drilling for a number of reasons, including the spoiling of the view of a few people by rigs 15 miles away. This list could continue for a full column.

This cartel of envirocrat groups is permitted by both political parties in Congress to disrupt America's access to its own natural resources. Kneeling at the feet of the envirocrat intimidators, Congress accepts the barrage of false and phony claims that, if examined closely, would reveal the fraud.

When the lines get blocks long at the gas pumps Americans will give thanks to the OPEC cartel for providing the only gasoline available, even at prices over $5 per gallon. Appeals to the envirocrat cartel will get them nothing.



The adage "like a kid at heart" may be truer than we think, since new research is showing that grown-ups are more immature than ever. Specifically, it seems a growing number of people are retaining the behaviors and attitudes associated with youth. As a consequence, many older people simply never achieve mental adulthood, according to a leading expert on evolutionary psychiatry. Among scientists, the phenomenon is called psychological neoteny.

The theory's creator is Bruce Charlton, a professor in the School of Biology at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. He also serves as the editor-in-chief of Medical Hypotheses, which will feature a paper outlining his theory in an upcoming issue. Charlton explained to Discovery News that humans have an inherent attraction to physical youth, since it can be a sign of fertility, health and vitality. In the mid-20th century, however, another force kicked in, due to increasing need for individuals to change jobs, learn new skills, move to new places and make new friends. A "child-like flexibility of attitudes, behaviors and knowledge" is probably adaptive to the increased instability of the modern world, Charlton believes. Formal education now extends well past physical maturity, leaving students with minds that are, he said, "unfinished."

"The psychological neoteny effect of formal education is an accidental by-product - the main role of education is to increase general, abstract intelligence and prepare for economic activity," he explained. "But formal education requires a child-like stance of receptivity to new learning, and cognitive flexibility." "When formal education continues into the early twenties," he continued, "it probably, to an extent, counteracts the attainment of psychological maturity, which would otherwise occur at about this age."

Charlton pointed out that past cultures often marked the advent of adulthood with initiation ceremonies. While the human mind responds to new information over the course of any individual's lifetime, Charlton argues that past physical environments were more stable and allowed for a state of psychological maturity. In hunter-gatherer societies, that maturity was probably achieved during a person's late teens or early twenties, he said. "By contrast, many modern adults fail to attain this maturity, and such failure is common and indeed characteristic of highly educated and, on the whole, effective and socially valuable people," he said. "People such as academics, teachers, scientists and many other professionals are often strikingly immature outside of their strictly specialist competence in the sense of being unpredictable, unbalanced in priorities, and tending to overreact."

Charlton added that since modern cultures now favor cognitive flexibility, "immature" people tend to thrive and succeed, and have set the tone not only for contemporary life, but also for the future, when it is possible our genes may even change as a result of the psychological shift. The faults of youth are retained along with the virtues, he believes. These include short attention span, sensation and novelty-seeking, short cycles of arbitrary fashion and a sense of cultural shallowness. At least "youthfulness is no longer restricted to youth," he said, due to overall improvements in food and healthcare, along with cosmetic technologies.

David Brooks, a social commentator and an op-ed columnist at The New York Times, has documented a somewhat related phenomenon concerning the current blurring of "the bourgeois world of capitalism and the bohemian counterculture," which Charlton believes is a version of psychological neoteny. Brooks believes such individuals have lost the wisdom and maturity of their bourgeois predecessors due to more emphasis placed on expertise, flexibility and vitality.



Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: