Total investment in just renewable energy (a subsector of the green industry) was $211 billion in 2010 (see also, here at page 35). To give you a sense of size, the entire US pharmaceutical industry R&D budget for new medicines and vaccines in the same period was $67.4 billion.  For every $1 a US company spends trying to cure cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes, the world spends $3.10 inventing, manufacturing and selling panda-shit burners, solar panels, corn-based gasoline and wind farms.

Not enough money is not the problem in the green industry.  For one thing, you cannot sell something for $3 when it costs $6 to make and expect to continue for long.  Talk about unsustainable.  Natural economic failure, the lack of a real threat, bad science and politicians trying to pick winners is the problem in the green industry.  Moreover, less than half of Americans believe that Global Warming™ is caused by man, if at all.

But this reflex response is not limited to the green industry.  Liberals have the same reaction when it comes to spending money on education. But there is no evidence that simply increasing the budget will improve results.  Even the uber liberal Center for American Progress, in their exhaustive, district by district review of educational spending, had to admit that “without clear controls on how additional school dollars are spent, more education spending will not automatically improve student outcomes.”  Not a ringing endorsement for more spending.

Indeed, increasing investment in a company, an industry or even a school can have unintended consequences.  When a budget is tightened, management has to make harder choices.  If you run a business and have an unlimited budget, you will never need to decide whether it’s better to send your account manager, Mark to Denver or your business development lead, Kim to San Diego.  You can send them both.

But when spending is limited, choices have to be made.  An effective manager (with accurate information) is one who can make the right choice and put every dollar spent to the most productive use.  If you think this is all theoretical, it’s not.  No well run company will invest in a start up until it is big enough to know what to do with the money.  In addition, a company with a tightened belt will comb its expenses reports, accounts payable and accounts receivable and ferret out fraud, waste and abuse.  All of these factors will increase the productivity of every dollar invested.  In other words, more money doesn’t buy better results.  Just ask the Philadelphia Eagles.

Krugman points out that Rick Perry recently said that evolution is “just a theory,” and it has “got some gaps in it.”  Flabbergasted, Krugman claims that a “vast majority of biologists” would disagree.  Really?  Perry was talking about one particular area of evolution, the theory that man evolved from apes.  There are other theories.  Creationism is one.  Douglas Adams’s theory that we descended from an alien race of telephone cleaners is my favorite.  Maybe Krugman’s, too.  Like any theory, human evolutionary theory has its gaps.

I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Atmospheric Physics, so I’m not a biologist, but I’m certainly closer to one than an economist is.  I’m not going to defend creationism, nor do I think evolution is wrong–I believe it to be true.  But it is only a theory.  And there are major gaps.  In fact, almost four years ago, Krugman’s own paper did a story about the missing fossil evidence of the “dark age” of evolution.  Oops.  Maybe the Times actual science reporters are closet Republicans.  Krugman dismisses these missing pieces of information because, apparently, being a Times columnist means never have to check your facts.

Anthropogenic Global Warming should barely qualify as a theory.  It is a hoax.  It’s not a super secret decoder ring, dark cloaks, blood oath conspiracy.  Not is it run by a cabal that meets in secret.  It is just the predictable product of rational people operating independently under an irrational system.

In the late 1990′s, liberal politicians began to embrace anthropogenic global warming as club with which to beat businesses and individuals over the head.  If carbon fuels–the cheapest and simplest form of fuel we have–were really killing the planet, businesses and individuals would have to submit to regulation.  Carbon fuels and other “greenhouse gases” touch everything.  Power generation, leisure and business travel, soaps, beef, rice–everything that moves, breaths or farts produces carbon emissions.

If you can get people to agree to carbon regulation, a central planned economy would be inevitable.  So liberals, starting with Al Gore, began a quest to promote a silly, inane little theory into gospel. That meant that any science funding that tied to or tended to prove AGW was given priority.  That’s not science, it’s propaganda.  And it leads otherwise well meaning scientists into compromising positions, where their scientific integrity is pitted against their ability to make a living.  Guess which side wins?

Krugman’s assertion that there is a code of silence over global warming is more laughable than his assertion that evolution is somehow a proven fact.  There is a petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists stating that global warming is not proven, and that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.  31,000.  You would think the Times would cover something like that.  Unless, of course, it disagrees with their agenda.

As a scientific theory, Global Warming is childish.  It holds that the absorption spectrum of CO2, which disproportionately traps infrared radiation emitted from the Earth as it is warmed by the sun, traps heat like a greenhouse.  The theory has been around since the 1880′s, but like many childish theories of the Left, it ignores reality to reach a preferred conclusion.  The climate models used to predict global warming effects have to ignore realistic cloud formation, macro-weather effects, volcanic activity and scores of other real world events in order to get fractions of a degree of warming.  In fact, just this weekend, CERN physicists announced new discoveries in cloud nucleation, which will require massive rewrites of climatology models.  This may be in the weeds for Krugman, but that’s where real science is done.

