24thState

Forbes Disproves Green Job Myth

Sometimes blogging can make you feel like a blind squirrel.  I'm just cruising through my feeds of Missouri political blogs, and  Willy at ShowMeProgess has a bit about Missouri falling behind in the green category, according to a new ranking out by Forbes.

I went to Forbes, and looked at the results, a state by state ranking of the greenest states based on things like carbon emissions, policies, and toxic waste management.  It's  good list, because it ranks states not based on a truly comprehensive study of the environment and a comparison of populations, climate, and energy production, but instead it ranks states based on a liberal wishlist of how states should act to be green.  The policy category is the dead giveaway.

So I decided to take those rankings, and match them up against unemployment rates from May 2009.  Surely the greenest of states in the Union, being so very far ahead of the rest of us, should be showing how they've kept unemployment down with new green jobs.  Surely there's been no economic slowdown in green states that makes it worse to work in that state instead of a dirty, naughty state like West Virginia.

Let's see. 

The top greenest states and their unemployment ranking (1 being the best in both categories).

1. Vermont  -     17th in unemployment
2. Oregon - 50th unemployment
3. Washington  - 34th in unemployment
4. Hawaii - 18th in unemployment
5. Maryland - 16th in unemployment
6 Connecticut - 21st in unemployment 
7. New Jersey - 31st in unemployment
8. Rhode Island - 48th in unemployment
9. New York - 23rd in unemployment
10. Arizona - 23rd in unemployment
11. Massachusetts - 23rd in unemployment
12.  Idaho - 20th in unemployment
13. Colorado - 19th unemployment
14. California - 47th in unemployment
15. Minnesota - 23rd in unemployment
16.  Wisconsin  - 32nd in unemployment
17. Nevada - 46th in unemployment
18. New Mexico - 9th in unemployment
19. New Hampshire - 9th in unemployment
20. Florida - 39th in unemployment.

Those are some interesting numbers.  Of the top 20 greenest states, only two crack the top 10 in employment rates, tying for number 9. It's not completely clear, but it sure does seem that having a high green ranking isn't particularly helpful for your state economy.

Here are some other fun figures.  2 of the top 20 greenest states are in the top 10 for employment.   5 of the bottom greenest states are in the top 10 for employment, including the two number one states.  Michigan is the worst state for unemployment, and yet it's ranked number 24 on the green scale.  California is ranked 14, and yet is 47th for worst employment.

Of course, we're told that green jobs are coming, but no one really knows when that is going to happen.  Green jobs replace "dirty" jobs, so the question is at what rate, and will we face higher unemployment while we wait for clean energy?  And is there any state that actually has a substantial number of "green" jobs, or is that kind of just made up to make us feel like we're doing something good?  

Suppressed EPA Report On Global Warming Now In Public

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has the draft report submitted by the NCEE - the National Center for Environmental Economics, which was squashed by an EPA adminstrator prior to the cap-and-trade bill vote.  The draft report is located here at the CEI site (pdf download).

It begins:

"We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation."

 

The report is even handed, drawing attention to new studies and erroneous conclusions from the IPCC AR4 report, but does not claim to refute global warming.  It simply says new evidence suggest we have made some major mistakes, and should understand those mistakes before agreeing with the premise that catastrophic climate change caused by humans is a fact.

 Emails from Al McGartland, Office Director of the EPA's NCEE, instruct the author of the study not to talk to anyone outside of the EPA, tell him not to spend anymore time on climate change, and tell him the report will not be forwarded.  The internal emails are located here with the memos from the CEI lawyer. 

Why is this important?  Because the conclusions of the study are that the EPA needs to look back over the science of climate change because the IPCC's conclusion is out of date.

• The global temperate has dropped for 11 years, even though CO2 concentration has increased, instead of rising, making a mockery of the IPCC graphs.
• New studies suggest water vapor and solar activity have significant impact (with solar being up to 68% of warming). 
• New studies suggest GHG (greenhouse gases) are not a significant factor in warming that occurred earlier.
• Differences in satellite and surface temperature reading seem likely to be the result of urbanization. 
• The study suggests the EPA should do their own science, rather than rely on an outdated, third party source, so that the EPA doesn't catch flak if this whole thing turns out to be a hoax.

