Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Gas Can Follies

 

I have a little can for gasoline. I use it to fuel my lawnmower. Recently the spout broke. I fixed it with duct tape, of course. And, of course, the duct tape only held up for a few months. The can itself is over 30 years old, and I have the idea that, since plastic deteriorates over time, it probably will need replacing within the next decade or two. I also thought that a cheap plastic gas can with a nice pouring spout would not cost very much more than a purchase of a replacement spout. So while I was out on Saturday morning I stopped by Autozone to pick up a new gas can. And, modern American life being what it is, I now have a story to post at Ricochet.

First, while my old can holds 2.5 gallons, the cans on the shelf all came only in two or five gallon size, so if I keep a little can it will mean more trips to refill the can. I don’t want to fool with the larger can, so I picked up one of the two-gallon cans and carried it to the counter. While waiting for the cashier to fire up his cash register (he had been in the back and so had to log in), I took a look at the new can. I unscrewed the cap and pulled out the pour spout, and started to install it for immediate use. The pour spout looked funny, and the cashier saw me giving it a close inspection. He said “You haven’t seen one of those before.”

More

Rick Perry Is Right: CO2 Is Not the Control Knob of Climate

 

Energy Secretary Rick PerryTo listen to the corrupt, know-nothing mainstream media, Energy Secretary Rick Perry really stepped in it when he said human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the major driver of global warming. And, as usual with the MSM, it’s not true. The story is merely fodder for a false narrative about Perry, and the state of climate science.

On Monday, CNBC “Squawk Box” host Joe Kernen asked the secretary whether he believes carbon dioxide “is the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate.” Perry’s answer:

More
Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

This Guy

 

Like the global warming debate itself, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty Protocol Pact Civil Union Accord has generated more heat than light. This will surprise no one familiar with science’s virtue-signaling wing known as scientism and its smug, self-righteous star, Bill Nye. Last April’s March For Science helped propel the hysteric in a bowtie to become the face of what its advocates call “science-based policymaking”.

The great conceit of science-based policymaking, of course, is that science can substitute for values. As if tradeoffs are anything less than the very medium in which policymakers operate. And what does science have to say about tradeoffs? Nothing. Consider what Jonathan Newman of the Mises Institute has to say on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s special brand of magic:

More

Containing Climate Change Hysteria

 

President Donald Trump’s announcement to withdraw the United States unilaterally from the Paris Accords has arguably awakened more fury in his critics than any other position he’s staked out. His critics seem to believe that his right-wing agenda is to poison the entire planet. It is, therefore, important to disentangle the plusses and minuses of the Trump position. Indeed, for all its defects, Trump’s position is more coherent than that of his fiercest critics.

As I indicated in my earlier column on the subject, there are at least two principled ways to defend Trump’s decision to exit Paris. First is the weak scientific case that links global warming and other planetary maladies to increases in carbon dioxide levels. There are simply too many other forces that can account for shifts in temperature and the various environmental calamities that befall the world. Second, the economic impulses underlying the Paris Accords entail a massive financial commitment, including huge government subsidies for wind and solar energy, which have yet to prove themselves viable. The President should have stated these two points, and then challenged his opponents to explain how the recent greening of the planet, for example, could possibly presage the grim future of rising seas and expanded deserts routinely foretold by climate activists.

More

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for June 6, 2017, it’s episode 123, the Southern Fried Terror edition of the podcast coming to you this week (or so it may sound) from the moon! Todd is in Farmington Connecticut, Mike is in Palo Alto, we are recording the podcast on a Dictaphone Steampunk Victorian Recording machine. You can *hear* the history!

Our topics this week are the reaction of Theresa May to the terror attacks in London and related thoughts. As the people of Britain ask: “what concretely are you going to *do*???” May answers (unbelievably) we’re going to spy on the internet…and we are going to have uncomfortable conversations. Look, uncomfortable conversations are fine and all…but how about simply rounding up the 3000 or so top terror suspects in the U.K. and either expelling them or locking them up?

More

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Trump’s Speech Should Have Been About Nuclear Power, Not the Paris Climate Agreement

 

Maybe the best reason, such as it is, to support American withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement has nothing to do with the climate. Under President Obama, the United States agreed to a de facto treaty without submitting it to the Senate for ratification. As the editors at National Review rightly note, “In a government of laws, process matters.” Government certainly doesn’t need more unilateralism by its chief executive.

Unfortunately, the actual reasons driving withdrawal had more to do with populist politics, nationalism, partisanship, and unreasonable disbelief in climate science than constitutional conservatism. Oh, and plenty of reflexive anti-Obamaism in there, too.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss President Trump making good on his promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord and the liberal hysteria that followed. They’re also analyzing the very close run-off election between John Ossoff and Karen Handel in a normally red district in Georgia. And they express their disgust with Kathy Griffin as she plays the victim following the fierce bipartisan backlash in response to her photo stunt depicting her holding President Trump’s bloody head.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are once again relieved that Hillary Clinton is not president after she once again blames everyone and everything but herself for losing to Donald Trump. They are also puzzled as a flurry of lobbying in favor of the climate deal takes place after Trump supposedly decided to withdraw from it. And they react to former Vice President Joe Biden starting a new Super PAC and fueling speculation that he may run for president in 2020 in a primary that could feature many elderly Democrats.

More

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer the successful test of a missile defense system targeting intercontinental ballistic missiles. They also appreciate former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once again confirming that he saw no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And they are excited by initial reports that President Trump plans to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, but are confused after Trump himself suggests a decision has not yet been made. 

More

Forget the Paris Accords

 

The Trump administration is currently facing a major decision—whether to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accords on climate change. The huge multi-national agreement was finalized in the closing weeks of the Obama administration, just days before Trump’s surprise victory in the presidential election. The key commitment made by the United States under the accords is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade by about a quarter of their 2005 rate, with further reductions to come thereafter. But during his campaign, Donald Trump promised to pull out of the accords, and, at the recent meeting of the G-7, was the lone holdout against a ringing endorsement of the agreement. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been insisting that the United States stay the course, but it appears as if Trump is inclined to honor his campaign promise to pull out of the accords, a position in line with that of Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The President’s instincts are spot on here. He should withdraw the United States from the accords and be prepared to stoutly defend his decision on both political and scientific grounds. Ironically, the best reasons for getting out of the accords are the evident weaknesses in the reasons that a wide range of businesses and environmental groups offer for staying in.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching Hillary Clinton remain immersed in her state of denial, as Hillary takes responsibility for losing to Donald Trump but seems to blame everyone else. They also react to Pres. Trump tweeting about nuking the legislative filibuster and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying it’s not going to happen. And they’re almost speechless as the Democrat running for Congress in Montana invites skeptics of the liberal line on climate change to go into their garages and start their cars.

More