There’s a tremendous amount of hubris involved in thinking that a simple numerical model that ignores whole swaths of reality can accurately predict a fraction of a degree change in tempereature over 100 years.  Especially when the same type of numerical models cannot accurately predict the difference between a Category 3 hurricane and a tropical storm over the span of less than a week.

As a trained scientist, and a Republican, I don’t fear facts or science.  I am not afraid that new information might change my perception of the world–if my perception was wrong, I welcome it.  It is Messrs. Gore and Krugman who fear the free competition of ideas.  Their ad hominem tantrums underscore their fear of being proven wrong.  But no amount of fist banging, name calling, bullying or childishness will turn a wish into a fact.  Anthropogenic global warming is not a fact; it is the pipe dream of anti-business, pro regulation liberals like Paul Krugman.  Republicans don’t hate science, we hate the politicization of science.

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. . . . We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. . . .Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

The struggle to which Feynman refers is, of course the centuries of dispute between science and religion.  A dispute that often resulted in the excommunication or death of the scientist.  It is not without irony that those now purporting to be on the side of science are screaming heresy at those who actually are on the side of science.

As I noted earlier, calling someone who does not believe in Global Warming™ a Holocaust denier is not just hyperbole, it’s idiotic, narcissistic and thoughtless.  Exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a celebrity.  Of course, there is a major difference between science and history–especially recent history.  We may never know how many Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other innocents the Nazis condemned to death, but we know they did it.  You can speak, even today, to Holocaust survivors.  We know it was done, and it is a black mark on the soul of humanity.  But those who have doubts about Global Warming™ are more like War of the Worlds deniers.

Global Warming™, is a theory.  A theory that started out as a crackpot joke, but was endorsed by politicians, first to gain leverage over coal miners, then to guilt the world into economic starvation.  The science of climate change is vast and complex.  Scientists cannot even agree on a baseline of historic temperatures (unless, of course, they are fabricating them).  Moreover, much of the anecdotal evidence in favor of the theory has fallen apart in recent years.

The massive ice sheets that cleave off of Antarctica were recently found to have been caused by a change in the flow of an Antarctic glacial river after millennia of erosion, not you driving an SUV for the last 5 years.  The Earth has been warming for thousands of years as we emerge from the last ice age.  An honest scientist would tell you that we cannot rule out that this long-term warming is not the cause of any minor variations we see today.  Such a scientist would also tell you that the evidence of a connection between historical CO2 and temperature points to a lagging one–temperatures rise first, then CO2 increases.

Liberals have a problem allowing for the possibility of doubt, or a rationale that cannot be blamed on consumption.  This is because blaming a climate disaster on human consumption gives them access to guilt, taxes and regulation–the favorite tools of liberal governance.  If you can blame humanity for a crisis, you can gain control over human lives.  You cannot tax the sun for its natural variability, nor can you regulate millennia of natural warming.  Rice patties do not respond to guilt.

As challenges to their Global Warming™ religion come closer and closer to debunking their whole belief system, alarmists become more desperate and hyperbolic.  A scientist would consider alternative viewpoints and question their premises.  This is the purpose of peer review in science.  But a religious fanatic will scream “death to my enemies” and slit your throat over a cartoon.  Global Warming alarmists like Paul McCartney have more in common with religious zealots than scientists.  Their fears are irrational, their minds are closed, and their plans will destroy mankind.

Oh, and the Beatles sucked.  Elvis lives, baby.

The conversation started over why, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out (start at the 7:00 mark), that every President since before I was born has tried to solve our foreign oil problem, and yet, it keeps getting worse.  The problem, I explained, was that the government cannot mandate ingenuity.

Obama’s plan, as all “green” projects in the past have, is to shove money at the problem and naively Hope™ that bureaucrats and politicians can pick a winner from primitive, undeveloped versions of future technologies.  Of course, these people have their own biases, and often find that the only projects that will work are ones in their own district or ones from which they or their union friends will personally benefit.  Even assuming you can level the playing field, you are asking people with little or no background in physics, engineering or astrology to decide which technology will, after billions of dollars and decades of false starts, be the one that pays off.  This is a lot like asking a 2 month old infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

This is a lot like asking an infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

The stick in all of this, of course, is that the government will fund this bad idea on the backs of taxpayers and energy consumers.  Just as they did in Spain, Germany and Denmark, “green” initiatives will increase the cost of energy, including low cost existing sources like oil, coal and natural gas.  A cap and trade program is a way to mandate an increase in the cost of existing fuel.  Even Obama admits that his policies would “bankrupt” the coal industry.