Those are pretty major charges in the accepted consensus, and much of the work has come in the last three years, which means that the IPCC data is out of date (something supported by the lack of rising temperatures predicted by the IPCC).  You should read the report yourself, and draw your own conclusions as to what is says and what it means that the EPA Office Director doesn't want this evidence examined.  The Democrats are always screaming about anti-science Republicans, but use your head and draw your own conclusions.

Who says we should look at the evidence?
Who tells you the matter is settled, and those who disagree are akin to Holocaust deniers?
Who stands to profit if huge taxes and government control are instituted out of fear of global warming?
Who just rushed a bill through Congress that will have no effect on global temperature (by their own admission), but simply represents a symbolic act to let the rest of the world know we're serious?
Which group funds government scientists who support global warming, but attacks viciously anyone who dares to even ask if this is really happening?

Either science is based on science, or it's based on politics and thus has no credence.  The EPA suppressing a report that could have made the difference in four votes in the Waxman Markey bill is proof that climate change politics is more important than actually understanding climate change.

I warned last year that the perversion of scientific studies was going to create a backlash against information we need to progress as a society.  How much money has been wasted on bad global warming studies instead of figuring out ways to improve energy research, clean air and water, and responsibly cut back on fossil fuels without crippling our economy?

As always, as the voice of reason, I simply ask you my readers to look at the evidence.  I don't cite 10 newspapers stating the same byline from the AP and claim it settled. I don't copy and paste talking points from other blogs who write better than I do.  I simply put the evidence in front of you, and ask you to look yourself.

You are being lied to and manipulated by anti-science zealots who will manipulate data, suppress research, and attack opponents until they get what they want.  You've been told that Republicans hate science, but the evidence in front of you tells you that the Democratic Party is the one who twists logic and reason to give them more excuses to pick your wallets and make you beggars.

Look for yourself, and act accordingly.  Remember who voted to enact a massive tax on you during a recession, without bothering to read what they voted on, or the science suggesting the whole effort is a fraud.  And remember this.  The NYTimes, the Washington Post, the Kansas City Star, the Post-Dispatch and ABC, CBS, NBC never thought this was important.  They aren't reporting on this, though the information has been live for a week.  It's almost as if they don't care about the truth, but only reporting what advances Democratic causes.  Could the PD look into this?  Yes.  Will they? We'll see. 

Carnahan, Clay, Cleaver, Skelton Vote To Raise Electricity Prices On Poorest Missourians

The Democratic representatives for Missouri have once again show their blind loyalty to party and their complete disregard for common sense.  The four Democrats, Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay, Emmanuel Cleaver, and Ike Skelton provided the margin of victory for the Potemkin climate change bill just passed by the US House. The bill passed 219-212.  Those four Missouri votes were the difference.

The sadly named American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) cap and trade bill, which even its proponents admit will have a negligible affect on global temperature (nine hundredths of one degree by 2050), is designed to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that the US Congress is willing to engage in sophistry of the highest order to pretend they are saving the planet, even though everyone involved knows this is yet another giant grab of money and power from taxpayers to the politically connected.

Listen carefully to any defense these Congressman put out in the next few days.  Every word out of their mouth about the benefits of the bill is a total and abject lie.  Do you know how we know?  None of them read it, again. The bill was finished this morning at 3 a.m., and during the incredibly short debate period (3 hours), the only copy of the bill was located at the Speaker's desk.  This included a 300 page amendment to the bill, which only the writers saw, and was included at the last moment with no open hearings and no public response.

This is exactly what happened in the stimulus bill.  The Democrats finished writing the thing at 11:00 p.m at night, and they voted on it the next day with no one taking the time to read it.

This is what your congressional representatives think of you. You voters are not worth the time it takes to actually read a bill and discuss its merits in a democratic fashion.  Your elected leaders don't think it's worth their time to actually read things they vote on.  For goodness sake, they have one job.  Vote on bills.  How can they vote on bills neither they, nor any of their staff read?  Most voters assume incorrectly that Congress has people who are paid to read the bills for them. This isn't true.  That staff doesn't read bills.  They voted themselves another $100,000 in expenses in this year, but still can't be bothered to find a reader.  The Democrats are so contemptuous of you, they've hired a speed reader whose job it is to read the bill in the House Chamber, to fulfill the letter of the law, but clearly not to actually have anyone understand it.  Welcome to Democracy, Nancy Pelosi style. 

