Climate Change VS Global Warming

"Climate change" is the latest terminology introduced by the left, as "Global warming" caused by mankind proved to be a "constructed reality". But the statement that CO₂ causes temperature changes is also extremely exaggerated, to say the least.

People who worry about climate changes are barking at the wrong tree. Even if human habits could be drastically changed, this would have no measurable effect on climate.

Let's worry instead about pollution caused by other types of human activity, which incidentally have considerably improved over the last forty years, thanks to the concern of all of us.

Technical explanation

Greenhouse gasses are 2% of the Earth's atmosphere.  3.62% of these are CO₂ (that's 0.0724% of the atmosphere). If we assume that 3.4% of this amount is caused by human activity, this is 0.00246% of the volume of the  atmosphere. That's less than one quarter of one one/hundredth of one percent. The rest of the CO₂ (99.9975%) is caused by other natural sources.

If indeed the climate would be subject to change because of human activity by an almost immeasurable amount, let's say one one/hundredth of a degree per year because of human activity, then variations in the natural causes of CO₂ (the 99.9975%) would cause fluctuations of temperature over 40,000 times greater, that is variations of 406 degrees per year!

Since that is far from what we experience (by at least three orders of magnitude), then it means that the effects of human emissions of CO₂ on temperature are irrelevant.

Liberal logic and stupidity

1. Prohibiting law abiding citizens to carry concealed guns leads to more violence (See Chicago, Illinois, Australia, UK), thus they propose more "gun control".
2. Gun free zones allow criminals to freely shoot the highest amount of people before being stopped (almost all criminals who decided to do mass killings chose gun free zones), thus they want to prohibit guns in more places.
3. They refuse to publish the names and addresses of convicted child molesters (because of their right to privacy), but they publish the names and addresses of police officers, judges and other responsible gun owners.
4. They think "assault rifles" are dangerous in the hands of citizens. Thus they establish operation Fast & Furious to give them to drug dealers.
5. Increasing taxes leads to less government revenue (see California revenues falling in Nov. 2012, after Prop. 30), thus they want to raise taxes to get more revenue.
6. The myth of population explosion has been debunked years ago. We now have a problem of under-population in most industrialized countries. Thus, they want to reduce the population by encouraging abortion.
7. The myth of global warming caused by mankind has been debunked (The data was fake and the amount of CO2 produced by mankind is insignificant with respect of what is produced by nature). Thus, they want to reduce carbon emissions caused by mankind, no matter what the economic cost is.
8. The use of condoms has a 10% failure rate (If you engage in sex using a condom with an infected person 7 or more times, it is more likely for you to be infected than not). Thus they promote condoms for protection against AIDS.
9. The more you apologize to your enemies, the more your enemies think you are weak and irresolute. Thus they apologize to Muslim extremists as much as they can.
10. They think we should respect Muslims and try not to offend them. They heavily condemn an insulting video. But they go on and on bragging about killing Bin Laden. Then they are surprised to receive another terrorist attack on 9/11.
11. They fight against Al Quaida terrorists and kill Bin Laden. Then they round up all the guns they can find in Libya and give them to Ansar-al-Sharia, an affiliate of al Quaida, for them to fight the Syrian dictator. However, they are surprised when the terrorists use those guns to attack their  ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11.
12. They think dictatorships are bad. Thus they encourage a revolution in Egypt, so that a dictatorship can be established with the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm, who is enforcing Sharia Law.
13. The more the government spends, the worse the economy, the value of the dollar and the national debt (The psychological effect of Keynesian economics may work temporarily, only when the people perceive that the government is on the right track). Thus they want to increase the debt ceiling in order to spend more.
14. They plan to increase spending by 16%. When pressured by fiscal conservatives, they promise they will cut spending. Thus they increase spending by only 8% and praise themselves for "cutting their budget in half."

Letter to Mr. O'Reilly, FOX News

Mr O'Reilly,

I understand your frustration with uninformed, uninterested voters, who think that economic matters are boring and do not want to hear about them.

I understand, because I am just as frustrated with you, and almost all other conservative commentators, who continue to use the language of the left on economic matters.

How do you think they can focus on economic issues if you, the deliverers of the truth, do not have it clear enough to then make it personal and understandable for the average American?