So I began to think what a carrot would look like.  By far, the most palatable incentive for free market types is a tax break–but “green” policies already provide tax incentives to “go green.”  In the context of our current energy issues, this is very much like giving a $5 off coupon for brass polish to the captain of the Titanic.  What is needed is an incentive to innovate that cannot be turned down.

Here is my two part proposal:

First, drill, baby, drill.  Access all of our natural resources domestically until that Texas tea cannot be found anywhere under American feet or swimsuits.  Start an immediate program to bring to market every ounce of oil under American control, shale, natural gas, ANWR–everything.  As Krauthammer pointed out last month, we are only drilling in deep water because environmentalists won’t let us drill where it is safe.  This is absurd and self defeating and needs to stop.  Cut the red tape, bar the law suits and start drilling.

Second, for the carrot–call it the federal X-prize: the first company (or individual) who patents and brings to market either of the “new energy technologies” listed below will not have to pay federal taxes for the next 25 years.  The President will, in his infinite wisdom, set out the basic objective criteria for a “new energy technologies” in direct power and power generation.  The criteria must be vague enough to allow for unforeseen solutions, and specific enough to be used to determine success objectively.  My suggestion for the direct power criteria are;

1. A source of energy (e.g. a battery or a motor) that can power a standard size SUV for 300 miles at highway speed without stopping to refuel.
2. Weighs less than 25 gallons of gasoline or provides sufficient additional power to compensate.
3. Is renewable or reusable (a battery or a primary source).
4. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
5. Is marketable (price point without subsidies) to ordinary consumers.

The argument, of course, will be on the definitions for the above.  For power generation, I suggest the following criteria:

1. A source of energy that can provide energy on a large scale (at least 500 MW) at or below the national average cost per kWh (currently, about $.15 per kWh) with the builder recouping construction costs.
2. Is renewable or reusable.
3. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
4. Is capable of mass production and use in large and small markets.

So these are the product criteria.  If you bring a product to market, you won’t owe Uncle Sam a dime for the next quarter century.

This would spark a search like none other since the Holy Grail.  Every company in the world, technology companies, aerospace companies, oil companies, credit card companies, would make massive investments to win the brass ring: a 60-70% increase of after tax profits for 25 years.  [For the math inclined, a corporation pays roughly 35% in federal taxes out of a total tax burden of 40-50% for most companies.  If you take off the 35% federal tax, after tax profits (the percentage the company keeps) will go from 50-60% to 85-95%.  85%/50% = 170%; 95%/60% = 158%.]

To give this some real world numbers, Exxon, the largest U.S. company by revenue, pays about $5-7 billion in federal taxes each year.  So at the maximum, this would be about a $175 billion “investment” over 25 years.  Of course, unlike Obama’s $50 billion plan, not a penny of this would be wasted–we would only make the “investment” after the goods were delivered.

For perspective, all of the world governments combined spend $500 billion per year on “green” subsidies that are largely a waste of money.  So for a maximum of 1% of that price, the United States could revolutionize the energy industry and solve our foreign oil problem.

Looking at it a different way, the U.S. imports 9.73 million barrels of oil per day.  That’s about $980 million per day going to stalwart allies like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Venezuela.  That’s $357 billion of American money exported per year.  I know liberals hate the idea of even one corporation not paying taxes, but we get very little tax revenue from the $357 billion we send over seas.

This idea may seem extreme, but (1) no government subsidy has ever worked to move the needle for oil consumption and (2) it is completely cost free if it works.  Moreover, it is not unprecedented.  Many countries provide low or zero tax agreements to companies in order to spur local economic growth.  Singapore and Dubai, for example, have economic development councils that encourage multinational corporations to build their regional business there.  The company gets a massive tax break and the host country gets higher employment, ancillary economic growth (workers need food, lodging and entertainment) and bragging rights.

Under my plan, companies would be given the incentive to expand their R&D departments, hire more employees and develop technologies that, even if they do not win the prize, will at least be taking us in the right direction.  (We might not have digital thermometers or cordless tools if not for the space program.)  If the research resulting in a dead-end, the cost is borne by the private company, not the taxpayer.  And no technology would have a defacto advantage through bureaucratic endorsement.  The government would be encouraging risk and innovation, rather than underwriting it, or worse, stifling it.

In case you have missed it a hacker–who shall never go thirsty or hungry if he or she is within range of the Daily Danet’s expense account–hacked into the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email server and found and published some telling gems of Global Warming alarmist fraud.  As a reformed atmospheric scientist, many of my friends and colleagues have asked my opinion on the matter, which I am all too happy to give:

The rigor and challenge of being a scientist is to prevent yourself from cheating to get a result subconsciously.

First, the emails are and should be shocking.  No scientist should be manipulating data, studies or conclusions to achieve results.  The rigor and challenge of being a scientist is to prevent yourself from doing this subconsciously.  To do this openly, and with such childish joy (and in writing) should end careers.  As an aside, when I started my legal career at a very prestigious law firm, I was given one piece of advice by the chairman about email: never put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want printed out of context on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day.  (I was also told to “err on the side of not erring.”)