The boy-child at FiredUp is all over a CBO report that claims the bill only costs $175 per family.  How does he know?  One, the CBO numbers are transactional costs - not economic costs.  They state clearly in the report that the effect of the bill is not taken into account.  That's like me saying it only costs $1 to write a check out of my business account, while ignoring the cost of the check itself.  At the same time, with 300 pages added to the bill that no one has read, the bill could have anything it, and the CBO wouldn't know.

What we do know is this.

The Carnahan family stands to benefit financially from any cap and trade bill passed.
Emmanuel Cleaver probably finaly got some of his 2.7 billion dollars  in requested earmarks funded.
Lacy Clay, who was making noises against the bill when the National Black Chamber of Commerce came out in opposition to the bill, got something to change his mind (maybe ACORN mortgage help for Mayor Slay?).
Ike Skelton, who might have voted against the bill because he represents a conservative section of Missouri, figures he is safe for re-election, seeing as the bill also has heavy farm subsidies.

There you go folks.  Your Congressman have decided they could be bought.  If your electricity and gas and heat bills go up this winter, or if your food costs rise, or if you lose your job as more companies move their business offshore, you know to blame - your four Missouri Congressman who coudn't be bothered to even read the bill.  

The Four ACES and their abominable Act.  On to the Senate, where Claire McCaskill will vote no, unless she has the chance to be the 60th vote. 

Video Of Two Very Different Protests

San Francisco protestors pretending to be dead to protest American interference with Iran.

M

Iran Protestor killed by axe-wielding thugs of the Iranian government.

I have deleted an earlier post with an alleged picture of an axe wound. It is unlikely that picture was actually a bullet removal.

FiredUp Refuted By Obama, Hansen, And Common Sense

.Sean, a D.C. Transplant incapable of writing an original thought or even bothering to read what he copy and pastes, is desperately trying to win points with the Carnahan family with daily smear jobs against Missouri Republicans.  You can waste time trying to talk sense into the boy, but he's made it clear his job is propaganda, not thinking.

The Waxman Markey cap and trade bill coming up is Exhibit A.  Cap and trade by definition is intended to raise energy prices so consumers use less energy.  It's the whole purpose of the system.  The government imposes fees for the emission of GHG's, which companies then pass on to the consumer either through higher energy prices, or through the retrofitting of plants with new technologies.  The pain of paying higher energy then convinces people to use less, leading to less greenhouse gas emissions.  Dont believe me?  Ask Barack Obama what his cap and trade is supposed to do.

The point of cap and trade is to raise gas, coal, and natural gas energy prices high enough to make you stop using them. 

.Sean may or may not know this - he keeps pretending that cap and trade costs only what the CBO memo says.  He ignores the fact that if Waxman-Markey only costs $175/year per family, then it's failed and is simply a $600 billion tax that enriches folks like Al Gore (he has a bumper sticker that says Global Warming Profit(sic)).  If Waxman-Markey doesn't reduce emissions, it's a scam.  If it doesn't hurt consumers, it's useless. That's what Obama said in the video.  But wait there's more.  Left-wing NASA "scientist" James Hansen, last seen being arrested in West Virginia protesting a coal company (why does the government still pay him?), attacks Waxman-Markey as worse than doing nothing.  Hansen says its a money making scheme designed to make Wall Street rich without actually solving the problem.

So let's recap.  Democrats are once again pushing a bill with huge changes to our national economy through the Congress with little debate, no time to read it, over the objections of Republicans, and all for our own good.  They claim it's an important tool to fight global warming, but it won't cost much.  The truth is it will cost a lot, and does nothing to address global warming.  When looked at closely, it's yet another political payoff to rich Democrats, taking money from citizens and using it to feed every larger federal bureaucracies.  They even brag it's a net revenue producer for the government.  Who is that revenue produced from?  Us.  So Washington takes money from us and because they run it through Enron clones, they can call it permit auctions rather than direct taxes.

