Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Video Roundup : March 23, 2016


Hillary

"Hillary Admits KKK Leader was Her MENTOR - Robert Byrd, the Man Who Tried to Stop Civil Rights Act!!" by Mark Dice

Transparency

"Trudeau appoints 7 new Senators: Open, transparent, Non-partisan? Not even close" by Rebel Media.

Racism

"White People MADE Me Do It" by Naked Ape.

Obamacare

"Obamacare Bust: The Fight to Repeal Obamacare" by PJ Media.

"The Truth Behind the Affordable Care Act" by Learn Liberty.

Feminism

"50 Questions for Feminists" by Dr Shaym.

"University of Albany doesn't know how to feminism" by Bearing.

"Redneck Feminist (That's a first!)" by Undoomed.

"9 Reasons Men Get Paid More Than Women (The Wage Gap Debunked)" by Dr Shaym.

"TL;DR - #VoteTrumpGetDumped - Stumping the Trump?" by TL;DR.

"Feminists, Bears and Rhinos; Oh my!" by Undoomed.

Privacy

"Hulk Hogan Legdrops Gawker: Gets $115 Million Verdict in Sex Tape Trial" by Stefan Molyneux.

Environmentalism

'“Buffoon” Gerald Butts scolds “snarky westerners” for mocking Earth Hour' by Rebel Media.

Corruption

"Uber OUT, TappCar IN: Was Notley NDP cronyism at play in Edmonton shut down?" by Rebel Media.

Brussels

"The Truth About the Brussels Attack" by Paul Joseph Watson.

Peter Principle

"Incompetent Minister Mihychuk ill-prepared to guard against union corruption" by Rebel Media.

Free Speech

"Canadian province facing ban on free speech" by Bearing.

Some Levity

"Racial appropriation is racist ... or something" by Bearing.

NewsBusted

"Real Men Don't Vote Bernie Sanders" by Steven Crowder.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Department of Energy conducts research to make wind turbines less effective

Is the Department of Energy really conducting research to make wind turbines less effective?

Essentially the DOE is conducting research to ensure less birds are killed with wind turbines. That sounds good since wind is supposed to be a green energy and it should not adversely affect wildlife, but it currently does. And the expected results of the research will be the following:
The ultimate goal is to detect birds flying near a turbine with enough time to for the turbine blades to stop spinning and prevent a collision.
"Renewable energy" is already unreliable enough. Now tech is being designed to shut it off if wildlife is in the vicinity. Terrorists don't need to blow up our power grid; they only need to release a few birds near it.

Let's take a look at the propaganda video and see if there might be some problems with the research.

Did you see the problem with the research in the video?

The turbines were not moving!

The eagles were flying without the distraction of a moving target or the effect of low frequency noise. If you are unfamiliar with "low frequency noise" then do a search on it. There are many horror stories of the affects associated with wind turbines.

Maybe there were tests with the turbines running which would mean the eagles were then put at risk. Who knows? Maybe a bird or two died in the data collection.

What else could go wrong?

How about this paragraph:
The birds used in the recent flights belong to Auburn University’s Southeastern Raptor Center, a rehabilitation center for birds of prey. These eagles are not trained for extensive flights; they are trained to soar across a football stadium and land on the field, so the researchers modified their tests accordingly. They used a man lift to take the eagles as high as possible before releasing them so they could trade altitude for airspeed.

Trained birds that are trained to fly one hundred yards or less to fetch a reward were used to simulate wild birds flying in predatory patterns looking for prey (reward). Yeah. Sure. Releasing them as high as you can will account for modified behavior between a domesticated bird and a wild bird.

Two companies and a government agency did this. Many adults had to be involved. Did not anyone say, "I see a problem?" In the end imperfect data was produced.

Why not set up cameras that activate when the turbines are active? You get data on multiple species that are actually behaving normally in the situations you want to prevent accidents.

Or am I being too sensible in gathering real world data?