Second, generally, the development of Global Warming and the manipulation of data is understandable (ironically) at a capitalist level.  Scientists survive on grant money, which is far easier to come by if there is a crisis or a problem that needs solving.  If Global Warming is either (a) not occurring or (b) not man-made (caused by the sun, for example), and there is nothing we can do about it, funding will dry up.  (This, by the way, is why it does not matter whether the Earth is warming or cooling–Climate Change® is enough, so long as it is man made.)  This is not to say that integrity should be compromised, but anyone would hesitate before biting that hand that feeds them.

Third, the irony of Global Warming™ as a religion is that it started in the early ’80s as Margaret Thatcher’s way of breaking the coal unions.  She wanted to prove that coal was damaging to the environment and nuclear energy was safer, and so fostered research on a then little known theory called the greenhouse effect.  Of course, today, that theory is being used to oppress entire regions of the globe, keeping most of Africa and Asia in the dark ages by starving them of the one thing that modern civilization needs: fossil fuels.  Secondarily, Global Warming™ is also being used as the liberals’ second pet cause: redistribution of wealth.  Senator Kerry is spearheading (or charging into the jungle like he sees an unarmed Vietnamese teenager) a drive to throw billions of your tax dollars into developing nations in order to “offset” the effects of Global Warming™ legislation.  The greatest wealth transfer in history, all because of a sick joke meant to break a union dispute.

Senator Kerry is spearheading, or, rather, charging into the jungle like he sees an unarmed Vietnamese teenager…

Finally, to go further down the rabbit hole, why would truly smart people (not the scientists, but the businessmen and power brokers) get behind a belief system so obviously built on shaky evidence and doomed to destroy developing nations and burden developed ones?  Put aside liberal guilt as the easy excuse, and you’re left with two reasons: control and protectionism.  Paternalistic liberals like Kerry want to control the purse strings and dole out huge (trillions) amounts of international aide to developing countries, rather than allow them to develop and stand up on their own.  Unions like the SEIU and their backers are terrified of regions like Africa developing into the next Taiwan and China.  Imagine the entire continent of Africa developed into a first world capitalist society competing with the unionized labor forces of Detroit, Chicago and New York for business not just here, but in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

So you have a situation where the scientists, the politicians and the masters all have unified in pushing an agenda where Global Warming™ had to true, and it had to be man-made.   Surprise, surprise, it was.

In advance of yet another international climate change conference, the media and liberal fear-mongers (but I repeat myself) are fretting over what might not be done in Copenhagen.  In the medal for the most idiotic overstatement, Gordon Brown is currently in the lead for saying “we have only 50 days to save the world.”  In the spirit of a far better, and far more intelligent Englishman, Douglas Adams, and with full knowledge that “stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems in all parts of the galaxy and it is in order that this situation should not be in any way exacerbated that the following fact[] will now be revealed in advance:” Nothing of significance will be accomplished in Copenhagen.

(Except, perhaps, someone may sustain a slight bruise to their upper arm.  The safe bet is that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will both later claim sniper fire was involved.)

Here is why, in a bulleted list, nothing will come of the Copenhagen Climate Council:

1. Global Warming™ is only a theory (and growing less accepted each day).
2. The Earth has not warmed, but in fact has cooled, over the past 11 years.  Yes I said 11.
3. In order to noticeably reduce CO2 emissions on any meaningful time frame, draconian measures are required that would destroy every civilized economy. That is not a point capable of exaggeration.  Every world economy would grind to a halt.
4. Politicians, regardless of their political stripe, are not that stupid.

Taking each point in turn, allow me to explain:

Global Warming as a Theory.

Science is a funny business.  Even if everyone agrees that something is true, it is still, in almost every case, a theory at some level.  Generally accepted scientific principles like Evolution and Relativity (general and special) remain merely “theories.”  But all theories are not equal.  For example, Flat Earth is also a theory, as is Nemesis Earth.  These are discredited theories, but they are still, technically theories.

The theory of Global Warming™ is built on successively weaker bricks, in much the same was as a government highway project would be.

Global Warming, like many theories that liberals embrace, is simple on a third-grade level.  (They love that poster: everything I needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten.)  The problem, however, is that real life is played at the graduate level and above.  But at a simple level, Global Warming says the following:

1. CO2 absorbs light more efficiently in the IR end of the spectrum than in the visible end. (True)
2. So it acts like a filter, allowing sunlight in and “trapping” heat coming off of the Earth–much like a greenhouse.  (Maybe).
3. As humans continue to emit more CO2 (by burning fossil fuels, among other things), we will continue to add to the levels of atmospheric CO2–in other words, there is no removal mechanism.  (Not so sure.)
4. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases, the “trapping” factor will cause the global temperature to increase and nothing will act to counteract the effect–in other words, there is no negative feedback mechanism. (Probably not true.)
5. All of this will lead to polar bears drowning, or swimming to your house in St. Loius and killing you in your bed. (Now you’re making stuff up.)