And FiredUp, well-known in Missouri as the online megaphone of the Carnahan family, attacks Missouri politicians for daring to stand up to a bill that enriches those who have a vested interest in wind farms.

"Even if wind is slightly higher in 2008 than its competitors, you look at the price over time. It's a flat price over 20 years, compared to a combined-cycle or a coal unit that's going to have increased costs. Even if you sprinkle in a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, it all of a sudden looks very, very good"

Can you guess who gave us that quote?  Hint:  It was a Carnahan.

Missouri Weather Stations And Global Warming

The models for global warming predict warming trend lines that grow increasingly until we all burn like Father's Day pop-tarts made by your three year old.

That's been a problem lately, as the temperature in 1998, which wasn't even as warm as that in the 1930's heat wave, was the highest on record in the last several decades, but was a high point that has not been matched in the next 11 years.  In fact, we have seen no global US warming in the lat 11 years.  None. 

And the warming that has occurred since the 70's is suspect.  One - the 70's was cold.  There was some warming bound to happen.  Two, the way in which we measure temperature has changed. One of those ways is measuring surface temperatures through weather stations.  These simple stations have thermostats and a pole sticking up from the ground. We use the stations to determine trend lines over time, and they are the most reliable readings in the world.  All that means is US weather stations have more reliable data than their counterparts in other parts of the blog because we had the infrastructure and manpower to set them up and monitor them.

That data is important to the Global warming movement.  Climate is very complex.  There are several layers of atmosphere that show different temperature readings, and so data is aggregated worldwide on the assumption that it is accurate.

Here, take a look.

 

Do you see anything that might alter temperatures?  That sensor is going to be several degrees hotter than it would be if it were on a plain somewhere.  That kind of data is corrupting.  Think about St Charles or O'Fallon.  2,000 people in 1990, 120,000 people in 2004.  More houses, more urban heat islands, and higher temperatures at the sensor level, but not because of global warming. 

Can you be part of the solution?  Join the Surface Station project, which chronicles the placement of weather sensors in the US so we can get an accurate reading of temperature.  If the globe is warming, we need to know it. It's not helpful when bad data gives us false positives. 

 

These are weather stations in Missouri that still need checking.

If you live in or near these sites, could you pop by and take a picture sometime this summer?  Regardless of your position, you should want accurate data.  Help the surface station project gather real data and make accurate reports.  Plenty of information is there on how to help out. 

Victory Or Death For Iranian Protestors

By all means, let's just let the Iranians finish their vigorous debate. Some people just don't get it. These young protestors have made a life-threatening choice. Once they start down this path, they are either victorious, or the walking dead. If they back down, the Iranian regime will send their thugs into their homes in the black of night to kill them and their families. Death or Victory. That is all that is left for them. I wish we had a government in place that understood that. Some people, or perhaps as Obama likes to read, "THERE ARE THOSE" who say that Mousavi is no different than Ahmadinejad, but to the young and women in the street over there, there is enough of a difference to die for. UPDATE: The President has finally made a strong statement on the killing of Iranian citizens, but just can't get past inserting himself into the equation.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.

A simple statement of support days ago would have been the right thing. Pretending you've been right all along makes the issue out to be about you, not them. We deserve better from the leader of the free world.

Conservative Cartoons At The Missouri Record

Patrick Tuohey, who is doing a fine job creating a new kind of center-right online opinion journal over at the record has, added a new section - conservative cartoons called Off The Record.

I get tired of people telling me that everything is OTR, but once they find out you're a blogger, they get a little nervous.  Good.  They should be nervous.

Here's Thursdays, for our very own Claire Bear .

I'd like to see more of these, and I have a caption for him.

Set-up: Your bank called - they said there was a problem with insufficient funds.

Punchline:  Mine or theirs..

Is Claire Playing The "Moderate" Again?

Claire McCaskill has been in the news again, this time for what is being termed as a surprising rebuke of the Obama administration for firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  Walpin has been tasked with looking into Americorps specifically the mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, and his misuse of federal dollars to do things like wash his car.

