Monday, July 29, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
My Take - For many years I have attended conferences for the pest control industry, including a few National Pest Management Legislative Day conferences in Washington. I never cease to be amazed at the stupid things said by "experts" they have brought it. Especially those brought in to talk about the economy. But it doesn't stop there.
Whether it's Integrated Pest Management, Green Pest Control, government regulations or a host of things I almost want to jump up and say....."You're wrong and I'm going to tell you why!" I think the thing that drives me the most crazy is I never get podium time.
There’s a common thread running through Anthony Weiner’s latest sexting escapades, Barack Obama’s 19th pivot to the economy, and much else that’s going wrong in America today. This is the reign of the man-child, the era of perpetual teenage indulgence. Nothing is my fault, man. Nobody understands me. Everyone keeps hassling me about little stuff. Nobody can see the superhero I really am. Consequences are a drag, so quit living in the past.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
This appeared here, and I would like to thank James for allowing me to publish his work. RK
Unless you're a reader of the Guardian Environment's recently added section "Sacrifice your children to Mother Gaia. It's the only way!", you'll probably never have heard of the man who co-edits it, Dana Nuccitelli. But you'll certainly be familiar with his most famous bogus statistical artefact: the one he created with fellow climate alarmist John Cook to prove that 97 per cent of climate scientists really DO believe in global warming.
The claim has been roundly debunked. Apart from the problems with its statistical methodology, its findings are essentially meaningless. As Ben Pile points out in this characteristically measured, thoughtful piece,
Indeed, adds Pile, they represent:
How so? Well, as (climate sceptical) Bishop Hill once asked on Twitter: "Isn't everyone in the 97 per cent? I am." When the question was repeated at the Bishop's website by Met Office's Richard Betts, almost all those present agreed that they were. I would have done too, depending, of course, on precisely how you interpret the "consensus position" that "humans are causing global warming."
Well of course they are. Even if it's only down to the Urban Heat Island effect or the methane from beef cattle, humans almost certainly have an influence on climate. But so what? It always astonishes me when I see climate alarmists – even nice, well-meaning ones like Richard Betts – get all excited about this, as if somehow it represents a sudden concession by sceptics to the cause of warmism. If the alarmists spent any time paying attention to Watts Up With That, Bishop Hill or any of the myriad other sceptical websites out there, they would realise that this is what we've always thought. Our beef with the alarmists is not over the issue "Do humans contribute to climate change?" It's over "Do humans significantly contribute to climate chnage?" "Is there any evidence that this climate change is catastrophic or unprecedented?" "Do we need to do anything about it?" "Can we do anything about it?" "And are we sure that the cures currently being proposed aren't worse than the problem they're supposed to solve?"
But see, here we go again: here I am getting bogged down in a tedious and irrelevant non-argument of the kind the Warmists are always setting up in order to distract lay readers from more pertinent issues: like the fact that wind farms are just crap; that the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming just hasn't materialised; that the polar bears aren't endangered; and so on.
Props to Dana Nuccitelli – he is, like his fellow climate activist Bob Ward – an absolute master of this straw man distraction technique. The term for it is "Clown Dancing" and Nuccitelli is the veritable Coco-and-Ronald-McDonald-in-a-sticky-embrace-with-Nureyev of the coulroterpsichorean art.
Anyway, all this is by the by. Another of the techniques used by Nuccitelli and his ilk is the "funded by Big Oil" meme. This is the silly notion, popularised by the likes of Al Gore and Michael Mann, that the main reason we climate sceptics say the pesky sceptical things we do is because we're paid to say so by various oil interests. Here is Nuccitelli in his Guardian column only last week on sceptical stalwart Pat Michaels:
(Something which, incidentally, Michaels denies. Since August 1 all of his salary has been paid by the Cato Institute. So, add "great fact-checking" to Dana's list of non-skills).
In truth, the exact opposite more commonly the case. Few corporate interests are quite so heavily in bed with Big Green as Big Oil – as you'll shortly be seeing when I do a number on Shell and its highly dubious behaviour re the UK shale gas industry – and it seems the hypocritical and disingenuous clown-dancer extraordinaire Nuccitelli is no exception.
He has tried to keep it quiet. But there's no – what's the word? Oh yeah…. – denying it: green activist Dana Nuccitelli is in the pay of Big Oil.
Study: Feds underestimating the number of protected bird deaths at all the wind farms they aren’t prosecuting
Or as journalist Andrew Ferguson once put it, "Everybody admires Helen, though nobody can tell you why."ToRead More……
Most people who work in government have no problem giving their real names and telling you what they do, but there are exceptions. Those who are engaged in real undercover work for government intelligence agencies or certain law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need to keep their identities secret, but they are a tiny fraction of all the people who work for government. However, what we are seeing is that too many other people in government, notably at the IRS, use pseudonyms when dealing with the public. The claim is that they need to do this to protect themselves from irate taxpayers.
In reality, IRS personnel are no more in danger than many others in both the public and private sectors who have to deliver bad news (including economic columnists). All too often, the main reason for not giving the taxpayer a real name is for IRS officials to avoid taking responsibility and to cover for a lack of knowledge about the case and/or the tax law and regulations. Read more for free...
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
By Greg Corombos Published July 22, 2013
“What the Department of Homeland Security
became under Janet Napolitano is this monstrous surveillance and very
intimidating group,” said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a
constitutional attorney for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of
Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”......“I criticized George Bush’s policies. Under
President Obama, we’re zooming.”….the department issued a report listing
returning soldiers as one of the greatest threats to American security……Operation
Vigilant Eagle, which is a surveillance system done on all returning veterans
from overseas, where they watch Facebook posts, text messages, emails of
returning veterans to see if they’re going to be disgruntled….“They arrived one
day at his door, arrested him and actually put him in a mental institution for
his Facebook posts criticizing the government. We got him out and then we sued
the government,”…..law-abiding citizens have been forced to hand
over their laptops while the government officials download the information. The
Rutherford Institute has also received reports of Americans being removed from
their cars and searched without probable cause. To Read More……
This week in the world of regulation:
- I write in National Review and American Spectator on the new database the CFPB is building that rivals the National Security Agency in collecting personal financial data. The articles make the point the CFPB is even less accountable than the NSA, because at least the NSA gets it funding from Congress, rather than the Federal Reserve.
- My colleague Iain Murray explains in “The Corner” of National Review Online how the Treasury Department is extending the SIFI or too-big-too fail principle beyond banks to many types of businesses.
- Provisions in Dodd-Frank regulating trade and the energy sector?! Believe it or not, yes?! I point out in National Review the flaws and lack of justification for provisions jammed into Dodd-Frank that force energy companies to disclose every payment they make to foreign governments and manufacturers to disclose if any of the gold, tin, or tungsten they use may have come from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These provisions were inspired by celebrity activists but are hurting the very regions of the world they were meant to help, as well as driving up energy prices in the U.S. economy.
- In a rare instance of bipartisanship on deregulation, lopsided and, in some cases, unanimous majorities of the House Agriculture and House Financial Services Committees bucked the Obama administration to provide relief from Dodd-Frank’s stringent derivatives regulations. I document here in OpenMarket how both sides pointed out that these provisions were hurting farms, airlines and factories that had nothing to do with the financial crisis.