BUSINESS

Global Warming, Climate Change, Eco-disaster…whatever you call it, it’s a hoax. The Global Warming Alarmists have fooled the media, but they have not fooled me. I don’t believe Human Released CO2 is a major contributor to temperature change on this planet.  However, those with big egos are convinced that we evil humans, with our electricity, and horseless carriages, and domesticated cow farts, are irreversably changing our planet forever.  I don’t have a problem with this….I have MANY problems with this.

My argument against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is filled with common sense issues that any non-scientist should be able to understand.  I understand that it’s too much for a politician to follow, but anyone else with a 5th grade education should get it.

1. The Climate has always “changed”. Never in recorded history has the climate remained constant.  30-40 years ago, some scientists were concerned about Global Cooling, the last few decades have seen that change to Global Warming…and now that it’s been cooling againg for 10 years, it’s Climate Change.  Fancy how they keep moving the target.  They’ve finally hit it on the head.  The climate will ALWAYS change, regardless if we act or not.  Again egos….how can one believe we can put a thermostat on our atmosphere when we can’t control the smallest of mother nature’s forces. Can anyone make a thunderstorm?  How about a rainstorm for droughts, or a dry spell for flooded regions.  Can anyone change direction of a tornado, or a hurricane?  Can you make it snow (And I don’t mean the resorts’ snow machines), or make it stop snowing?  Can you create Arctic Ice or stop a volcano?  Can you explain ALL facets of our environement which you so confidently think we can control?  The answer to ALL of these questions is NO! Why on earth is it possible to control temperature through CO2 control alone.  It’s a ridiculous argument.
2. I don’t believe our temperature data is complete with all of the abnormalities in collecting the data. There are 1221 USHCN climate stations in the USA.  Anthony Watts created the project http://www.surfacestations.org to compile data on each of the weather stations throughout the US.  What he huas found is startling.  A HUGE number of these temperature devices have been placed in locations that could never give an accurate picture.  In Forest Grove, OR, you can see their weather station less than 10 ft from a building (that stores heat in it’s bricks, and releases it at night), it’s next to a window air conditioner unit that blows hot air on it all sunmmer long, and nearby parking lots that also store heat in the day and release at night.  Even more amazing are the examples when we have documented construction near a station.  Anthony DIRECTLY coorelates a new parking lot with temperature increase for that station.  BUT it’s being BLAMED on CO2!  The records are unreliable, and shouldn’t be trusted.
3. CO2 is their only enemy. Wonderful carbon dioxide gets the blame for all of it.  Without it, all animal and plant life would cease.  With it, we all flourish.  History shows CO2 levels lagging behind temperature rises (by about 800 YEARS!).  But now we’re told it’s the CO2 that drive the temperature.  That’s bass ackwards.  There must be something else at work.  I believe the Marxist, anti capitalist, environmental (anti-human) movement has found their golden goose egg.  By controlling all forms of CO2, they can control ALL industry, driving, even exhaling….and hasn’t that been their goal from the beginning?
4. Ice levels are at the same level as 30 years ago. Go back one year when the alarmists were saying the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2008.  Well, that didn’t happen (their scenarios never do), and instead the sea ice levels ROSE to 1979 levels when we started recording them!  Remember that the year of 2008 saw the Polar Bear put on the endangered species list due to the diminishing sea ice.  It’s back, so can we take them off the list?  OR, maybe we should put seals on the list since the bears can get to them easier now.  So, how did the alarmists get it wrong?  For one, they thought “new ice” would melt faster than old ice.  BUT, they neglected to consider the effect of snow cover on the ice.  Since the temperature dropped quickly at the end of 2008, the new ice formed much MORE new ice since it wasn’t insulated with snow.  Ice grew at the fastest rate EVER recorded. I guess NBC missed the scoop on that one.
   
5. Speaking of NBC…the media is clueless. Their main goal is to get/keep viewers.  They’ve found the formula for success is to scare the pants off of everyone.  That makes people pay attention and watch the news.  To promote the iceless summer, and the impact of global warming, NBC News highlighted the penguins at the North Pole.  There’s only one ENORMOUS problem with this.  All 17 species of penguins live at the South Pole.  OOPS.  This could be brushed off as a simple error by an over zealous editor, or it represents the TOTAL lack of knowledge and responsiblity held by the media as it relates to our climate.  I believe the latter.
6. There’s not enough man-made CO2 to make a difference! Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number. The yearly increase is many orders of magnitude smaller than the standard deviation errors for CO2 concentration measurement.  97% of CO2 is from natural sources. Only 3% is produced from human activity. When you take into account that all CO2 makes up only .033% of the TOTAL atmosphere, you realize that our addition is minuscule at best.
7. Computer models are not accurate. Not a single dire prediction made by James Hansen 20 years ago has come true.  The computer models have predicted it all wrong.  Remember the Hockey Stick that started it all?  It has been THOROUGHLY debunked.  We can’t predict weather more than a few days in advance, but the alarmists have some magical computer that can see 100 years into the future.  BS.
   