Monday, October 26, 2015

Ban Has Opposite Effect

It is amusing when do-gooders impose their do-gooding on others to help them but end up hurting them instead. It is even more amusing when an activist site posts a link to the story detrimental to their cause.

"Ban the Bottle" has linked to an article that describes the failure of banning bottled water, the site's own cause.

Although the article states reasons for banning bottled water that are rich for poking logical errors in, I'll stick with what happened at the University of Vermont.

Once the University of Vermont banned bottled water, sales of other beverages increased instead of students using the drinking fountain (intended effect). You can't take a drinking fountain into your classroom. Imagine that; students picking a different convenience.

Total calories from beverages rose by over 20 per cent on a per capita basis. The share of healthy beverages sold on campus dropped by more than half.

Read the article and shake your head. People never learn that banning is not a solution.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Children Sue Government Over Global Warming

NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen and several children are suing the U.S.Government over the continuing burning of fossil fuels contributing global warming. This ends up violating their future 9th amendment rights depriving them of life, liberty and property.

There has not been one computer model to get climate predictions right. There has been an 18 year measured pause in global warming. None of that matters if you can use children as pawns to further your agenda.




Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Burt Rutan on Global Warming

Bad-ass aerospace engineer Burt Rutan goes over his research into the data of global warming/climate change. Awesome presentation of the good of increased CO2 and destroying the consensus myth.




Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Peddling the Ethanol Failure to the Philippines

The great ethanol experiment has been a great big failure. It reduces engine efficiency, creates more pollution than gas, and takes more energy to create than it saves. CO2 from the production of ethanol is even being pumped into geological storage potentially creating a deadly disaster in waiting. Even Al Gore said he made a mistake in backing ethanol subsidies.

Should we end the practice of using ethanol? No! Let's get other countries on board!

That's right. The Director of the Las Vegas U.S. Export Assistance Center, the U.S. Renewable Fuels Association, and six U.S. ethanol companies went to Manila to research the potential ethanol market. Presentations were given on different aspects of renewable fuels.

Yes. Let us expand ethanol and grow more corn for a poor fuel choice instead of food. It's not like there are starving people in the world, right?


Saturday, July 25, 2015

Gas Tax : Punishing the Heretics of the Green Movement

There is a gap between funding for the highways and roads and the revenue coming in for it. The gas tax hasn't been raised for 22 years and you are going to hear calls for raising it.[1][2]

End the Gas Tax


USA today calls for phasing out the gas tax because of the cost of bureaucracy. Anything government driven has this problem so this reason is moot.

Forbes calls for reform of the gas tax but gets the reasoning wrong. Forbes lays out the history of the gas tax and how funds in are tied to projects directly related to the road, however, in the 90's this relation was temporarily severed to pay for other things; this is blamed for the unpopularity of the tax and why reform is needed.

Bloomberg actually gets part of problem correct, ... fuel efficiency and less driving.

Government Created the Problem


CAFE standards demand better fuel efficiency in vehicles which means when the goals are met drivers buy less gas to go the same distance. So it stands to reason that less money is collected through taxes.

Fuel efficiency is nice but the government has no place dictating it; this is legislating physics which is a very arrogant thing for man to do.

The next problem is a double blow to the gas tax and funds for roads; the government's push for electric and hybrid vehicles.

Tax credits to buyers of the green vehicles is paid for by all tax payers. The first punch is these drivers don't use gas or only a little thus evading the gas tax and yet they still put wear and tear on the roads.

The double punch is the subsidy money could instead be put towards road construction and repair, but no. Instead we are going to continue to subsidize these vehicles and look to taxing the drivers that use gas more.

Last I checked only churches and non-profits were supposed to be tax exempt. (Yeah, the Volt lost money but that doesn't make it a non-profit organization.)