The theory of global warming is built on successively weaker bricks, in much the same was as a government highway project would be.  Point 1 is absolutely true and has been verified in laboratory experiments.  CO2 molecules do absorb more IR light than visible.  The rest, however, is just a theory and has never been proven.  When you get to point 2, the problem becomes that you have to move from a controlled laboratory environment to the atmosphere.   And there, things get messy.  CO2 is barely noticeable in the atmosphere.  If you took 1,000,000 Poland Spring bottles and filled them with air; and then separated them into the different gases in the atmosphere, you would have about: 781,000 bottles of Nitrogen, 209,250 bottles of Oxygen; 9,350 bottles of Argon; and only about 350 bottles of CO2.  (You would also have 18 bottles of Neon; 1 bottle of Methane; and 1 bottle of Kryton, plus some trace gases.)  This also assumes a static atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not static, lightning strikes, particulate matter, ozone and a host of trace chemicals acts as catalysts to scrub and convert atmospheric gases constantly.

In terms radiative transfer (the transfer of heat through light), atmospheric CO2 is not going to have a noticeable impact on global temperature, regardless of its absorption profile–there just is not enough of it in the atmosphere.  But that is my opinion.  Other scientists have their opinions.  Many people, scientists and lay people, base their opinions on climate models.  A quick word about those: useless.  A climate model is a large, expensive, horribly complicated program that is only as useful as the theory you put into it.  They are very useful at telling you what your theory means, but they are utterly useless at telling you whether or not your theory is accurate.

For example, if you programmed into a climate model that a .5% increase in CO2 would cause a zombie virus to infect mankind–guess what?  You would find that, if what don’t cut down our emissions, we would all living a Will Smith movie.  Using a climate model to prove the theory that went into it is complete idiocy.  That brings me back to the essential difficulty with point 2.  We do not actually know what happens in the atmosphere when CO2 interacts with the menagerie of gases and particles.

Moving on to points 3 and 4 in the immediately above list, there are natural feedback mechanism that cutoff any impact that CO2 might have on temperature.  Mother nature may abhor a vacuum, but it also abhors excess.  We are already seeing huge increases in CO2 absorption in seaweed as the oceans act as a sink, causing predicted levels of CO2 to drop off.  Moreover, as temperatures rise (whether or not due to CO2) convection will usually increase, leading to cloud cover and rainfall.  This acts as a natural break in any runaway temperature increase.  Just as with tax increases, liberals have applied their rules and assumed nothing will changed because of their rules.

The Real Inconvenient Truth

The second important reason why nothing will happen in Copenhagen is that, as the BBC noted last week, the warmest year on record was 11 years ago.  How is that possible to reconcile with the prophecies of doom?  Al Gore and the IPCC can talk about El Niño and solar variability (when it suits them), but 11 years is a long, long time.  No one is willing to destroy their economy on the word of a former Vice President when faced with the coldest winter in decades and there has been no net warming since their teenager was in diapers and Clinton was in office.  The thing that amazes me is that no one has thought to say that this means Kyoto, which occurred in 1997, was a success.  (It was a patent failure, but moving on….)

If you want to know what it will really take to cut CO2 emissions in half by 2050, look at the person next to you; now kill them.

Draconian Measures

If you want to know what it will take to cut the world’s CO2 emissions in half by 2050, look at the person next to you; now kill them.  CO2 comes from everything. It is a natural part of the human biological process–you are emitting it right now–you filthy polluter–just by breathing.  Of course, it is also part of the Krebs cycle (one deranged lunatic’s pollutant is another man’s plant food.)  Even if you could (and you cannot) switched overnight to solar, wind and other “renewable” power sources–where would those power sources come from?  How can you manufacture an enormous wind turbine without plastics?  Plastics are made from refined petroleum products, which, in refining, produce CO2.

In addition, a lot of “greenhouse” emissions are not even fossil fuel based, but are from farm animals, rice paddies and termites, all of which give of methane, another “greenhouse gas.”  In order to actually reduce true greenhouse emissions, you would have to convince the worlds population to stop eating beef and rice and stop making their homes out of wood–oh, and stop using plastics as well.  And don’t forget–give up your car and take the bus or bike to work.  And you can forget about air travel unless you are the type of person who now takes a private jet anyway.

All of this in an environment where, again, the weather is getting colder (long-range forecasting is calling for the coldest winter in a decade or longer) and there has been no global warming in 11 years.  The scientific consensus (which never really existed, as much as a code of silence in exchange for funding) is collapsing and the climate of fear is giving way to one of ridicule.