Stay with me for a minute, while I am trying to clarify a simple concept.

A major myth of the left is that taxation is an infinite source of income. To them, more taxes always means more government revenues.

You understand that it is not so. Perhaps not in detail, but you know that society's resources are limited.

Technically you can refer to the "Laffer curve", which was basis for the Reagan-Thatcher economic recovery in the 1980's.

What that means is that after a certain point, which in most industrialized nations was reached in the early 1960's, more taxation means less government revenues. I.e.: Too much of a good thing is really bad for you.

I have written books and modeled such economic behavior, but I will not bother you with further details.

Fix that in your mind: More taxation means less revenue. This is an immediate effect, not years down the road. A very recent example is from California, just one month after passing Prop.30 raising taxes on the rich (See "California revenues in free fall" at: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/despite-tax-increase-california-state-revenues-in-freefall/). Yes, there are other collateral reasons, such as businesses leaving, etc. but the effect happens also in a closed system. It is an economic truth with today's size of government.

Yet, just last night you said again that: Republicans could have compromised months ago by allowing Mr. Obama to get "more revenue" by raising taxes.

This is the opposite of the truth, just stated in the previous paragraph. I could have made a hundred examples from your talking points or from other Fox commentators.

I have to conclude that, either conservatives and news anchors do not understand simple economics (hard to believe), or that we continuously and unconsciously reinforce the message of the left by using their language, their talking points.

The Left successfully portrays itself on the side of the poor. They show uninformed voters that they are on their side and want to raise taxes to give them more (the Santa Klaus analogy you used). Whether they do that in good faith or not, it is not the point. The point is that we repeat and spread their message.

We, conservatives should show the uninformed voters that the left will reduce government revenues and by doing so the left acts against their interest: "government will no longer be able to be Santa Klaus."

Please, start informing America that more taxes means less revenues (technically, until government is again reduced to the optimum level – See Economic Optimalism and the STING curve).

Please, review your language carefully when talking about increasing taxes and government revenues.

Please inform your colleagues and your guests. It has to be a methodical self-review of language.

We need to reach uninformed voters where they are and where it touches them personally.

They may start listening, if they hear that every time taxes increase, not only they are going to possibly lose their jobs (if they have one), but also they are likely to receive less government  goodies, perks, unemployment check, free food, cell phones and every other form of government money they currently receive.

The well intentioned, church-going people, may also start sympathizing with conservatism, if conservatism shows it is on the side of the poor and the jobless.

Thanks for listening.

Eating less meat

Activists on the left say that when you eat hamburgers you contribute to “global warming”. But don’t you need to kill a cow to make burgers? Why then fewer cows would increase CO2 production?

Because apparently they understand how the market works: more demand allows for economy of scale: with more money invested in the improvement of farm methods and facilities, we would achieve more savings for producers , lower prices and more consumption, thus even more demand for meat and eventually more cows!

If only they applied the same reasoning to every other sector of the economy!

For example,

-If the left allowed for more oil drilling in the US, the current demand with new investments and technologies would lead to more abundance and lower gas prices.

-If they had not required lending institutions to finance unqualified buyers, the cost of borrowing would have been lower and the housing market would have continued to prosper.

-If they lowered the taxation and regulation burdens from industry, the cost of products and services would decrease and the buying power of salaries would increase.

They do not seem to acknowledge that demand and lower prices create more abundance and a higher standard of living for all. On the contrary, they think that producers are the enemies of the people. But producers are the people! Most of us contribute to creating products and services with our work...

...Apart from left wing activists.

The trail of High Treason

Two former Marine seals (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty) told to “stand down”. They disobeyed orders and were killed in Benghazi.

General Carter Ham, Commander of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), fired by Obama on Sept. 11 for not following orders (How common is that?). He would have prepared the In-Extremis force in minutes and sent a C-130 from Sigonella to Libya, in spite of the order to “stand down.”

Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, Command of the Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East., fired by Obama on Sept. 11 for not following orders.

General David Petraeus, CIA Director, resigns (forced to?) on the eve of the Benghazi hearings. He denied that any order to “stand down” came from the CIA: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, announces her resignation on the eve of Benghazi hearings, after going along with the video cover-up.

These are not coincidences. They are the trail of High Treason.