Hard & Straight Talk About The Auto Bailouts – Did Obama Just Start The Bankruptcy Reorganization

General Motors and Chrysler are Bankrupt. Plain and simple.

“Bankrupt: any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her.”

General Motors and Chrysler fit the defintion perfectly.

Absent the unbelieveable Political Theater of the day both Chrysler and GM would have been directed into Chapter 11 reorganization 6 months ago and both companies would be on their way to a rebirth by now. The worst would be over, better days ahead. What has the billions of dollars in taxpayer money bought us – a dealy in the inevitable.  

GM and Chrysler are, despite any claims to the contrary, on their way to the bankruptcy court house now.

Whether it is by the politically created names of “surgical bankruptcy” http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090330/AUTO01/903300393/1148/rss25  or “prepackaged bankruptcy” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRfqFMhlj5lk&refer=worldwide it is bankruptcy non the less. GM and Chrysler cannot pay their own operating expenses nor can they pay their parts suppliers. They are bankrupt and have been bankrupt since some time early last year. http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/19/news/companies/auto_parts_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2009031919

GM and Chrysler are continuing to receive  bailout money to this day. GM will continue to receive “operating capital” for the next 60 days while Chrysler will receive it for thre next 30 days. For some reason the Obama Admministration refuses to dislcose the exact amount of money involved. Last November GM was burning through $24 Million US dollars a day in cash – The Main Stream Media has incorrectly reported that Washington said no more cash – What Washington actually said was this, “GM, you’ve got 60 days worth of additional cash- Chrysler you have 30 days cash. Why hasn’t anyone asked why Chrysler only received 30 days cash?

The terms “prepackaged” and “surgical” do not appear in the bankruptcy code – the terms are the creation of Politicians who simply do not want to admit that they were wrong, that Bankruptcy was the correct thing to do all along. Bankruptcy does not mean that GM or Chrysler will disappear. They will not. Contracts and business models will be “restructured” and the Companies will attempt to return to viability (profitability) once again.

Bankruptcy is not going to cause a negative impact on the economy. Bankrutcy does not create conditions which do not already exist. Bankruptcy is the end result – not the cause.

GM’s latest round of employee reductions from 62,400 hourly employees in North America to 54, 900 employees http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_buyouts   will continue, not because of a Bankruptcy but because of the financial condition of GM demands that GM have a smaller work force. GM was and is “not a viable” business concern because it is operating under a “business plan” that prevents it from making a profit. In the 4th Quarter of 2007 GM lost 39 Billion Dollars. The 4th Quarter of 2007, long before the economic down turn hit home. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-05-gm-auditors-statement_N.htm GM’s current downsizing began in 2005. http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/21/news/fortune500/gm_cuts/.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009031112  http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/06/business/fi-gm6   http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/11/news/companies/GM/index.htm    

2005 was 4 years ago – and the problems didn’t start then.         

GM’s current problems are not the focus of this post. (See Post From Nov 2008 https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-we-shouldnt-bailout-the-detroit-3-370000-per-employee-bailout/)

What happens next is.

1st: Gettlefinger has to go.

The UAW has not been truthful to its members. Listen to them when they appear on TV. Unfair trade from abroad (don’t look now – half the US auto industry is copmposed of “transplants” Honda, Toyota, Hundai, etc – built in America, by American Workers – and those workers actually earn more than their UAW counter parts http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_%20bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_struggle.aspx) – https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/stop-the-auto-industry-bailout-pay-offs-to-the-detroit-3-at-expense-of-taxpayers/   The transplants now directly employ 150,000 US workers – GM employes 54,000 with additional subtractions to come. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24947044 )

The next most frequently heard excuses – it was NAFTA or the economy went bad. GM & Chrysler went bad long before the economy slowed – one year ago the UAW refused to acknowledge the worsening economy and went on strike – closing 29 GM plants –  http://blog.mlive.com/autoblog/2008/03/american_axle_strike_hobbling.html , http://seekingalpha.com/article/67124-american-axle-strike-unions-continue-to-kill-u-s-manufacturing . In 2007 the UAW shut down GM with a strike. http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/news/companies/gm_uaw/index.htm  The UAW leadership has created a delusional membership.