Politicians are not that Dumb.

This brings me to my final point.  Politicians are not that dumb.  They know that businesses have to kowtow to environmentalists, as do they, the politicians.  They also know that the hemp wearing, no soap, trust fund hippies will never be happy no matter what you do, so there is no point in trying to satisfy them anyway.  The point of these conferences is to give the appearance of moving forward, blame the large developing countries (India and China) for not being able to reach a meaningful agreement and agree to meet again in a few years.  On the plus side, the weather in late fall is gorgeous in Copenhagen.  Try the hot chocolate.

The award, which was founded on the guilt of Alfred Nobel, has turned into the Shame of Norway.

The rationale for awarding President Obama, who through his nine months in office has done nothing of note in foreign policy, is that, in essence, he talks a good game. In fact, his words have done nothing but buy time for a nuclear Iran to become a reality. But this goes beyond liberal nonsense of everyone deserves a trophy for just showing up. What does it say to those who have actually fought and died to make the world a better place? What about the hundreds of thousands of men and women who liberated Iraq and established a peaceful democracy in the cradle of civilization–is that not worthy of note? What of President Bush’s work to relieve malaria and AIDS in Africa over the past 8 years–ask anyone on that continent what their opinion is of the man from Crawford and you will hear more honest praise of him than of Obama.

But this is less about Obama than it is about the Nobel committee. A once legitimate and prestigious honor has become an embarrassment and a joke. The award is meaningless. Giving it to a president who has accomplished so little in nine months as has Obama is as idiotic as giving a peace prize to Al Gore and the IPCC for a politicized report on Global Warming™. The award, which was founded on the guilt of Alfred Nobel, has turned into the Shame of Norway.

There is no place in a constitutional democracy for the criminalization of policy.

First, either Mr. Jones actually believes this or he signed the petition for political reasons.  If he actually believes it, he is either a fool, an idiot or mentally ill, any of which should disqualify him for any office in government.  If he signed the petition as a means of political score-settling, that is not much better.  There is no place in a constitutional democracy for the criminalization of policy.  The United States would quickly devolve into a banana republic marked by back-room deals or military coups if this Obama-Jones Chicago-style criminal investigation of the prior administration keeps up.  Does Obama and his Czars somehow believe they are immune?  When the next attack comes, do they believe that the American people will not, this time justifiably, hold them accountable for distracting those responsible for protecting us with countless investigations, hearings and accusations of events long settled.

Second, accusing the government of complicity in events of the magnitude of 9/11 undermines the people’s faith in government.  It goes beyond partisan politics and attacks the very fabric of the social compact.  Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, your sworn obligation is uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that obligation includes the protection of its people and their traditions of representative government–regardless of your nihilistic politics and anti-corporate blood lust.  Van Jones’s–and the environmentalists–hatred for all things corporate and all things traditionally American have distorted their senses and perverted all sense of reason.  If you don’t believe me, Exhibit A is this (allegedly unauthorized) ad for the World Wildlife Foundation, comparing 9/11 to the Christmas Eve Tsunami: (there was also a video version, no longer available online)

Finally, in a (hopefully) vain attempt to salvage his career, Van Jones now denies being part of the Truther movement, and says he didn’t read the letter carefully.  Oh, marvelous.  Just like Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner, Obama has decided to hand the reins of power to a man who cannot be bothered to pay attention to details.  That, too is a disqualification for office.

One other point, last night on Special Report, Maria Liasson tried to make the comparison between “Birthers,” those who believe President Obama was born in Kenya, and “Truthers.”  The comparison, I’m sure, has been made elsewhere. To her credit, Liasson, made clear, she was making the point that the people who believed these things were on equivalent ranges of the fringe, not that the magnitude of the purported hoax would be equivalent. Nonetheless, the comparison is ill-advised. First, Birthers are harmless.  As noted above, accusing the government of complicity in the death of thousands is a serious act of treason that undermines peoples faith in government.  Questioning the birth of a sitting President is a pointless act of futility.

As to the race card, which Obama’s supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) love to play, I would bet my last donut that, had McCain won, we would hear all sorts of similar nonsense about whether McCain was born in Panama City or not and what that meant. Second, and more importantly, the Birther controversy can be solved very simply by Obama complying with the one simple demand being made by the movement, such as it is: release his original birth certificate.  He refuses to, and I suspect for good reasons.  By refusing to release an original birth certificate, he knows he can foment this controversy over his birth and when necessary point to the Birthers and say, “look, the Right wingers are bunch of nut cases, who you gonna believe on [healthcare][cap and trade][card check][stimulus], them or me?”  Unlike the Birther movement, there is no way to disprove the crackheaded theory that Bush knew about 9/11 anymore than FDR knew about Pearl Harbor;  King Prium knew about the Trojan Horse or Throg knew about the jawbone under Grog’s loincloth.