8. Who decides where to set the thermostat? While some in Siberia might welcome some warming, those in the Middle East might prefer some cooling.  Who gets to decide the perfect global temperature?  Al Gore?  The UN?  The Marxists?  Greenpeace?  Silly rabbit, Mother Nature does.
   

$22,000 Chinese “Buffetmobile” Goes 100 Miles on Charge.

Beijing (AFP) Dec 15, 2008 — China’s first mass-produced hybrid electric car hit the market on Monday, its manufacturer BYD Auto said, in a move aimed at driving the nation to the cutting edge of the world’s green auto industry. BYD Auto is a Chinese company backed by American Warren Buffett owns 9.9 percent of the firm.

The F3DM is also the world’s first mass-produced plug-in hybrid car, meaning owners can charge it from powerpoints at home for the first time, as well as in specialised electric car charging stations, BYD says. Its president says BYD and China are “on their way to being world leaders in the fuel-efficient auto industry.”

BYD, which also specialises in making rechargeable batteries, only started making cars in 2003 when it bought a bankrupt state-owned auto company.

Its hybrid car is planned to first go on the market in 14 Chinese cities, and the firm is initially focusing on striking deals for company fleets rather than individuals, mycar168.com, another auto website, quoted BYD’s president as saying.

The United States, meanwhile, is currently examining the F3DM to see if it meets the necessary standards for its domestic market, a spokesperson for the firm was quoted as saying by pcauto.com.cn, another car-focused web portal.

Exports to the United States could begin from 2010, according to the report.

The Prius hybrid electric car, made by Japan’s Toyota, is currently sold in China, but the F3DM is the first locally made hybrid vehicle to hit the market.

BYD’s hybrid car, which can run 100 kilometres (62 miles) on a full battery, will cost just under 150,000 China lags behind Western companies in conventional car technologies, but were at a similar level when it comes to hybrids and can leap frog them into a lead.

Chevrolet continues to be best seller in China and GM is profitable there.

Twenty-two pounds and hardly a scrap mentioning efficiency.

Here is all 22 pounds of it (in this case, Ford’s 2,215 page 2007 master contract. The Coke can is for scale. I’ll tell you this much, those 2,215 pages don’t include much regarding efficiency and competitiveness. What you’ll find are hundreds of rules, regulations, and letters of understanding that have hamstrung the auto companies for years.

Most of these rules are deliberately anti-efficiency. You can’t move a guy off the (say) window-installation line, where he’s not working because frames aren’t being put out quickly enough, to the frame-welding line. Because it’s the rule. So everything slows down for no good reason.These rules are mostly put in as coercive tools against management. Want to speed up that frame-welding line by diverting some window-installation workers to lend a hand? Well, maybe: But it will cost you. How much is it worth to you?

There are 15 foreign owned auto-light truck manufacturing plants in the USA making 54% of all the cars and trucks Americans buy and employing 134,000 workers to do that. By comparison the so-called Detroit 3 (newly retitled Big -3) use 234,000 workers to make the remaining 46% that Americans buy. Both groups of workers make about $28 @ hour and have comparable health and retirement benefits. But, if you are using almost twice as many workers to build roughly the same number of cars and light trucks you can see who wins.

Most of the difference is buried in a welter of works rules, and regulations that make head-to-head competition impossible.This sort of nonsense is killing American industry.

Worry About Parts and Service Pushing Buyers Away from Bankrupt Auto Makers

Would you buy a car made by an auto manufacturer that was in bankruptcy?  Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters say “No” in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-one percent (31%) say they would, and 18% aren’t sure.

The financially beleaguered Big Three automakers, desperate to make sales, are making unprecedented offers to move cars off their dealers’ lots.

But 54% of women and 47% of men say they aren’t interested. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of men and 25% of women would buy a car made by a bankrupt company.

Dealers, take note: Far more than any other age group, 54% of men under the age of 40 say they’d buy a car from a company in bankruptcy.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of African-Americans and 49% of whites wouldn’t buy such a car, though. Forty-nine percent (49%) of investors also say no, compared to 54% of non-investors.

If GM or Chrysler or both go bankrupt, consumers worry about continued access to parts, the availability of servicing for their vehicles and how long warranties would be honored. U.S. News & World report even says cars made by bankrupt companies depreciate in value faster.

Officials at General Motors have said the automaker will run out of cash this month and faces bankruptcy in the near future unless it gets government financial help. Chrysler is in similar straits. White House and congressional negotiators appear close to an agreement on a $15-billion taxpayer-backed loan package for GM and Chrysler, even though 53% of voters are opposed to such loans.

Ford says its cash flow is good through at least 2009 and is not seeking any loan money.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) say it is Very Likely that one of the major automakers will go out of business within the next year or two, with another 31% saying it is somewhat likely. Just three percent (3%) say it is not at all likely to happen.

Investors are even more sure that bankruptcy is in the offing for at least one of the automakers. Forty-five percent (45%) of investors say it is Very Likely, compared to 34% of non-investors.

