Un-Liberaled Woman

Well, not quite yet….But according to the latest analysis at Glenn Beck it looks like we’re actually closer than ever despite the UN’s unethical withholding of scientific reports that refute their inaccurate global warming myths (via Trying To Grok):

In case you can’t see the video, here’s the screencap from Sarah’s site with her insightful (aka COMMON SENSE) analysis:

The red lines: “UN Predictions for Temperature Levels”

The yellow line: “UN Predictions: What Will Happen to Temperatures If Their Restrictions Are Put In Place”

The green line: “Global Temperatures from Surface Station Measurements”

The blue line: “Global Temperatures from Satellite Measurements”

So the red and yellow lines are what the UN says will happen, and the green and blue lines are what is really happening.  Note the enormous plummet away from prediction.

I mean, I know Sarah is a Smarty McSmartpants and all, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when I’m not enjoying my typical summer in Chicago by still having to wear a coat in June that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there is NO GLOBAL WARMING going on, particularly one that is man-caused. That said I’m all for reasonable pro-environment, anti-dependency-on-foreign-energy-supply-legislation. But the current craptastic scribble, scrabble know as the Cap ‘n Trade legislation sponsored by Golum’s evil twin Henry Waxman.  Myyyyyyyyy precious taxes!

I know. I know – I’m totally inappropriate sometimes. Pah-lease, like you aren’t thinking the same thing everytime that weasel gets on the screen doing the Make-Pelotox-Happy-Dance.

Anytypicalliberaltangent, here’s the deal with my anti-position on Democrat environment or “green” policies – they are developed not as a way to save the earffffffffffff as Pelotox and Obama would have you believe. They are created on the basis of creating more revenue for government. They are created on false or highly-questionable “research” spouted off by the UN – the same UN and scientists who get their money to fund said research from the US government (ie, taxpayers). Conflict of interest, say wha-aaaaaaaaaaaat!

Typically these green bills are passed on the premise in the media as it’s going to lower man’s carbon footprint (hahahahahahahahah), but what they seem to leave out is that little thing called facts. Like the one based in reality from say, oh! The Deparment of Energy which states that human activity only accounts for less than 1% of all greenhouse gas. If you couple this with the report from the EPA (the same report the UN left out of it’s 2007 study and has tried to suppress ever since) that says the temperatures of the earth have been dramatically cooling not warming – gee, what do you get. I’ll tell you – you get a bunch of conflicting “science” that on either side of the aisle should NOT be used as a main proponent to create slimy legislation that will cripple the current energy resources, the economy, and those folks on the lower economic scale who cannot afford to be whipped forcefully into paying for higher energy services that most likely will not have any better affect on the earth than current ones.

Breath, Beth, breath….

You need to start wondering why is it that Democrat leaders who are supposedly so “green” friendly have voiced their disdain for nuclear energy. Nuclear energy – you know that ultra-cheap (and recyclable) energy source that has ZERO CO2 emissions. The same energy source that Democrats couldn’t tax under a normal cap and trade bill because they wouldn’t have any emissions to tax, thus giving them no revenue to pay “global warming” scientists to conduct research that says we need more CO2 emission lowering policies. Ain’t government Grrrrrrrrrrr-eat!

Here’s a breakdown of the cost of energy sources (and here’s a link to benefit comparisons) (via The Economics of Nuclear Power)

Notice, that nuclear is the cheapest and the one we use the least of in the US. If we even just doubled the # of nuclear plants in the US to say 40 (currently, there’s around 20 plants I think) the costs per nuclear-produced kilowatt would drop even further. Who would benefit? Oh, only you, me, my cousin’s baby daddy, etc. Oh, but not the government – because they wouldn’t be able to perpetuate myths that they could then use to increase taxes to give their parasitic machine even more revenue streams they can’t then budget properly.

Cleanest, cost-efficient energy that won’t produce revenue for government but will be cheap for Americans and produce local jobs

VS.

Bait-n-switch legislation that gives the government more revenue but punishes US energy companies with taxes those businesses will then pass down to Americans and will create less local jobs, and encourage companies to outsource their energy refinement in other countries.

Gee, is the “dilemma” transparent enough?

And before any liberals start tooting their opposition horn about initial, large capital investments that come with nuclear power, let’s remind them they are the same group that lectures everyone about getting a hybrid. The same type of hybrid car that costs around 20% on average more than non-hybrid models but is advocated as savings in the long run. Also, as to other renewable energy efficiency, take a walk down the lane of economic realities:

• Solar energy costs currently around $45,000 to install solar panels on a house. You’ll then receive a tax credit (ie, a reimbursement after you’ve basically given Uncle Sam a loan with your hard earned income) of around $20k. Those tax credits don’t go much more beyond that amount, so you’re still paying around $20k for energy that is around only 50% reliable – remember, if it’s a cloudy day then there’s no energy. Plus you still have to be connect to the grid and electricity has to run constant, so you will be paying for some man-made electricity.

• Wind energy costs even more – at around 15 cents/kilowatt. Remember, in the US nuclear costs around 3 cents a kilowatt (even with much less nuclear plants than wind farms). And that is for on-shore wind farm energy, and remember that those elitist “green” Dems don’t like to host wind farms in THEIR backyard – oh no, that’s what you’re backyard is for. Again, if you needed further proof on how wind energy is an overblown fallacy, here are some facts (via Island Turtle). You can also ask your handy civil or electrical engineer and they’ll probably tell you the same thing – I know because my husband happens to build lots of structures that demand massive amounts of electricity and the best economical way to keep those structures running.

Wind power isn’t a good match for baseload management, but regulatory requirements mandate it be given priority. Wind has a problem. It is an intermittent source of electricity. It isn’t necessarily there when you need it. Because of its intermittency, wind power must be backed up by conventional thermal power. This means fossil fueled plants can’t be dismantled as wind power capacity is put in place.

There are just times when there is no wind over vast stretches of our country. Just after Al Gore made his energy speech last July, I checked the wind maps of the eastern US. There was no wind over 10 mph (the threshold for wind generation) anywhere on the east coast, and most areas were flat calm. Other than pumped water storage, there is no economical way to store this electricity. There are only 31 pumped storage facilities in the US and all their capacity is spoken for. The prospect for expanding that number is unlikely.

So take this all in the next time you hear some corduroy-jacket wearing, English professor academia type whining about how we need to do more for the earth. He can do more for the earth by sticking his head where the sun don’t shine than lecturing me about driving less and the need for our government to waste $800 billion more dollars on a flusy-in-a-skirt bill like Cap and Trade.