Pirate's Cove

Perhaps they should refuse to breed and reduce their own population

(Delmarvanow) In a classic case of confusing root causes with symptoms, an environmental report on the United States’ rising contribution to climate change during a recent 15-year period was titled “The Carbon Boom.”

It should have been titled “The Population Boom,” as virtually the whole increase measured in carbon dioxide emissions came from more people, not from burning more fossil fuel per capita.

This remains, approaching every environmental solution in terms of reducing our carbon (or nitrogen or land-use) “footprint,” lowering our per-capita impacts — seldom even discussing the other major part of the solution, the size of the population.

So, it’s people, not fossil fueled vehicles. For a change, though, they aren’t aiming at poor people in 3rd world shit holes

In their paper, Population Engineering and the Fight Against Climate Change, Travis N. Rieder, a Johns Hopkins bioethicist, and his colleagues Jake Earl and Colin Hickey, of Georgetown University, examine a range of techniques societies could use, or use more widely, to stabilize population. The authors, all moral philosophers, rule out the most coercive policies, such as sterilization and mandated family sizes. They would aim stronger population-slowing measures at wealthier, more developed countries to avoid unfairly targeting poorer, more desperate and less educated people.

Of course, the wealthier nations already have a much lower birth rate

The authors point out that our reproductive choices have a “carbon legacy,” as every child’s contribution to climate change continues for generations and expands with that child’s children and grandchildren, and so on. It’s enough to utterly swamp all the reductions one might make in their own impacts.

Sure looks like they’re aiming at everyone, though. And for all the protestations about not being anti human, they’re anti human.

Read: Warmists Are Still Pushing The Population Reduction Meme »

The Washington Post’s Roger Cohen has an interesting question

The Democrats’ panic over climate questions speaks volumes

Former president Bill Clinton used to say, “If you know what you’re talking about, you don’t mind talking.” And it stands to reason that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you will panic and hide when you are asked to talk. Well, the very idea that the Trump transition team is asking for the names of the government officials who worked on specific climate matters during their time in government service has sent the Democrats running for the hills. But merely being asked for the names of those who attended climate change conferences and participated in creating or studying climate change policy has been greeted as a threat and sent liberals in the government and in the media into a frenzy. Why are they so hypersensitive? Obama Energy Department officials have said they will not name any of the staffers who worked on climate change programs or even attended any such meetings, with Energy Department spokeswoman Eben Burnhan-Snyder saying the inquiries from the Trump transition had “left many in our workforce unsettled.” Seriously? Asking who did the work around there is out of bounds? Again, the Energy Department is refusing to answer questions about who did what to formulate the policies that we now live with. They would rather go into hiding than matter-of-factly and proudly explain their work. Why could that be? It confirms so much of what Republicans suspect about the Obama administration. (Disclosure: My firm represents interests in the fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries.)

Whew! That’s a heck of an opening paragraph! Anyhow, why are the so worried? What do they have to hide? Despite all the caterwauling from the Cult of Climastrology, when put into context, the questions asked of the DOE are not actually horrific and democracy ending, as we see from this Willis Eschenbach post, which features all the questions. Oh, and once Trump takes over, the DOE will have to answer the questions.

Perhaps it is because during the Obama years, work on climate change issues all started from a mandated conclusion: That manmade global warming was settled science and that it was bad and getting worse. Researchers quickly determined where the money was, and they knew the more alarming the study or findings from a working group, the better.

I have nothing to add to that. It’s the way the “science” of climastrology works.

All the hiding and panic speaks to a government that is out of control. How can it be that people won’t admit they even attended a specific meeting? It’s certainly the first time in my memory that one administration has affirmatively tried to hide their work from the next administration. So exactly what is it the Obama forces are hiding? Why have they gone silent in the face of a simple initial inquiry? There are plenty of safeguards in government to prevent retribution, so that isn’t really what this sudden fear is all about. And, the fact that scientists have “begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers” because they are worried about being denied “irreplaceable public data” also seems just a little paranoid and adds to the intrigue.

They do not want their data and methods exposed for the junk science they are. They don’t want their cushy positions of prognosticating doom on the taxpayer dime threatened.

Over to the Eschenbah article

This memo, as you might expect, is replete with acronyms. “DOE” is the Department of Energy. Here are the memo questions and my comments.

1. Can you provide a list of all boards, councils, commissions, working groups, and FACAs [Federal Advisory Committees] currently active at the Department? For each, can you please provide members, meeting schedules, and authority (statutory or otherwise) under which they were created?

If I were at DOE, this first question would indeed set MY hair on fire. The easiest way to get rid of something is to show that it was not properly established … boom, it’s gone. As a businessman myself, this question shows me that the incoming people know their business, and that the first order of business is to jettison the useless lumber.

Like I said, they’ll soon be required to answer the questions, starting January 20th. Team Trump will be digging in to the waste, fraud, junk science, cost over-runs, orphan departments with no accountability, and so forth, not just at the DOE, but other departments. Business likes to run smoothly, without the massive redundancy and such. Warmists had a good run on the public dole, but, that looks like it will soon end.

Read: Say, What Are Warmists In Obama DOE Hiding? »

The People’s Republik Of California is at it again

California imposes more costs on everyone nationwide for absolutely no reason at all. https://t.co/v0IH5SlXg6

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) December 16, 2016

You might remember the name Tatiana Schlossberg from a post earlier in the day. She wrote this one, as well, though, she’s mostly just reporting the stupid news

Computers, long a symbol of the digital age, are now moving into a more earth-friendly future: California’s state energy agency voted unanimously Wednesday to approve new regulations for energy efficiency in desktop computers and monitors.

The rules, passed by the agency, the California Energy Commission, are the country’s first attempt to regulate the energy use of desktop computers and represent another step in the state’s efforts to drastically lower its greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change.

Of course. One might think “seriously, how many people still use desktops?” Individuals may be switching, both personally and professionally, but lots and lots of companies, and individuals, still use lots of desktops.

Because the state is home to one in eight Americans, standards put in place could become de facto standards for the entire country, and, when it comes to international brands, the global market.

What this means is higher costs for the rest of us, because manufacturers won’t make one edition for CA and one for the rest, and certainly won’t tell CA they won’t make any to uphold those standards.

Will the energy savings offset the higher costs? Think on how many computers, tablets, and smartphones are currently Energy Star compliant now. According to the article, only 6% of desktops and 14% of monitors. One of the things I look for is energy savings. Hard to find.

Read: California Looks To Raise Computer Costs For Hotcoldwetdry »