On Top... and Not

If only for one brief, shining moment…

DENVER -- Ty Conklin laughed off his last outing, refusing to dwell on one bad performance.

The Detroit goalie was much sharper Wednesday night, making 25 saves to help the Red Wings take the overall NHL lead with a 3-2 victory over the faltering Colorado Avalanche.

Here’s what we’re on about:

The Wings lead by but a single point… and the Sharks have three games in hand on the Beloved Wings, Boston one. Still and even, the Wings have been lurking in third place overall in the league standings nearly all season and have been threatening to take the lead for a couple of weeks now. And why does this matter? Home ice in the playoffs. There’s a lot of back and forth as to whether home ice really matters or not but I think it does… especially in the Western Conference, where the travel distances are considerable.

―:☺:―

This lil brouhaha isn't getting NEAR enough press… but it’s coming, and you can bet there will be more in the VERY near future. From the Detroit News (“Editorial: Cap-and-trade plan will sink Michigan”):

President Barack Obama's proposed cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions is a giant economic dagger aimed at the nation's heartland -- particularly Michigan. It is a multibillion-dollar tax hike on everything that Michigan does, including making things, driving cars and burning coal.

The president is asking for a system of government limits on carbon emissions. The right to emit carbon would be auctioned off to generate revenue for more government spending programs.

The president's budget projects receipts totaling $646 billion through 2019 from the sale of these greenhouse gas permits.

The goal, according to the president's budget outline, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide to 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Doing so will drive up the cost of nearly everything and will amount to a major tax increase for American consumers.

Such a tax will hit the Midwest particularly hard, which is why House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, told the New York Times, "let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple."

[…]

The nation's gross domestic product contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent in last year's fourth quarter -- the worst economic record in nearly three decades. Is this really a good time to be talking about a carbon tax? How will such talk impact investment decisions?

Obama promises to use some of the revenues for tax relief for certain workers and some of the rest for subsidies for alternative energy. But that won't make up for the damage this huge new tax will do to the economy, especially in Michigan.

A similar program in Europe hasn't worked. European automakers complained about carbon dioxide limits the European Union proposed in 2007 as damaging to the economy.

The Obama cap-and-trade program will place even more of the economy under the control of the federal government. The only upside is that the negative impact it will have on economic growth and job creation will take care of the carbon emissions problem, for sure.

I’m sure that last bit was tongue-in-cheek, but it’s none the less true. The thing that really ticks me off is this damned cap-‘n’-trade economy-killer is THE classic solution looking for a problem. I don’t give a big rat’s ass what The One or Algore say… the science is NOT proven nor is it settled. Here’s a “tip of the iceberg” article that addresses exactly what us naysayers are on about:

In testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Dr. Michaels testified on the little known fact that the scientific models used to predict global warming are starting to fall outside acceptable scientific limits. They have been unable to accurately predict temperature increases and when used to model historical increases, they fail as well.

This is significant because if the models on which nations are basing policy decisions on are incorrect, a great deal of money and effort is wasted. Further, any further analysis that is based on those models such as trying to gauge the impact of temperature increases is thus invalidated as well. It therefore points to the fact that while some would say that the ‘science is settled’, it is anything but.

The IPCC uses 21 different models for its calculations and projections of climate change and global warming. In analyzing the results of the models projections, it becomes readily apparent that these models are greatly overstating the amount of temperature increases actually seen.

Figure 4. Climate model 95% confidence range of projected surface temperature trends of varying lengths (gray area) and the expected values for these trends assuming the temperature in the coming year is similar to the temperature in 2008 (black line). (Dr. Patrick J. Michaels)

Much more here (“Climate models falling outside acceptable scientific boundaries”)… including a slideshow from which the graphic above was taken. And “The High Cost of Climate Lies” is a most interesting article, as well.

{sigh} How many more idiotic, counter-productive examples of “elections have consequences” must we endure?