The fact that GM ruled the auto industry 50 years ago is completely immaterial to today’s market place. GM and the GM worker of today bare no resemblance to their Grandfathers of the 40’s – The GM and the GM worker that helped win WWII are only a foot note in history – one of the most distingiunshed footnotes of this Country’s history – but the modern GM and its workers should be embarassed to make this self serving comparison. Can you imagine any GM employee in that post World War II era claiming they couldn’t compete with anyone for any reason …..   

2nd GM needs to continuing downsizing. Depsite the massive cuts todate, GM needs to be a company half its current size. GM has known this for years. The UAW leadership has known this also. Poltically it is something the UAW leadership has choosen not to acknowledge – failing to do so has weakened GM and the labor market where it’s membership must compete.    

3rd – GM needs to downsize its dealership network and supplier chain accordingly. http://blogs.motortrend.com/6295283/editorial/rightsizing-gm-the-number-that-counts/index.html  http://seekingalpha.com/article/112598-the-arduous-sometimes-impossible-task-of-closing-down-car-dealerships , http://www.autoremarketing.com/ar/news/story.html?id=9062 , http:www.autonews.com/article/20080922/ANA06/809220374/1178 , http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/ap/business/mainD8FMI6AG2.shtml

4th – GM’s new product line must hit the mark. The greatest fear for GM should be that the Government will now mandate the production of autos that the American Public does not want to buy. The impact of the “Green Agenda” on the US Auto Industry is a topic for a different post – https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/obama-granholm-pelosi-waxman-dingell-the-death-of-american-automobile-manufacturing/

As to Chrysler and the 30 days it has to complete restructuring and to find a partner. Beware of Audi. The Main Stream Media and Political Shysters like Michigan Governor Granholm have over hyped Audi’s potential as a savior. Granholm believed the Obama Administration would pour $100’s of billions into her state – incorrectly. Chrysler needs to continue it’s desperate hunt for a partner. Don’t put all of your eggs in the Audi basket ….

Fiat-Chrysler Link Is Nice Idea, but Futile Without Money : Fiat S.p.A.’s acquisition of 35 percent of Chrysler has all the good-sounding trappings of an auto-industry alliance that, under normal circumstances, would indicate another industry tie-up that might bear fruit. The terms of the alliance, as presented, bring from Fiat no capital that could be used to shore up Chrysler’s foundering day-to-day operational outlook. While an arrangement that might — comparatively quickly — lead to new models for gaps in Chrysler’s product range and increased utilization for some of its manufacturing plants is a solid strategic step, it’s not a tactical solution to the overriding predicament: Chrysler needs cash and needs it now. http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/01/commentary-fiat-chrysler-link-is-nice-idea-but-futile-without-money.html

Chrysler’s Italian Job on the American People : 

Is there any doubt that when government starts to tinker with industry all sorts of nutty things come to pass? How about the proposed “global strategic alliance” between Chrysler and Fiat? Apparently, there is only one way to make Chrysler competitive with foreign car makers in the U.S.. And that is to have U.S. taxpayers put up $7 billion to essentially fund another foreign car maker’s takeover of Chrysler. This swindle isn’t just pazzo–it is plain wrong. Hopefully, it will be killed before it ever makes it to Congress. The alliance is contingent on $3 billion in additional U.S. government loans to Chrysler. “The alliance does not contemplate that Fiat would make a cash investment in Chrysler or commit to funding Chrysler in the future.” http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/01/21/mean-street-chryslers-italian-job-on-the-american-people/?mod=msn_money_ticker

The last thing America needs is for Fiat to suck the remaining life out of Chrysler, along with wheelbarrows of taxpayer cash, and take both back to Italy. 