Think Rationally, Act Normally, lovingly crafted in the hippie 70′s style font similar to the original. We’ve replaced Mother Earth with da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man for added nerd points. The design comes on shirts, hats, mugs, bumper stickers, license plate frames, messenger bags and yes, even canvas tote bags!  You will fool even the snootiest limousine liberal on their way to Whole Foods.  Check out the Daily Danet Store and get your’s today!

Sarah Palin gave the chattering class something to talk about on a holiday weekend by announcing that, not only would she not seek reelection as governor of Alaska, but that she would resign her current term before the end of July. The news sent shock waves through the United States leading some to say this was the end for the enigmatic figure, while others called the move politically “brilliant.” Governor Palin did not specifically address her future aspirations, but cited frivolous ethics claims, abusive press coverage of her young children and the cost of the media circus being borne by the state of Alaska as her primary reasons for resigning.

New York Times “columnist” Maureen Dowd, whose most obvious accomplishment in life has been to become the living embodiment of the etymology of her surname, used the occasion to prove the governor’s point, writing a typically rambling screed of venomous invective vaguely in the governor’s direction. Stay classy Maureen.

Good Work If You Can Get It.

The Obama administration used the holiday weekend to release its list of White House employee salaries. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is voluntary transparency by the Obama administration; the report is required by law. The highest paid staffer is a man you’ve probably never heard of, David Marcozzi, who is paid $192,934 per year. Marcozzi is Obama’s personal teleprompter repairman. Just kidding, he’s the Director of Public Health Policy, and apparently the best negotiator at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as he makes over $20,000 per year more than his colleagues. The full list is available here.

Speaking of Open Positions: For the Right Price…

Obama repaid some outstanding campaign debts on Thursday as he nominated Douglas W. Kmiec as Ambassador to Malta and Fay Hartog-Levin was nominated as Ambassador to the Netherlands. The Republican Kmiec was instrumental in Obama’s presidential campaign, crossing party lines to endorse Obama early on in the campaign and giving pro-life Republicans (false) comfort to vote for Obama. Hartog-Levin came to her position the old fashioned way, campaign contributions: $28,500 from her own pocket.  That’s no small Change™, but I can believe it.

Obama Stays Limp, Even Flaccid, on Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

Following a week in which his former (and future) rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton leaked that Obama is being too weak with Iran, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Russia were all in the news testing the young president.  (Biden warned us to gird our loins).

On the Fourth of July, North Korea test fired seven short-range missiles, in response, the United States promised to monitor the situation. Perhaps we can give them free telemetry data, while we’re at it. The actual response from the State Department was “This type of North Korean behavior is not helpful.” As of press time, there was no official statement from the White House.

As Iranian election unrest continues into its third week, news surfaced that the Obama administration is actively blocking economic sanctions against the rogue regime. The United States, which is the only member of the G8 without formal diplomatic relations with Iran, is apparently also the only G8 nation opposing sanctions for the bloody and unforgivable tyranny going on in that country.

Meanwhile, even Saudi Arabia has seen the risk the mullahs pose and has apparently given Israel overflight rights in order to strike Iranian nuclear targets. If Obama won’t even agree to economic sanctions, what are the chances he would agree to decisive military action? That was a rhetorical question, but Biden answered it. On Sunday, Biden said that the United States “would not stand in the way” of an Israeli attack on Iran.  So, after 60 years of standing shoulder to shoulder against the evils in the World, the Obama administration signaled that Israel is on it’s own against a holocaust denying, raving anti-Semitic, potentially nuclear armed Iran. That taste in the back of your throat is vomit.

Next door, in Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden was kind enough to throw the enemy a life line.  In public remarks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, Biden warned that, if Iraq were to enter another period of sectarian violence, as it did last year, the United States would have to pull its troops out of Iraq completely. Undoubtedly, future al Qaeda attacks will be designed to mimic or foment sectarian violence in Iraq. Hell, al Qaeda could split itself in two, one group pretending to be sunni, and kill each other.  By Biden’s rule, the US would then leave.  By Well done, Joe. Now come back home and get back to work screwing up the stimulus and the economy.

On the other side of the coin, Obama continued his idiotic stance in support of a fledgling dictator in Honduras as that country was removed from the Organization of American States. It was unclear whether Honduras quit or if they were pushed. Around the region, dictators and other leftist leaders, including Obama, lined up to show support for the man who only wants to be dictator for life.

Yo-yobama Administration Reverses Course (Again) on Secrecy

This is the story that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. On June 3, a court ordered the Obama administration to release a CIA memo detailing interrogation and detention tactics by August 31. Since then, the Obama administration has alternatively announced that it would, then it would not release the memo, always on Thursday or Friday. On Thursday, the game continued as the Obama administration again delayed release of the memo.