Johnson is a big supporter of Obama, but then again, so is Senator McCaskill, who is even referred to as a "key ally."  McCaskill sent a letter to the Administration, stating that the reasons given for Walpin's firing were not sufficient.  This was hailed as a maverick senator from the state of Missouri bucking the liberal establishment, proving once again how she's not like those crazed liberals - she's a moderate Missourian.

It was a good story while it lasted.

In response to a Tweet from Dave Catanese:

@clairecmc Does the WH letter re: IG firing answer your concerns about the legality?

 Claire had these three tweets in response.

Prior to letter delivered yesterday the WH had not followed the right procedure under the law. That letter did follow the law's requiremnts.
about 10 hours ago from web

Strong substantive reasons stated for the IG Walpin's removal yesterday. Request for invest into his conduct came from R appointed US atty.
about 10 hours ago from web

@davecatanese The letter from the White House late yesterday is certainly compliance with the law as to reason for removal.

This matters because Senator McCaskill wrote the bill, and Barack Obama was a co-sponsor, that required the White House to follow a set of rules in firing Inspector Generals.  So in these tweets, McCaskill goes from brave defender of the law and our taxmoney to an Al Gore Like, "the letter is certainly compliance with the law."

Gateway Pundit has the lowdown on this, including the remarks from the White House that Walpin was "confused and disoriented," followed by complaints about his telecommuting and finally with vague complaints about not getting along with others and finally not being truthful.  Note they lead with he's crazy, then complain about him not being in the office, then come up with other non-specific reasons.

Senator McCaskill got a lot of good press from the Post-Dispatch about her role as an auditor, and working with IG's, but less than 24 hours later, she's backing off and saying that this was a paperwork matter, and she was not rebuking the White House for covering for a supporter with allegations of corruption.  They just didn't write a stern enough letter.

I have stronger words I choose not to use, but this is another example of Senator McCaskill pretending to be independent.  She will use this episode to claim she's stood up to Obama in 2012.

BREAKING: Secret Email From White House To Television Networks

It looks like someone in the Obama White House sent the wrong email out to the wrong list.  I received this email from the Obama White House urging me to give free television time in support of his healthcare initiative. 

Dear Media President --

Last year, thousands of journalists came together for a great purpose.

Folks like you assembled an elite movement that shocked the political establishment and changed the course of our nation. When Washington insiders counted us out, we put it all on the line and changed our democracy from the newsroom. But that's not why we did it.

The pundits told us it was impossible -- that the donations wealthy billionaires could afford and the hours paid staff could give would never loosen the vise grip of the special interests that don’t donate to us. We proved them wrong. But as important as that was, that's not why we did it.

Today, spiraling health care costs are a convenient lever to increase the size of American government, which is why you run so many reports on the millions of Americans who go without health insurance. Fixing this broken system will be enormously difficult, but that’s a problem for another day. The chance to make fundamental change like this in people's daily lives -- that is why we’re doing this.

The campaign to pass real health care reform in 2009 is the biggest test of our movement since the election. Once again, victory is far from certain. Our opposition will be fierce, and they have been down this road before. To prevail, we must once more build a coast-to-coast operation ready to write editorials, report opinion as news stories, deploy paid ACORN staff to hound Republican legislators, and get out the stories that Rahm and David push through Media Mattters and the Journolist.  We’re going to show the world how real change happens in America.

And just like before, I cannot do it without your support.

So I'm asking you to remember all that you gave over the last two years to get us here -- all the time, resources, and faith you invested as a down payment to earn us our place at this crossroads in history. All that you've done has led up to this -- and whether or not our country takes the next crucial step depends on what you do right now.

Please donate whatever network time you can afford to support the campaign for real health care reform in 2009.  Your untiring work on our behalf has earned you a cozy place in my heart, and we could not have made it this far without you.

It doesn't matter how much you can give (although realistically we’re going to need an hour from each of you), as long as you give what you can. Hundreds of journalists who have already taken government jobs in my administration are counting on you to do just that.  I know you’re looking for some extra bailout money, and well, this would go a long way both to improving your resume in the eyes of our human resources department and loosening the purse strings up over at Treasury.

Thank you, so much, for getting us this far. And thank you for bowing down once again to take us the rest of the way.

Sincerely,

President Barack Obama

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes, but let me remind you that bailouts only go to patriotic Americans.
Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.