November 29, 2010

At Cancun, ‘Climate Change Experts’ Call for End to Developed World Economic Growth for ‘The Next 20 Years’


This would be really funny if it weren’t for the fact that so many supposedly informed people, including our president and so many who surround him, may actually buy into ideas being proposed at the United Nations-sponsored Cancun climate conference, and will relish the means by which they could be put into place.

At the UK Telegraph today, environment correspondent Louise Gray feeds us the following headline and sub-headline:

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world

Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions.

From all appearances, such rationing would last at least two decades, during which there would be, by design, no economic growth. Zero, zip, nada.

Here are selected paragraphs from Gray’s grouse (bolds and number tags are mine):

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration. [1]

… In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. [2]

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles [2] for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

… He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s. [3]

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, [2] it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

… At the moment efforts are focused on trying to get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels. [4]

But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up.

A suggestion for Prof. Anderson and Dr. Allen: You first, guys. If you commit for the next 20 years not to use a computer or any kind of wireless communication device, and only to travel via public transportation, we might listen. Too harsh for self-appointed elitists like you? Too bad.

Specific notes:

  • [1] — Climategate, “The Dog Ate My Global Warming Data,” other clear breaches of scientific protocol and objectivity, and the inherent limitations of relying on computer models to predict what will happen in a complex world make this claim speculative at best, and needless scaremongering at worst.
  • [2] — Within just a few paragraphs, 20 years of no economic growth means “drastic lifestyle changes” but somehow not “a worse lifestyle.” Really?
  • [3] — By describing them as having occurred “in the 1930s and 1940s,” Ms. Gray makes the World War II-related rationing regimes appear worse than they were. They lasted six years at most, less than one-third of the two decades desired by the self-appointed experts. Patriotism reined in the black market to an extent during World War II. It will require a police state to restrain the black market that will result from a government-enforced, popularly-opposed scam during peacetime. Perhaps statists consider that a feature, not a bug.
  • [4] — “Cutting emissions by 50% relative to 1990″ is cynically manipulative math at its worst. Since worldwide emissions have grown by about 35% since 1990, cutting back to 1990 levels would really require a reduction of 63% (.85 divided by 1.35). Gullible environment correspondents are apparently a bit more likely to swallow the idea of a falsely-advertised 50% reduction than one that in reality, after considering population growth, involves per-capita reductions approaching 70%.

As noted earlier, the fact that there are people in positions of power and responsibility who either buy into globaloney (my term for human-caused global warming) or, in certain cases, unapologetically see it as a convenient opportunity for engaging in wealth redistribution, means that nonsense such as what is emanating from Cancun can’t be ignored.

Cross-posted at

Lucid Links (112910, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:02 am

Contrasting post-Black Friday headlines:

  • At the Associated Press late Friday — “What recession? Shoppers eat up Black Friday deals” (*)
  • At the Wall Street Journal, on Sunday at about noon — “Black Friday Sales Rise, But Only Slightly”
  • At the AP late Sunday, seemingly in response to the WSJ’s cold water — “Holiday sales encouraging, but are shoppers done?”
  • At the New York Times on Sunday — “Robust Sales for Holiday Weekend”

The pertinent fact, obtained from the third report listed: “On Friday, retailers at shopping malls had sales of $10.7 billion, an increase of 0.3 percent over last year, according to preliminary figures from ShopperTrak, a research firm that counts shoppers at 70,000 stores.” Based on anecdotes and personal observations, I’m surprised it was that good.

* – Hmm, is the AP’s Anne D’Innocenzio telling us she’s not convinced that the recession is really over?


At the UK Telegraph“Inside North Korea – exclusive footage.” It’s only three minutes. Just watch.


Deficit commission member Alan Simpson has a name for the generation that followed “the Greatest Generation.” It’s “the Greediest Generation.” He’s referring to Boomers. Despite Simpson’s premature verdict based on his e-mail inbox, interactions with long-time acquaintances, and government bureaucrats trying to preserve their turf, the jury is still out. Oh, and you’re not “greedy” if you think taxes are already too high.