A straught out bankruptcy reorganization maybe a much better option. The sale of Chrsyler’s parts, Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler would leave three smaller, nimbler and more easily managed businesses. Given additional cost reductions, three such companies could be in a position to succeed in the years to come. 

As to the UAW Members – quick blaming the transplants for your woes. Your fellow American citizens are competing head up. If automakers in Detroit at at a disadvantage why don’t you look to the leadership in your state. The Federal taxs laws apply uniformly to all companies, regardless of which state they are loacted in. Why don’t you research how Michigan’s Property Tax, Business Income Tax, Use Taxes, Sales Taxes, Gasoline Taxes and various City Taxes impact the price of your product. Quit blaming Washington – The problem is and has been much closer to home. 

US labor costs are $800 higher per car then their Japanesse counterparts – yet US autos sell for an average of $2,500 less then the comparable Foreign competitor. “So the loss of U.S. market share must be due to consumers’ perception that U.S. vehicles have much lower quality than Japanese ones. Even the lower prices for U.S. vehicles are not enough to convince U.S. consumers to switch from Japanese to U.S. models.” http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/10/do-uaw-workers-make-73-an-hour-does-it-matter/

There is the problem. A problem Government bailouts can’t help.

AIG Executives Urged To Donate To Sentaor Dodd In 2006 – Hartford Courant

Former AIG Financial Products CEO Joseph Cassano urged company executives and spouses to donate to U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd as he was in line to take over chairmanship of the critical Senate banking committee in November 2006, a report published today said.

According to the Washington Times, Cassano sent out an e-mail that said: “As he considers running for president in 2008, Senator Dodd has asked us for our support with his re-election campaign and we have offered to be supportive.”

The executives were reportedly asked to write checks for $2,100 from themselves and their spouses, and to send them to Mr. Dodd’s campaign. The Times said the executives were, in turn, supposed to pass the message down the line to senior members of their management teams.

Dodd’s relationship with AIG has come under fire lately following his admission that he had agreed to a loophole in the February stimulus bill that paved the way for AIG to pay some $165 million in so-called retention bonuses.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-chris-dodd-email-donations-0330,0,7052877.story

The Myth Of Global Warming – Attacking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant that say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynethsis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of previous CO2 levels on earth and CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts is CO2.  There has been an increase in CO2 levels over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm ,   ”Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished”  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ,  http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm 

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would cost 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of a $100 Dollar Bill.  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/animation.php?shortname=anm_co2_levels

Read:  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

“ There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or proceed changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2″  http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                           http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages were a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher.  http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.   http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the end of the “little ice age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
   

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.    

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  ”warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

SEE the BBC Film – THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=Lvn1S9a4G4GKqwK528X7Ag&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle#

The Auto Bailouts: Mr Obama We Know Double Talk When We Hear It

Let me refresh your memory.

Immediately after the Banks received a “bailout” last fall the Automakers and the UAW went to Washington begging for tax dollars. Seems the Automakers and the Unions couldn’t run their business successfully so they needed Tax Payer money to foot the bill for their failed business model. High labor costs  and crappy cars are a bad business mix.

Congress waffled and the Companies and Union were sent packing. They were told to go home. Review your business plan because it doesn’t work. Fix your business plan and come back and we will see if  we can do something for you.

The UAW came back with the Automakers. They had no new plan. They had reached no agreements. They had fixed nothing and they had changed nothing. This was their second trip.

What happened? You already know. A temporary loan was given to the bums. “Temporary Loan” is Washington double-talk for “bailout”. A nearly $8 Billion dollar bailout. The Automakers and the UAW were told – now look – this is your last chance – go back and devsie a business plan that will, at some date certain in the future, provide a road map for you to be “viable” or “profitable”. Don’t dare come back without a “viable” business plan.

The bums rerturned – again they had no plan – no concessions and no clue how to get to be viable. Washington responded with additional cash (an additional $9 Billion) and an additional admonition – don’t come back without a plan or well will make you repay the money immediately. You have until the end of March.