67% Say Congress Can’t And Shouldn’t Run Detroit Car Makers

Come hell or high water Congress is determined to shovel money at Detroit automakers and install a so-called Czar to oversee the companies. Only 14% of U.S. voters think the Big Three automakers will run better if they are run by the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Two-thirds of voters (67%) say the companies will not run better. Nineteen percent (19%) aren’t sure. Just eight percent (8%) of investors believe the federal government will run the companies better, compared to 21% of non-investors. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of investors and 55% of non-investors say the companies will not be run better.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of men do not think the government will run the auto companies better versus 63% of women.

While 77% of Republicans and 72% of unaffiliated voters do not believe the government will do a better job with the auto companies, only 56% of Democrats agree. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Democratic voters think the government will run the companies better, a view shared by just nine percent (9%) of both GOP and unaffiliated voters.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters oppose taxpayer-funded loans to help keep General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in business.

When voters are asked if the federal government should go even further and buy the financially troubled automakers, 66% say no, 16% say yes, and 17% are undecided.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliateds are against the government buying the Big Three, compared to 57% of Democrats. Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democrats think it’s a good idea, although just 12% of Republicans and 13% of unaffiliated voters agree.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of investors oppose a government buyout of the automakers versus 59% of non-investors. Men under age 40 and women above that age are the least critical of a government takeover of the auto companies.

While 70% of whites are opposed to the government buying the Big Three, only 48% of African-Americans agree. Thirty-three percent (33%) of blacks support such an idea, but only 13% of whites agree.

In a survey in mid-September, only 26% of adults were at least somewhat confident that U.S. policymakers know what they are doing when it comes to addressing the nation’s current economic problems.

The short-term loan plan being worked out in Washington calls for the creation of a federal “car czar” who will develop benchmarks by which to measure the automakers’ restructuring and who will have the power to push management, unions, shareholders and others to implement changes

.
A longer term bailout plan proposed by President-elect Obama goes even further. “It could mean that the government would mandate, or at least heavily influence, what kind of cars companies make, what mileage and environmental standards they must meet and what large investments they are permitted to make,” according to a report in the New York Times.

While voters display little confidence in government control of the automakers, 59% say senior managers of a company should be replaced if taxpayer funding is provided to keep the company afloat.

Seventeen percent (17%) say senior managers do not need to be replaced, but nearly one-quarter of voters (24%) are not sure.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters say the senior managers should be replaced in the event of a government bailout. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of investors and 63% of non-investors agree.

CEO Gets Big Slice of Chutzpah Topped Hypocrisy Pie.

Claiming he deserves a $10 million bonus Merrill Lynch & Co Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 because he helped “Mother Merrill” avert what could have been a much larger crisis at the firm the WSJ is reporting. In September the company agreed to a merger with Bank of America that was just approved by shareholders last Friday. Merrill-Lynch agreed to be bought by B of A an hour before Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy.

WSJ is saying the battered company’s compensation committee is resisting Thain’s request. The compensation committee has not reached a decision, but is leaning toward denying Thain and other senior executives bonuses for this year, people told the paper.

The fear was that Merrill could be next if shareholders and trading partners fled, as many did at Lehman and the former Bear Stearns Cos both of whom collapsed.

Thain, became Merrill’s chief executive after losses in mortgage-related investments led to the October 2007 ouster of Stanley O’Neal, has also run NYSE Euronext, after a long career at Goldman.

Dow Jones is reporting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,immediately chimed in demanding Thain’s request be rejected saying Merrill-Lynch is benefiting from the bank bailout meaning he’d be benefiting from taxpayer money.

If nothing else you have to award Thain a giant slice of chutzpah topped Hypocrisy pie for making his demand.

76% says bank big wigs, like Rubin and Prince allegedly did, who knowingly manipulated their bank’s condition should go to jail.

Wall Street sources say Robert Rubin, the Clinton-era Treasury chief who as a director at Citigroup is credited with the bank’s move into higher-risk investments, will step down. A Rubin spokesman denied it.

The New York Post reports that a federal lawsuit against Rubin and former Citi CEO Chuck Prince accuses the two of orchestrating nothing less than a Ponzi-style scheme to defraud shareholders. The lawsuit says the pair took on trillions in collateralized toxic debt and then, failing to sell them to outside investors, forced them on Citi itself. Then, shareholders argue they cashed out tens of millions in stock in advance of the Citibank stock collapse which wiped out tens of billions in shareholder value.

Citi stock has lost 75 percent of its value since the beginning of 2008. Citi trades now at $7.40. It began the year at almost $30 and in recent years traded as high as $55 a share.

The complaint also names Vice Chairman Lewis Kaden, ex-CFO Sallie Krawcheck (who has since departed the firm), and her successor CFO Gary Crittenden, reported the Post.

Citi denied the allegations.

In a Friday. December 5, 2008 Rasmussen Report 76% says bank big wigs. Like Rubin and Prince who knowingly manipulated their bank’s conidition should go to jail. Twenty-two banks have failed so-far in 2008. So far the allegations against Citi’s executives are only civil in nature.