Al Gore's Polar Bear Folly Continues to Worsen

In response to numerous reports claiming his demise, Mark Twain once famously said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

If polar bears could talk, the would probably say the same thing because, in 2006, Al Gore in his fallacious movie "An Inconvenient Truth", predicted their similar fate with this animated clip from that movie:



According to Gore, all the sea ice would disappear due to climate change, and the poor polar bears,  unable to find any ice to rest on, would subsequently drown from exhaustion.  In fact, as Al accepted his Nobel Award for that great movie, he claimed that all ice would be gone by 2013.

Here's the problem.  The ice didn't go away and those bears are doing quite well if you compare their their numbers to those of the late 1960's.  Back then, their population was estimated to be between 8,000 and 10,000.  Now, according to the latest study, whose report was released on February 21,  their population is estimated to be between 22,623 and 32,257.  And both of those numbers beat the 22,000 to 31,000 estimates from the year before; respectively.

It's sad that "An Inconvenient Truth" was so wrong in so many ways, but is still regarded by the political left as being factual.  What's even sadder is the fact that Al Gore is set to release a "sequel" to his original lies.

References:

Polar Bear Numbers Still On The Rise, Despite ‘Global Warming’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/17/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/

After 10 years Al Gore's film is still alarmingly inaccurate: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/05/06/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

Gore’s assertion that polar bears will become extinct due to global warming is an alarmist exaggeration: https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/gores-assertion-that-polar-bears-will-become-extinct-due-to-global-warming-is-an-alarmist-exaggeration/

Good News for Polar Bears. Bad News for Al Gore: As far back as seven years ago, a British court ruled that Gore’s Oscar-winning environmentalist documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained several errors and exaggerations that illustrated the alarmist spirit that motivated the filmmaker: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/

Weather Channel Founder: Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ Another ‘Scientific Monstrosity’: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/20/weather-channel-founder-gores-inconvenient-sequel-another-scientific-monstrosity/

California's "Real" Calexit Problem

Taking its cue from Britain voting to secede (Brexit) from the European Union, some in California want to do the same by seceding from the United States; or, "Calexit" as it is known.  In fact, in the latest polling, 32% want to exit. At the heart of the issue is that the rest of the United States doesn't share California's values.  Of course, the election of Trump reinforced that belief since Hillary Clinton received more than 10 million of the State's nearly 15 million votes cast.  In any event, California's Secretary of State has authorized the collection of nearly 600,000 signatures to put Calexit to the vote on the next ballot.

For all this talk about "values",  California seems to be ignoring the fact that there already is a kind of Calexit  taking place.  From 2004 to 2013, 5 million people left the State; mostly over high taxes (including property taxes) and high costs of living.  In another study, California lost 9,000 businesses in a 7-year span.  Most citing a "hostile business" environment of high taxes and regulation.

California also has some serious structural problems that may accelerate the number of those wanting to do business elsewhere.  The State has the highest poverty rate in the nation at 20.6%.  Contributing to the poverty problem is the fact that the unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point above the national average. Further, thanks to the voter initiative passed into law that essentially emptied the State's prisons of supposed low-level criminals, there has been an "explosion" of property crimes across the state.  In addition, cities like Los Angeles have seen an increase of violent crime after decades of decline.

Exacerbating the exodus is the fact that California's lawmakers just keep piling up regulations.  In 2016, 800 new laws went into effect which the LA Times said "touch on broad aspects of California residents’ everyday lives, or address major issues such as voter participation, and life and death."  And, for 2017, hundreds of new laws also went into effect including a $15 minimum wage by 2020 which is sure to accelerate the business exodus.  In addition, employers are banned from asking any prospective employee if they have an arrest record or court detention prior to being 18.

The bottom line is that Californians, themselves, are making it less hospitable for people to live and work in the state; and they just can't see it.

A final note: While many of the laws on the books are beneficial to some or all of California's residents, many are very burdensome to businesses and contribute to what many already are calling a "hostile" business environment.

References:

Supporters for 'Calexit' initiative start collecting signatures: http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/232714964-story

California's ballots have all been counted — more than 14.6 million: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-s-ballots-have-all-been-1481163154-htmlstory.html

An explosion of California property crimes — due to Prop. 47: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/An-explosion-of-California-property-crimes-6922062.php

'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-friedersdorf-calexit-unprogressive-20170129-story.html

5 Million People Left California Over the Past Decade. Many Went to Texas: http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/04/5-million-people-left-california-over-the-past-decade-many-went-to-texas/

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, 7-year study says: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Why Does California Have The Nation's Highest Poverty Rate? http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/09/28/why-does-california-have-the-nations-highest-poverty-rate/#79027b623e89

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-crime-stats-20161227-story.html

California Unemployment Rate: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+unemployment+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

California's new laws for 2016: See how you are affected: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-g-california-new-laws-2016-htmlstory.html

How will California's 2017 Laws Affect You: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-new-2017-laws/#jobs


pb



  

The Consequences of America's Shrinking Cities and States

Americans are on the move. They're leaving various cities and states to avoid high taxes, crime, high costs of living, and to seek better jobs; or, to simply retire.  The downside to this is potential bankruptcies as the tax bases shrink; leaving cities and states with expensive pensions and other commitments that are left over from a time when populations were much higher.