Remember, we will see you in March 2009 and if you don’t have a viable business plan, we will call your loans and direct you to Bankruptcy Reorganization.

Before the UAW and the Automakers can return to Washington with a “plan” – Washington volunteers an additional $5 Billion in cash – not directly to the Automakers but indirectly – Washington will pay $5 Billion in Automakers debts to “Parts Suppliers”. Washington tells the American Taxpayer – “Oh, that money isn’t automaker bailout money. It went to part suppliers”. Just how stupid do they think we are. The fact that $5 Billion of the Automakers debts were paid kept their lights on until they could return to Washington. If the Government had not paid those “Part Suppliers” debts – the Automakers would have run out of Bailout cash in early February, a month before the schedulked return to Washington – Obama could not have that happen.    

Now it is March and here comes the Automakers and the UAW. A fourth trip to Waashington. Still there is no plan. There have been no concessions, just tentative agreements. Independant Financial Analysts report neither GM nor Chrysler are “viable”, ongoing, concerns.

Obama’s Auto Task Force agrees. GM and Chrysler are not viable. The Task Force needs to be renamed, The Auto Bailout Task Force.

So what happens next. What we knew would happen all along. (See:  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/auto-bailout-part-2-taxpayer-cost-increases-to-710000-per-gm-employee/ where this was predicted) .

GM and Chrysler get the cash without having plans. The automakers get additional time to complete the job they have not been able to complete during the last 15 years – to find a way to compete globally and do so at a profit.

The American Taxpayer is on the hook again. Billions in additional auto bailouts. (Washington won’t even specifiy how mush more they have agreed to spend – just “all necessary operating cash”).

As to Chrysler and Obama’s proposal – the American Taxpayer will underwrite Chrysler’s ongoing operations until Chrysler and  Fiat finalize a partnership agreement. Such an agreement is guaranteed. Why do I say that? See: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/auto-bailout-part-2-taxpayer-cost-increases-to-710000-per-gm-employee/ where the preliminary Fiat/Chrysler agreement is reviewed. The US Taxpayer will provide Fiat with between $6 Billion and $20 Billion in cash to take Chrysler over. Fiat brings no cash to the table at present. Within 12 months Fiat will be allowed to “buy” a controlling interest in Chrysler for $25 Million Dollars. ($10 cents for every US Taxpayer dollar invested in this scheme). Fiat is under no obligation to keep Chrysler operational. Just like Daimler, Fiat can walk away at anytime. Fiat can pick up $6 Billion  to $20 Billion for agreeing to payout $25 Million for a controlling stake in Chrysler. I’m sure the Fiat Attorneys can structure a deal that protects Fiat from assuming Chrysler’s legacy costs.  

As to GM. The same old, same old. More operating cash. Why isn’t this company simply referred to bankruptcy re-organization where it belongs.

Mr Obama made some additional announcements. Some of those commenst are absolutely shocking. Not unexpected, but shocking.

Fisrt, the American Taxpayer will now be on the hook for “warranty repair costs” for all GM or Chrysley Cars sold this year. All of the unemployed, all of the middle class workers who don’t buy new cars and don’t have the luxury of a new car warranty, the workers who struggle to pay for the repairs to their own autos will now be on the hook to pay for other people’s auto repairs. Billions in hidden costs to the American Taxpayer’s to back New Car Warranties. MR OBAMA YOU ARE SIMPLY OUT OF TOUCH.

Mr Obama also said that the UAW and its workers have no blame in this mess. The rest of America knows otherwise. Hell, a significant number of UAW members will even admit this. The UAW has a great deal of blame. The majority of the blame, as a matter of fact.   

Mr Obama – UAW workers were responsible for the demise of “Quality” in the American auto industry. I don’t want to hear how great GM and Chrysler cars are today. All your political spin aside that is a proposition in serious question. The Amercian Public questions that claim and perception is reality in the sales business.