R. Emmett Tyrell at NewsBusters: “I Was Wrong: The TSA Has Gone Overboard.” He has four good reasons, of which the last, bolded by me, is the best:

  1. “Mark Hyman, who, having served in intelligence in the 1980s, is given to writing very thoughtfully about security matters. He thought the TSA a joke.” (Hyman writes that It is long past time to disband the TSA. Replace it with an effective, free market system that actually works.”)
  2. “… the savage who almost killed the head of Saudi intelligence had secreted one in his — the polite word is — body cavity. Bombs carried in this manner could not be caught by the scanner or a team of the TSA’s best.”
  3. “(There is) a whole array of freedom issues here, and one could not take them lightly. This was, if not the tea party movement, at least the impulse that gave the tea party life, a love of personal liberty that is not found in many nations of the earth.”
  4. “This whole controversy is unnecessary. The Israelis have found a way to avoid it and to avoid savages blowing up airplanes. It is by intelligent, non-intrusive profiling. The Israeli agent picks a suspect. The agent stands very close to the suspect and asks questions in a rapid-fire manner, preventing the suspects from considering their answers. The Israelis watch for behavioral reactions that merit further inspection. By contrast, TSA behavior detection officers’ techniques are a joke.”


The News York Times’s description of its handling of the latest wave of Wikileaks docs reveals an extraordinary level of constructive communication with the Obama administration:

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself.

That’s nice.

Does anyone recall the Times being so cooperative during the Bush administration when it had info in 2006 about how terror money was making its way around the world? Uh no, it was the opposite.

Positivity: The Wedding Gown That Made History

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:56 am

At the Jewish Press (HT to an e-mailer):

Posted Dec 31 2008

Lilly Friedman doesn’t remember the last name of the woman who designed and sewed the wedding gown she wore when she walked down the aisle over 60 years ago. But the grandmother of seven does recall that when she first told her fiancé Ludwig that she had always dreamed of being married in a white gown he realized he had his work cut out for him.

For the tall, lanky 21-year-old who had survived hunger, disease and torture this was a different kind of challenge. How was he ever going to find such a dress in the Bergen Belsen Displaced Person’s camp where they felt grateful for the clothes on their backs?

Fate would intervene in the guise of a former German pilot who walked into the food distribution center where Ludwig worked, eager to make a trade for his worthless parachute. In exchange for two pounds of coffee beans and a couple of packs of cigarettes Lilly would have her wedding gown.

For two weeks Miriam the seamstress worked under the curious eyes of her fellow DPs, carefully fashioning the six parachute panels into a simple, long sleeved gown with a rolled collar and a fitted waist that tied in the back with a bow. When the dress was completed she sewed the leftover material into a matching shirt for the groom.

A white wedding gown may have seemed like a frivolous request in the surreal environment of the camps, but for Lilly the dress symbolized the innocent, normal life she and her family had once led before the world descended into madness. Lilly and her siblings were raised in a Torah observant home in the small town of Zarica, Czechoslovakia where her father was a melamed, respected and well liked by the young yeshiva students he taught in nearby Irsheva.

He and his two sons were marked for extermination immediately upon arriving at Auschwitz. For Lilly and her sisters it was only their first stop on their long journey of persecution, which included Plashof, Neustadt, Gross Rosen and finally Bergen Belsen.

Four hundred people marched 15 miles in the snow to the town of Celle on January 27, 1946 to attend Lilly and Ludwig’s wedding. The town synagogue, damaged and desecrated, had been lovingly renovated by the DPs with the meager materials available to them. When a Sefer Torah arrived from England they converted an old kitchen cabinet into a makeshift Aron Kodesh.

“My sisters and I lost everything – our parents, our two brothers, our homes. The most important thing was to build a new home.” Six months later, Lilly’s sister Ilona wore the dress when she married Max Traeger. After that came Cousin Rosie. How many brides wore Lilly’s dress? “I stopped counting after 17.” With the camps experiencing the highest marriage rate in the world, Lilly’s gown was in great demand.

In 1948 when President Harry Truman finally permitted the 100,000 Jews who had been languishing in DP camps since the end of the war to emigrate, the gown accompanied Lilly across the ocean to America. Unable to part with her dress, it lay at the bottom of her bedroom closet for the next 50 years, “not even good enough for a garage sale. I was happy when it found such a good home.”

Home was the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Go here for the rest of the story.