This was certainly the case in the now-bankrupt Detroit.  In 1950, that city's population was 1.8 million. By 2013, it had only 700,000 residents.  But, Detroit's problems -- as the largest city in Michigan -- are taking that state along with it.  Right now, Michigan is on the verge of losing one of it's  Congressional seats due to it's slowing growth.  As a state with nearly 10 million residents, the population increased by only 6,270 from 2014 to 2015; according to the Census Bureau. 

Illinois is in a similar "state" of affairs.  It, too, is close to losing a Congressional seat to some other faster growing states like Texas.  Key to the loss there, is the fact that its largest city, Chicago, is shrinking in size.  New York state is also losing people, but in its case, many of those leaving are high end earners.  Even the weather-desirable California is seeing its population growth slowing.  The fact is that 8 states have growth rates of less than 1/2 of a percent and well below the inflation rates for running the state's expenses.

We are getting very close to an actual bankruptcy of the entire State of Michigan, and not just a single city like Detroit.  Not far behind are Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Youngstown, Ohio who have all seen losses greater than 50% from their peak populations.  The list of all the cities (see references) that have lost populations is substantial.  As a result, people located in those areas are bound to see higher taxes as the legislatures try to cope with increased costs and a lower tax base.  Raising taxes would only cause even more people to leave.  This is a serious spiral that America cannot afford.  The city/states that are effected need to rethink ways to restore population without raising taxes or we will all wind up paying higher taxes to bail them out.

References:

The Incredible Shrinking Illinois: http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/February-2016/Where-Is-Illinois-Losing-Population/

Chicago area sees greatest population loss of any major U.S. city, region in 2015: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-population-record-loss-met-20160324-story.html

Taxpayers are fleeing New York in droves: http://nypost.com/2016/09/15/taxpayers-are-fleeing-new-york-in-droves/

The Decline of Detroit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit

Mich. population rebound is slowing, census shows: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/12/22/mich-population-rebound-slowing-census-shows/77746798/

Once a boom state, California sees a historic period of slow population growth: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article69054977.html

Warning: New Jersey in Midst of Millennial Outmigration: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/02/15/new-report-warns-that-new-jersey-is-in-midst-of-millennial-outmigration/

New Jersey Herald: Time to address population loss: http://www.njherald.com/article/20160327/ARTICLE/303279973#

List of U.S. states by population growth rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate

Shrinking cities in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States

Why the Paris Climate Change Agreement Will Fail

In Paris, In mid-December, after two weeks of talks between 195 countries, ended with an agreement on climate change, there were high-fives and pats on the back for all those politicians, from all those countries that attended the summit.  The media called  it "historic".  CNN proclaimed "The End of Fossil Fuels", as if the world will somehow toss all their gasoline-powered cars to the wayside; commercial jets will find some way to fly without fuel; people will find something other than natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food with; and cement and steel will, I suppose, be created without high-carbon coke as fuel.  Also, somehow, we will figure out how to pave our roads without the asphalt that is a by-product of refining oil.  All before 2030, in order to keep the global temperatures from rising another 1/2 degree Celsius.

Of course, those items mentioned above, and many others, are just many of the impossible hurdles facing the Paris agreement.  Then, there's the toothlessness of the agreement itself.

• The agreeing parties will set their own goals and targets to reduce carbon and "do their best" to implement those reduction targets "as soon as possible".  
• Progress towards the stated targets/goals will be on the honor system with each country self-monitoring its own progress and self-reporting such progress.
• Those failing to meet their goals will be "named and shamed" and, supposedly, spat upon by the world community as a polluter; assuming that each country will honestly report their progress. 
• The 55 dirtiest countries will ante-up $100 billion a year to be handed over to the other 140 of the total 195 participating counties, so they too, can fight climate change.

There you have it; and I'm quite sure that last item was a real crowd pleaser among the 140 countries who are now licking their chops in anticipation of billions of dollars coming their way that will surely be used solely for fighting climate change.  More importantly, this agreement is like having no agreement at all.  Especially since most of the "politicians" involved probably won't be around over the next 15 years of initial commitments.  For sure, Obama and his people won't be around past February 2017 to insure that the U.S.'s progress toward our targets and goals will be met.

But, here's the two biggest reasons that the Paris agreement will fail:  (1) Growing populations and (2) Growing affluence in emerging economies.