The UAW and its leaders are responsible for the outrageous contracts and salaries paid to UAW workers. Even when one uses the UAW estimate for the wages and benefits paid to UAW workers it is apparent that those workers earn $150,000 per year with overtime. (https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/auto-bailout-part-2-taxpayer-cost-increases-to-710000-per-gm-employee/) . That is an amount equal to 3 times the median salary in this Country. If workers are making 3 times as much as their neighbors, how do you expect their neighbors to afford the products they produce.

The UAW is primarily responsibe for the fact that the  American Auto Manufacturers have never saved enough from the profits in the good times to weather the bad times. Billions upon Billions were paid out as bonuses to the UAW when the Automakers were profitable. The UAW opposed saving for a “rainy day” with labor strike after labor strike.

Just 1 year ago today (March 2008)  long after this recession had started, the UAW workers went on strike, shutting numerous auto plants in the US andd Canada. Neither the UAW Leadership nor the workers believed the proven facts – the Amercian Auto Inductry was on the brink of bankruptcy – in fact they were already bankrupt – the just had not run out of cash. When presented with the “facts” the UAW Leadership failed to lead  the UAW Leadership encouraged the strikes. Now how is it that the UAW is blameless. http://www.mahalo.com/American_Axle_Strike , http://www.mahalo.com/American_Axle_Strike , http://blog.mlive.com/autoblog/2008/03/american_axle_strike_hobbling.html , http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2008-03-11-american-axle_N.htm , http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/03/american_axle_strike_impact_wi.html ,

Mr Obama claims the Government has no interest in running GM. What Bull Shit! The President fired the GM Chairman and his Auto Task Force will develop the so called “restructuring plan” for GM and Chrysler. Unnamed Administration Officails have also stated that GM’s Board of Dircetors will be replaced. What else do you need to do to “run a company”. (By the way, former GM Chairman, Rick Wagoner, will leave with a $20 Million plus Golden Parachute – True, he worked for GM for 40 years – but $20 Million? How long will it be before Obama claims he did not know about this severance package?).   

Mr Obama – why was the UAW President, Ron Gettlefinger, left in place?  If it takes “two to tango” – Gettlefinger was Wagoner’s dance partner. Just another Uni0n Pay Off, Mr Obama?

The next political election may be 20 months off – but American’s can vote before then. Just don’t buy GM or Chrysler. The Political Polls have been telling Washington that very fact for months. 80% of those surveyed say they will not buy an auto from a car company that takes Government cash. Listen Up Washington. Amercians won’t do business with companies who participate in your bailout BS.

Mr Obama, we are not as stupid as you think.  

Stop wasting taxpayer dollars and send GM & Chrysler to Bankruptcy re-organization where they belong.

The New Auto Bailout – Costs To Taxpayer Increases to $710,000 Per GM Employee

The following Associated Press article appeared on YahooNews.com.

GM says 7,500 hourly workers decide to leave

DETROIT – About 7,500 General Motors Corp. workers have signed up to take buyout and early retirement incentives to leave the company, the automaker said Thursday.

Also, Chrysler LLC said Thursday it would extend its offers to entice blue-collar workers to leave the company. The old deadline was Friday.

At GM, about 12 percent of the company’s U.S. hourly work force of 62,400 decided to leave, most through early retirement offers.

GM offered $20,000 cash and a $25,000 voucher to buy a car to all of its hourly U.S. employees in an effort to further trim its blue-collar work force to match reduced sales. company. [$20k cash and a $25k car – $45K total cost – paid for with Taxpayer Dollars from Auto Bailout #1. How many of the nearly 10 Million Americans currently looking for new jobs received  a $45K payout? These same Americans will be asked to pay for this largesse with higher taxes when they find work? In Detroit, Union officials are quick to take credit for these “buyout” payments. As if the payments come from UAW cash and not from the American Taxpayers, who, to date, have  not consented to these payments ] 

The deadline to decide was Tuesday, and many of the workers waited until the last minute to turn in their paperwork. The workers have seven days from the date they turn in the paperwork to rescind their decision, so many will have to decide by March 31.

