Greens have built in a case of heads we win, tails you lose. No matter the weather, it’s all because of manmade carbon dioxide from industry. Of course, they are heretics.
Also, I firmly believe that the general (overall) acceptance of “planned grazing” has suffered drastically because most of the practitioners have associated themselves with this nonsense. And Real Cowboys are smart enough to recognize nonsense when they see it and avoid it when possible.
I urge all you real cowboys to put the politics out of your mind. But, always be mindful that we do, indeed, sequester carbon. And we do it because it makes money–an activity that improves the well being of every man, woman and child on the planet. Profits are proof of socially responsible behavior. — jtl, 419
by John Myers via Personal Liberty
Al Gore’s back with climate change warnings and a $90 trillion plan
“I had a horrible nightmare. I dreamed that I went… back in time. It was terrible.” — Marty McFly in the 1985 movie “Back to the Future”
It was always just a question of time for Al Gore. The man who was nearly elected president in 2000 has flipped his lid, cracked his nut or popped his cork. His latest ingenious idea is to remove cars from all the cities of the world. And all it will take is $90 trillion.
Last month, the former vice president and no less of a venerable person than former Mexican President Felipe Calderón — a leader who couldn’t control cocaine distribution, much less car production — proposed a $90 trillion plan to redesign every city on Earth so that motor vehicles will become obsolete. Calderón must have snorted too much of the Kool Aid because he wants to remake the world with mass transit.
Calderón is chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which produced a report titled “Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report.” The report’s introduction states:
By 2030, around 60 percent of the global population will live in urban areas. Cities and urban areas will house nearly all of the world’s net population growth over the next two decades: 1.4 million people are being added to urban areas each week, roughly the population of Stockholm.
If you thought President George W. Bush was bad at accounting, you should thank your lucky stars we didn’t elect Gore. Ninety trillion dollars is more than twice the value of last year’s U.S. gross domestic product — the entire value of every ounce of gold ever mined, plus the complete valuation of every publicly traded stock in the United States. If every human on the planet gave Gore just $11,000, we would have it all paid for. And out of the deal there would be no more cars, at least not inside a city.
Imagine the impact on the U.S. auto industry. According to the Auto Alliance’s 2015 jobs report, automakers are driving the American economy forward:
Employing 1.55 million Americans and impacting a total of 7.25 million U.S. jobs.
Generating $500 billion in annual compensation.
Providing $205 billion in state and federal tax revenue each year.
When I was a kid, they had a place for people like Gore — and it wasn’t the White House. It was called the nuthouse, and that is where they kept the insane — people who thought they were Jesus Christ or Napoleon. But today, Gore is spouting off nonsense and not one person is out there with a net trying to catch him. Worst of all are the millions of deluded Greens — who must be just as crazy as he — who are listening because Gore and his cult leaders are preaching the coming apocalypse from global warming (whoops, I forgot; it is now called climate change).
Climate change is when the weather is variable — things like hurricanes, droughts, torrential rains, blizzards and abnormally warm winters. Yes, Greens have built in a case of heads we win, tails you lose. No matter the weather, it’s all because of manmade carbon dioxide from industry. Of course, they are heretics. You can watch it in the compelling documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” where scientists contend that climate change in terms of human activity is negligible. They argue that climate has always been changing long before man had anything to do with it, including during the Medieval Warm Period.
It turns out more recent data doesn’t add up either. Between 1900 and 1940, when man’s impact was negligible, global temperatures were rising. Then, between 1940 and 1970 — when the Second Industrial Revolution was in high gear — global temperatures actually declined. Only for the past few decades have temperatures been rising, and a much better correlation between global temperatures is solar activity.
To date, the Gore Greens have found no way to spend our money controlling the sun. So they want to stick us with the cost of combating human-produced carbon dioxide. Why not? The war on drugs and the war on terror have already cost the United States $1 trillion. What’s another $90 trillion or so fighting the war on carbon?
Not another disaster movie!
This is the kicker: Climate change will create volcanoes. It plays like a 70s disaster movie. But instead of Charlton Heston, we are stuck with Gore.
Here is the science behind it by no less of an authority than the University of Arizona and the University of Iceland. After looking at 62 GDP sensors around Iceland since 1995, researchers found out that Iceland is rising. You might have thought that was because of all the money that flooded out of the country during their banking collapse. But, no, Iceland is rising by 1.4 inches per year because the glaciers around it are melting. As places like Iceland rise, pressure on the rocks decreases. That means rocks eventually turn to magma (molten rock). And we all know that magma can pool and lead to volcanoes that erupt, putting even more carbon in the atmosphere. That, of course, will create more volcanoes and… Well, you get the picture. It all makes sense, and the outcrop of it will be the war on volcanoes.
Do polar bears have penis envy?
And there is something even worse, polar bears are drowning! Of course, polar bears do swim much of the time. And as any lifeguard will tell you, people who swim sometimes drown. But there is something much more sinister afloat; people like us who drive cars are what killing the polar bears. That’s because they have to swim further to reach ice sheets. On the one hand, that has to be good for seals. But since news reports on clubbing baby seals has been replaced by drowning polar bears (which are shown on TV now), nobody really gives a damn about seals.
Even worse, man-made chemicals now make male polar bears have the indignity of dying with small penises. Last week in “Polar bear penises are getting weaker,” The Independent reported:
In a new study published in Environmental Research, scientists examined samples of the penis bone — a bone called the baculum that allows some mammals to have longer, more successful mating sessions — to see if environmental pollutants might be effecting their density. They focused on a type of industrial contaminant called polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.
And let us never forget about the impact of climate change. It works like this, say the Greens: Climate change is leading to less food, which makes polar bears skinnier. With less body weight mammals are more susceptible to pollutants that cut of their chances at reproduction. Between the diet, the chances of drowning and fewer chances to mate, polar bears have it bad. This is more than enough reason to give generously to Gore and his campaign against carbon. After, all weather forecasters are as sure about climate change as they were about the catastrophic blizzard that didn’t hit the Northeast last week.
All of this brings me back to where I started, with Marty McFly: “Since when can weathermen predict the weather, let alone the future?”
John Myers is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.