Take India for example.  By 2028, India is expected to overtake China in total population.  Also, by 2030, a 2012 BP study projects that automobile ownership in India will grow from just 20% in 2011 to 65% by 2030.  That's just one country and a massive growth in affluence.  China will also see huge growth in automobile ownership; nearly 300% on a per capita basis by 2030. All told, there will be 2 billion cars on the world's roads just 5 years later in 2035; according to a Navigant Research study published last year.  That's a 66% increase in automobile ownership and a presumed growth in affluence in just 21 years.  So, with this in mind, every car sold going forward from today has to be more than 66% more fuel efficient just to keep automobile emissions the same as they are today.  If that's not an impossible task, I don't know what is.

However the growth in affluence doesn't just stop with the world buying more cars. Air travel demand is expected to double by 2035.  And, as a result, emissions from commercial aircraft will substantially increase unless fuel economies are at least halved.  Even so, most of today's aircraft will probably still be flying in 2035.  Just as improving automobile fuel inefficiencies is an impossible task, improving jet liner fuel efficiency would be even more difficult; especially when you consider that many of today's planes (and some cars) will still be operational for the next 15 to 20 years.

Simply, growing populations and even faster growth in affluence will be the downfall of the Paris agreement. The growth in affluence won't just be with cars and air travel.  It will be seen in all other forms of human activity.  There will be larger, better heated, and well lit homes with more electrical appliances, and highly unreliable wind and solar will not be able to keep up with the demand without the assistance of energy produced by fossil fuels.  So much for CNN's "End of Fossil Fuels" folly. Also, do we really think that building nuclear power plants is the solution?  The inherent problems and risks make the choice not a good one.  Just look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

In my opinion, the Paris agreement is historic alright.  A historic failure!


References:

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

COP21: Paris climate change deal is end of fossil fuels - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-reaction/ 

India To Overtake China As Largest Populated Nation: https://www.google.com/search?q=2030+population+india&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

India will add more cars than China in 20 years: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-will-add-more-cars-than-china-in-20-years/article2939216.ece

Two billion vehicles projected to be on roads by 2035: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0729/Two-billion-vehicles-projected-to-be-on-roads-by-2035

Air travel demand projected to double in 20 years: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2015/06/08/demand-to-fly-will-likely-double-but-industry-may-not-be-ready/28680637/

Chicago's 'Netflix' and Other Taxes Will Only Drive More People Out Of The City

Last year, Chicago grew by 82 residents. An amazingly low number when you consider that a city of 2.723 million residents should have produced at least 35,000 babies. That's assuming that Chicago matches the average birth rate in America which stands at  1.3% of the population.  By only growing by 82 residents, the city actually lost more than 35,000 people in one year's time.

Steeped in pension debt, Chicago is trying to bail itself out through higher taxes and not through real pension reforms.  The more the city taxes its residents, the more they will leave, and those leaving are generally those who can afford to move somewhere else; resulting in a city with an increasing percentage of poor and low income residents.  Thus, tax hikes tend to fall short of their projections; leaving the City to find even more things to tax.

This is a death spiral.  Chicago, just like now-bankrupt Detroit, saw its peak population in the 1950's.  After years of Democratic control, Chicago, like Detroit, gave away generous pension benefits and early retirement to too many of its city workers.  Now, there are not enough revenues to cover the mistakes of the past.

Last year, the City slapped a 9% tax on all business and residential telephone services and, all indications are, the projected revenues will fall short.  Really?  Chicago just lost 35,000+ residents who took their phones and spending elsewhere.

So, now, they have come up with a new tax revenue scheme:  the so-called 'Netflix' tax.  In actuality, its part of a 9% tax on all amusements which has now been amended to include streaming Internet entertainment video services like Netflix and Vudu, and a higher tax on cable television (which had previously been 3%).  In addition, the City's parking tax has been upped from 20% to 22% during the week, and on the weekend, the tax is raised from 18% to 20%.  The tax on leased vehicles has also been raised from 8% to 9%. Also, skyboxes at the City's stadiums will  be hit with the 9% tax.  Some might not find all these new amusement taxes very amusing and just decide to call someplace else home.

It's just a matter of time before Chicago has nothing left to tax and not enough people to collect those taxes from.  The pension problem just get bigger as more workers retire and live longer; while the City's tax base gets increasingly smaller.  Surely, this is exactly Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting  a different result.  I smell bankruptcy.  Don't you?

References:

Finance Committee approves Emanuel's $62.4 million tax package: http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/154153/finance-committee-approves-emanuels-62-4-million-tax-package

Chicago finds new tax stream: Netflix, Spotify, online gambling: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/02/media/chicago-streaming-tax/

Chicago's Population Grew by Only 82 Residents in One Year: Census: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicagos-Population-Growth-Slows-Dramatically-304555131.html

Chicago and Detroit's Declining Populations: Chart: https://karlheubaum.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/chicago-and-detroit-populations.png?w=625  Source article: http://karlheubaum.com/2013/02/10/chicagos-declining-population/

Five Reasons Chicago Is in Worse Shape Than Detroit: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/how-chicago-city-of-junk-just-moved-a-little-closer-to-detroit