For those that will leave, the effective date of their departure is April 1.

Both GM and Chrysler are living on a total of $17.4 billion in government loans and are seeking another $21.6 billion. [Living on and making these incredible “buyout offers” at Taxpayer expense] The Obama administration’s auto task force has indicated it may offer more aid, but further concessions are possible from both the companies stakeholders. [Auto Task Force or Auto Bailout Team? Neither GM nor Chrysler has presented a plan establishing that they will be “viable” by any date certain – a requirement previously imposed on these Automakers before any additional cash was to be handed out]  

Both companies have to submit finalized restructuring plans to the federal government by March 31. [The plans that were due this past December! Anyone want to bet on additional cash and an additional extension of time from the Obama Administration].  

The latest round of buyouts and early retirements at GM was the third for the company since 2006. From all three offers, more than 60,000 workers have decided to leave the company.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_buyouts

After the 7,500 take their “buyout” and leave, GM will have 54,900 remaining hourly workers. (62,400 – 7,500)

The cost of “Bailout” part 1 ($17.4 Billion) and “Bailout” part 2 ($21.6 Billion) is $39 Billion Dollars.

If  you divide the cost of the “Bailouts” by the number of hourly GM employes   ($39,000,000,000 / 54,900 =) you get the figure of $710,000 per employee. (Seven Hundred And Ten Thousand Dollars Per Employee).

The UAW reports that the average hourly salary for Auto Workers is $55 an hour. ($40/ hour in wages, overtime and vacation pay plus $15 per hour in “benefit” costs: total: $55.00) This number does not include the additional $15 to $18 per hour “legacy costs” paid by the “Detroit 3″ . http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Using just the UAW calculation for hourly salary ($55 /hr) and a standard 40 hour work week over 52 weeks you can calculate an average yearly salary of  $114,400. (This is an under-estimate as the actual number of overtime hours have not been added into the equation). 

What does this mean? “Bailouts”  part 1 & 2 will not only cost Taxpayers $710,000 per GM employee, but if you want another way to look at the numbers – it will cost Taxpayers the equivalent of 6.2 years of salary for evey GM employee in North America.

Don’t forget, they will be back for more money – no one is even pretending that this is enough cash to actually fix the problems, if , in fact, the problems can be fixed.

Tell Washington To Say No To More Bailouts: http://www.usa.gov/Contact.shtml

Do you find it surprising that a working couple employed by the “Detroit 3″ can earn in excess of $250,000 a year?

Does that change your perspective of  who you consider to be ”rich”? 

The Global Warming Myth – Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this “Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm ,   “Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished”  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 
 

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ,  http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm 

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/animation.php?shortname=anm_co2_levels

Read: Professor Richard Lindsen, PhD., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

” There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or procede changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2”  http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                           http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  “Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher.  http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.   http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
 

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.    

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  “warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001”. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

UPDATE: 11/05/09

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The pdf file located at the link below from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf              

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
 
One of the basic premises of Global Warming rests on the assumption that CO2 not only “holds” heat in the earth’s atmosphere, but that it, CO2, also prevents the heat from radiating out into space during earths normal cooling process. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a study, which underwent comprehensive peer review prior to publication, which demostrates the flaws or inaccuracies in this theory. Dr. Litzen’s study refutes the theory that CO2 is currently preventing heat radiation, because the study demonstrates that there has been no decrease in heat radiation as had been assumed. http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/News/2009/08/18%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20irrelevant%20in%20climate%20debate%20says%20MIT%20Scientist.htm  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf    
 
ADDITIONAL READINGS ON THE TOPIC:
Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD Harvard University and Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, ; “Don’t Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.” – http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
And this on Britian’s High Court (Supreme Court of Britian) rulings concerning the inaccuracy of Al Gore’s film, an “Inconvenient Truth”,  “If the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he, the ruling Judge, would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” Yes, the Highest Court in England ruled Gore’s movie was political indoctrination and not science.  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