In an unrelated flip flop, Obama announced that he would adopt a Bush policy he criticized, and allow the NSA to screen government data on private internet servers. The plan would allow NSA to review data on private, domestic servers in order to guard against cyber attack targeting U.S. government assets. The primary difference between Obama’s and Bush’s plan is that now Obama is in charge, and that’s why it’s okay now. So much for a nation of laws.

Barney Rubble, Still Gambling With Your Money

There’s something even more despicable about a degenerate gambler who likes to gamble with other people’s hard earned money. Barney “Rubble” Frank (D-Masshole) is that kind of a guy. You may recall that when the $700 billion bank bill was passed last fall, taxpayers were promised that, much like the savings and loan bailout, this was a loan; taxpayers would be paid back, likely with a profit. As banks repay the loans, the interest payments would be used to offset losses as other banks default or (God forbid) if the program makes a net profit, to reduce the national deficit.

But now, Massachusetts Slim wants to siphon off the money and use it to create a new housing bubble. Not happy with causing only one disastrous housing bubble in his career, Frank wants to use the repayment proceeds to make sub prime high risk bad loans to drive up property values, causing another housing bubble (with predictable consequences for anyone with an IQ above 40).  Ironically, Frank, who is an avid gambler, even with his own money, is a featured guest at the World Series of Poker this weekend. If only what goes to Vegas would stay in Vegas.

Global Warming™ Consensus is Easier When You Stifle Dissent

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama EPA silenced a report by one of its scientists critical of the impact of global warming. The criticism directly undermined the administration’s rationale for enacting a massive, expensive and unduly burdensome carbon tax that will crush the U.S. economy. The Obama EPA’s response to Alan Carlin, the skeptical scientist, was to literally censor him, banning him from communicating with the press or anyone outside of the EPA regarding his findings.

Carlin’s supervisor, in a draconian email,  told him, “The [EPA] administrator and the [Obama] administration have decided to move forward on [a finding that Global Warming poses] endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” Or, as Obama will say to North Korea when it nuke Seoul, “that was very unhelpful.”  To put in plain English, “we’re railroading this through, and if you want to keep your job, you will shut up.”

The irony, of course, is that for five years, we have had to listen to James Hansen preen around, telling anyone with a camera how the Bush administration has been censoring him regarding Global Warming™. (The irony isn’t lost on me, but it is lost on him).  James Hansen wouldn’t know censorship if it stripped him naked, sprayed him with delousing agent, threw him in a gulag, locked the door, and lost the key.

Completely unrelatedly, the National Weather Service reported that June 2009 was the coolest June in over 50 years, tied for the eighth coolest in the over 130 years of records. The last time is was this cool, Eisenhower made Alaska a state. Endangerment my lily white ass.

We’ve Only Got 60 Votes!

Obama is on his way to Russia to renegotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, under which the United States and the former Soviet republics are reducing their nuclear stockpiles. The negotiations will be contentious and challenging, as Russia will be asking the U.S. to limit anti-ballistic missile systems that it sees as a strategic threat. The former community organizer faces a politically difficult challenge as liberals, who once mocked missile defense, know that it nonetheless helped win the Cold War and is now essential as a defense against rogue states.

In light of these concerns, the Obama administration floated another one of it’s “hey it’s just an idea” trial balloons by suggesting that despite clear language in the U.S. Constitution, the President does not need the Senate to ratify a new arms treaty with the Russian. Such a move would be historically unprecedented, even for a constitutional law professor in the White House. The fact that, even before Obama sits down at the table, he is worried about ratifying a treaty with 60 members of his own party in the Senate (he only needs 50 votes) makes you wonder how bad of a deal is he gonna get? Of course, this is the same man who thinks he can talk the mullahs out of their nuclear weapons ambitions.  Based on no formal negotiation training, no business experience and a scant two years in the U.S. Senate, most of which were spent running for President.

Dishonorable Mention

• More questions were raised regarding how much John Conyer’s knew about his wife accepting $3000 in cash to direct a $1 billion contract in Detroit. If my wife came home with $3000 in cash, I’d be asking a lot of tough questions.  Maybe the “powers that be” decided not to ask her any.
• The FBI released notes on its post-capture interviews with  Saddam Hussein, who said he (convincingly) bluffed the world about his WMD capacity, in part to dissuade Iran from attacking Iraq.
• Chicago politicians are considering taking Gitmo inmates in local prisons. Apparently hardened terrorists are less cutthroat than your average Chicagoland gangbanger, and more trustworthy than Illinois politicians.
• Amsterdam is considering a stimulus package for local prostitutes. Business is hard all over.
• Democrats in the Senate, in an apparent effort to destroy any credibility they have left, are considering a bill that would fine people for refusing health coverage. Apparently healthcare isn’t just a right, it’s now an obligation, punishable by a $1,000 fine.