The subsidies don't go just to the people that buy the cars but companies within the pipeline that make the car or parts of it. There is an article that "debunks" Volt myths and fails on the government money myth. It frames the myth as "#5 It’s made of government bailout money." That is not the myth; the myth is "the Volt is a government subsidized car." In fact the debunking of the myth admits to the subsidies and blames Bush for the subsidies; whether this is a Bush subsidy or an Obama subsidy it is still a government subsidy. Supposedly the 2016 Volt will be profitable.

There's no telling how long these subsidies will continue. A subsidy is per model per model year and does not phase out till 200,000 units of it are sold. Even then the subsidy phases out to 50% after two quarters, 25% at four quarters, and no credit after six quarters after hitting the 200,000 mark. By then the car will be on to the next model year and a new set of subsidies.[1][2]

To be fair there was a discontinued subsidy. It was replaced by a new one.

What's the Solution?


End the gas tax, end the green car subsidies, and budget the roads like any other part of the government.

Ending the gas tax will make the cost of the transportation of goods cheaper thus making them more affordable. This can lead to an increase of consumption and leading to the need for more production. In the end there could be more tax revenue through increased income tax revenues; in addition this enriches the lives of the citizens.

Ending the subsidies will also correct the car and energy market to use what is truly economical choices. Also, it is immoral to make one person to pay for part of another person's desired purchase. Can you imagine if the government subsidized the purchase of yachts? Subsidizing the purchase of a car because of the type of motor it uses is no different.

Budget the roads like other parts of the budget. Make the importance of running shrimps on a treadmill compete with the importance of good roads. Hopefully we can expose wasteful projects by making them compete with critical projects.

Or we can raise the gas tax making products more expensive due to transportation costs while we give money to people who buy cars that do not contribute to the road fund.


1 2 1 2 3

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Why we don't need the Second Amendment

We have the Second Amendment to provide protection against the government if it raises arms against the people.

Hasn't that been happening?

So many government agencies now have their own police force; this means the agencies have arms. People worry about the NSA collecting meta data but when is the last time you heard of them kicking in an American's door and arresting them? None. However, the Bureau of Land Management had no problem invading Bundy's ranch and killing his cows over a tax dispute. Why not a court order? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raided Gibson Guitars over what wood they were using which in the end was shown they did nothing wrong. Couldn't they have sent in an inspector instead of a raiding force?

The point is arms are being raised against the people and that is only two simple examples. However the military is not raising arms against the people but faceless bureaucracies are doing so. This is why people don't recognize the violation for what it is.

We have had the Supreme Court deem it is okay for the government to take your land for financial improvement for the common good and also deem that we can be taxed for our mere existence through the Affordable Care Act.

We are also victims of Congress trying to legislate physics. Fuel efficiency in cars and pollution control causes the design of smaller and or lighter cars that are less safe regardless of their safety features. Incandescent light bulbs were not made illegal by name but made illegal by defining how much energy can be used per lumen. As a result you get bulbs with poisonous mercury or a really expensive LED bulb.

So why do you so love the Second Amendment? Where are the bodies showing you've stood up for your rights? Work within the system you say? Really? The oppression through agencies and regulations are from unelected officials you can not depose. You didn't vote in those judges nor can you kick them out using the system.

We do have elected Congressmen that have passed oppressive laws (A.C.A., light bulbs). Why are they still in power? Is that your version of working within the system?

Recently Gruber, an architect of the A.C.A., said that a tortured language, lack of transparency, and lies were need to pass the A.C.A. because the public were to stupid to approve something he thought was good for them. He's right; you are stupid.

There it is. It has been exposed that for the government to tax you for your existence they had to lie to you because you are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves.

So why are you so attached to the Second Amendment? I see no bodies proving your affection for it. All we get are crazies going into gun free zone and killing innocents; the result is a call for more gun control and you go nuts.

Where are the bodies of those that legislate away your freedoms?

Huh?

I thought so.

You are never going to exercise your Second Amendment rights because as Gruber said you are too stupid.

Our lives are so comfortable that no one wants to rock the boat. People are picked off here and there by the government and there are no repercussions.

Why are you so insatiable for a right you don't want to exercise?