Alarmists have insisted that such heavy snows are the result of global warming or “climate change” (as if the climate were not expected to change naturally). As one commenter put it:

“As the oceans grow warmer, there is more moisture taken into the atmosphere. The resulting weather temperature extremes generate energy causing more violent storms.”

I believe the commenter is referring to the alarmists’ claim that global warming will cause more numerous and more violent hurricanes.  If so, that claim has been pretty much debunked. The most likely cause of these bigger snowstorms is the localized increase of ocean temperatures off the West Coast known as “El Nino.” El Nino and the accompanying La Nina are the result of naturally occurring cycles in ocean temperatures over a limited area. For a fascinating article on the topic, read here.

But, for those who believe heavier snowfall is the result of climate change or global warming, I invite you to watch this video.

The previous record for Washington D.C. was set in the 1860′s winter of 1898-99, which prompts a question. Does the New York Times also believe that the previous record snowfall was caused by global warming?

If not, then their story falls apart, because if global warming did not directly cause heavier precipitation in 1860, then it cannot be said to have directly caused it in 2010. If we look at the history, global warming cannot be the culprit because of the cooler temperatures commonly seen in the historic record for that period of time.

The New York Times attempts to justify it’s position by saying that heavy snowfall and global warming are “compatible.” But heavy snowfall is also compatible with the cooler temperatures extant during the 1860′s, nullifying the Times’ argument.

Simply put, the recent record snowfall in the eastern states is not evidence of global warming.

Most people shifting into the green sector should expect to see a pay cut of as much as 60%. These jobs are simply too costly for the market to bear, provindg more evidence of the fact that most leftists cannot tell you thie first thing about market economics, much less operate in one.

What I find strange is that these people, who claim that Capitalism is dead, attempt to reshape the market with their modifications, rather than actually creating an alternative system. They don’t acknowledge (or even understand) that without Capitalism, there is no market. Their ideas are all about controlling the market. But why control something you say is dead? Isn’t that counter-productive?

Yes, it is. But they must do it because the truth is that there is no viable alternative.

The WHO Summary Document seems to be self-contradicting. The document states that Malaria causes 1 million deaths per year, and children are 3/4 of those cases. Malaria also imposes heavy economic burdens in terms of costs of treatment and prevention and lost productivity.

Then the WHO document says that spraying with DDT is “highly effective” at controlling Malaria. So if it is highly effective at controlling Malaria, why discontinue its use?

According to WHO, DDT “is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not applied in accordance with WHO guidelines and recommendations.” In other words, it isn’t harmful. The guidelines of the WHO for the use of DDT are basic common sense.

The document lists as potential effects of DDT as “childhood neurodevelopment, breast cancer in women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and to diabetes.” At least some of these claims have already been debunked (e.g., sperm count and breast cancer claims).

Remember, these claims deal with potential harm–not documented, conclusive proof of harm. On the other hand, Malaria is a proven killer, and DDT is proven to control Malaria. Why is this even being debated?

I’ll address this question in a later post.

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world’s poor will suffer as a result.

The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim “is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner,” said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6.

The impact of the ban on DDT on the world’s poorest people will be terrible. The Leftist environmental movement, which sees humans as a disease to be eradicated, has pressured the World Health Organization to reconsider its use of DDT to combat Malaria.

The ultimate purpose of the Left is not so much to limit the use of DDT in the world, as it is to reduce the human population around the world, mostly in underdeveloped nations. Their genocidal agenda is evident in several statements from prominent Leftists:

Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species… In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.

Guess who? Jacques Cousteau, in an interview in the UNESCO Courier, November 1991. There’s more.

When questioned on the propriety of banning DDT, with a view to the possible unintended consequences, Dr. Charles Wurster replied,

So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any.

There are many other quotes from people like Ted Turner, who once said in an interview with Audubon Magazine,

A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

Why are we not running these people off the edge of the Continent? It’s time power for these anti-human elitists was brought to an abrupt and complete end.

Doh! There’s an environmental conundrum for you. What do you do when a protected species is killing off another protected species?

Green kills.

The Republican Study Committee reports:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.

Some critics have said that cap and trade can’t be called a tax. Cap and Trade is a way for the government to collect revenue on energy used, while having private companies do the collecting. The effect would be the same as a national sales tax. Even some Liberal Democrats have opposed cap and trade because it is a regressive tax that will hit lower-income, working Americans the hardest.

The American people deserve full-disclosure on bills coming out of their government. Rep. Chaffetz’s bill would shine a light on the effects of the Cap and Trade tax, and expose it’s bottom line effects to American taxpayers.

Contact your representative and ask him or her to co-sponsor the Cap and Trade Disclosure Act.

I’m talking about the Leftists (Environmentalists and Socialists) who insist on changing aspects of society without having anything acceptable with which to replace them. That goes for products as well. Spokane County, WA is learning this the hard way. The Greens up North thought they could just pass a mandate forcing everyone to use low-phosphate dish detergents, and that would save the environment, they would feel good about protecting the planet, and everyone would be happy.

Not so fast there, pal.

It turns out the green detergents don’t work. Phosphate is what makes detergents work. If you remove the active ingredient, what do you get? Just a bunch of white powder that won’t even get you high. Useless garbage.

So the people in Spokane are doing what people naturally do when they can’t get what they want in their own neighborhoods; they go to the next state over–Idaho. So now there is a booming black market for effective dish soap purchased in Idaho, where there are no silly phosphate restrictions, and people can actually have clean dishes.

The funny thing is that the law doesn’t prohibit ownership or use of high-phosphate detergents, only the sale of those products. The end results is that people will naturally purchase the products where it is legal to sell them and bring them back into the state, completely negating the intent of the law in the first place. That’s just stupid.

The Communists figured out how to keep people from leaving. I’m afraid that’s what these morons might try next.

It demonstrates something we already know–that Obama hasn’t got a clue about running an economy and should simply let the market work. Of course we also already know he can’t do that, for two main reasons: 1) he’s a socialist and, therefore, 2) he is far too committed to his position, and his arrogance will not permit him to admit he’s wrong.

My wife picked up on that attitude in his press conference the other day. Did you notice how he said they were going to try new things, and if they don’t work, they’ll just keep trying? Rather than just leaving things alone to be worked out by the people.

Socialism and Environmentalism are a dangerous mix. Socialists think they can plan the economy, which is bad enough. But when you add overzealous obsession with the environment to the planning, you get all kinds of mischief, poor planning, and failed policies.