For a very specific review of 35 of the erroreous claims made by Gore in his film see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Notice: WATTS UP WITH THAT can now be located at Wattsupwiththat.com

For a very humorous, yet alarming, post on how the “scientific consensus” on the issue of Climate Change have been reached, see this post on the creation of “THE HARVARD ENERGY INITIATIVE” and the “inititaves” relationship to climate science (An insiders look at the Harvard Faculty Club?). http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

“On the other hand, the funding of climate science as such has grown nearly by one order of magnitude since 1988. Have you ever seen $1.7 billion, the amount that the climate science swallows annually? Or one point seven billion dollars a year worth of mostly junk science? It’s not just the overall macroscopic number we are familiar with. I also know some of the microscopic mechanisms that generate it.”

Harvard energy initiative

On Monday, we had a faculty lunch meeting at the Faculty Club and one of the topics was the so-called “Harvard energy initiative”. A short story is that a large amount of money was given to something described by these three words – and up to 10 new faculty positions are expected to be created – except that no one knows what “Harvard energy initiative” means and what people should be hired. So one of the rather well-known Earth and Planetary Scientists at Harvard decided to meet with the physics department and to ask for ideas what “Harvard energy initiative” could mean…… The well known Physicis Department Professor stated, “I know what “high energy physics” means – we study physics of high-energy particles to determine the architecture of matter at very short distances” ….. Obviously, our colleague has a different energy in mind. Energy whose main feature is that it is not conserved. Energy that does not commute with momentum because whenever energy has to commute, we lose energy. 😉 It’s more about the energy industry except that the initiative will quite obviously be anti-industry because of the very basic philosophical preconceptions of those who are trying to kickstart the project. If you think for a while, you know exactly what will most likely happen. They will probably hire a couple of not-so-intelligent people and promote them to climate scientists and energy initiative professors who will strengthen the “scientific consensus” that the “climate change is real” and the humankind is approaching a catastrophe. They won’t be developing any new energy technologies because this is what either the greedy corporations or MIT are doing. Harvard’s image is different and its energy initiative will be doing something else except that no one knows what it is.  The proposed energy initiative should include the Physics Department, Earth and Planetary Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Law School, and virtually any other Harvard school you can think of. Great. So what kind of science will you do by combining these people? Note that the university in this story, namely Harvard University, is not such a bad school after all. In fact, it is the most prestigious school in the world. Once you see what mechanisms determine how the new money is spent at Harvard, you may guess how good an investment are the billions of new dollars that are currently flowing to the U.S. climate science every year. Most of this amount is wasted money paid to the people who don’t want to make progress in science. Instead, they have already decided that they already know the most important insights about the world – that it is approaching a climate apocalypse – and by being paid, they do what is really important, namely to increase the political power of the “true believers” who are going to “save the world”. Yes, indeed, I am talking about $1.7 billion worth of religious bigots, and I apologize to the few exceptions for this generalization.””  I reccommend the full post:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

Also See: Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/    containing a PDF link to Dr Lindzen’s full report. The report sites the fact that two of the leading “proponents” of Global Warming admit that the “true science” is unsettled, however, that doesn’t matter – “we shouldn’t let that stop us from implementing “other agendas”. Read it for yourself ……. “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us….Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false'”. The actual words from the “Founders” of Climate Change Science …….. I guess they have no shame. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

Dr. Lindzen’s actual presentation on this subject can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348

See the BBC produced Documentary “The Global Warming Swindle” here:

Click Start Button – wait a few seconds for buffering to complete, then click screen or move bar button slightly.

Obama, Geithner get failing grades from economists for economic recovery plan

(Reuters) – Obama, Geithner get low grades from economists: report

President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world’s largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

 

A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration’s economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama’s popularity ratings with the general public.

 

On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said. Geithner received an average grade of 51.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52B16M20090312

%d bloggers like this: