Ah yes, I remember it well!

The aftermath and fallout of the global warming hoax has started in earnest now. This is a story which I think has yet to finally sink in. As we all start to come to grips with the idea of being duped so completely for more than half our lives, it’s difficult to think we could have been so gullible. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. After all, as I mentioned in my last blog, what we did, we did from a sense of obligation to the planet. Since we all want to be good stewards of God’s great gifts, we fell hook, line, and sinker for a ruse that was designed to make us change our lifestyles and feed the government coffers.

I have been tracking the demise of the global warming movement in this blog for almost a year now. Last year, I linked to an article from the UK Telegraph proclaiming 2008 as the year the climate hoax was disproved. While that may have been true in the UK, and despite overwhelming evidence now from the disclosed emails, people in the states are still reticent to accept the full weight of the deceit. Exhibit A, Ed Begley, Jr.:

For the record, I love Ed Begley as an actor. I have watched his show, “Living with Ed,” which shows his lifestyle of “living green.” One of my favorite moments on that show was when his wife realized she had been putting plastic bottles in the recycle bin with the caps still on. If you have a recycle bin, you know that you are supposed to take the caps off. When she realized her mistake, she asked what they do with bottles that have the cap on them. (I’m sure she envisioned a well-paid government employee spending their day uncapping bottles to save the planet.) When she was told they simply throw them away with the rest of the trash, you could see the blood drain from her face! Her mouth fell open, she was apoplectic! “17 years! 17 years I’ve been recylcing and they’ve been putting them in the trash?!?” LOL I can’t stop laughing over that one! Anyway, Ed Begley is one of these people who is “all in” on the global warming issue. So it’s no surprise that he isn’t willing to give in so easily to the obvious flaws in his arguments. When he says “peer-review journals are the key,” he ignores the hundreds of emails released pointing out how they intended to change the nature of peer review to hide their deceit. The global warming scientists haven’t released any of their original data sets so no one can possibly reproduce their scientific work.

But the wake of the fallout from this has started to ripple. Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the email scandal, has agreed to step down as head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Is this an admission of guilt? I think so. What do you think? Why wouldn’t he stay and fight if these have been fabricated in some way. At the very least, it means the emails are real. If he wants to argue that “hide” and “trick” are words that have a different meaning in the scientific world, I’d like to hear him make that case. But he couldn’t leave without dropping one more bombshell. According to Mr. Jones, ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DATA HAS BEEN DESTROYED!!! So no one can ever reproduce their scientific work! There can no longer be any question about the level of deceit here. So when Mr. Begley points to peer review, there can not possibly any form of peer review, now or ever! The idea of this being settled science has been smashed to smithereens!

Here’s what we know for sure:

The earth hasn’t been warming for about the last ten years.

The polar bear population is at an all-time high.

The ice caps are growing back.

The head of the IPCC isn’t a climatologist, he’s an engineer.

Wait! What was that last one?!? The head of the largest scientific body in the world isn’t a scientist?!? This is the major source of climate science for the last thirty years and the guy who’s in charge of diseminating this information has no idea if it’s true or not? Perhaps we have found the source of the problem!

Yes, the signs have been there all these years. If you wanted to look you could see that this has been a political movement from the start and not an environmental one. So with all due respect to Mr. Begley, Mr. Gore, and any others whose pocket book will be completely depleted by the demise of this movement. . . .IT’S OVER!

Fortunately, the news is starting to creep in to the mainstream. Even John Stewart on “The Daily Show” did a report on it. This is good news since most of America gets their news from John Stewart and Weekend Update on SNL. (sadly) Although he still hasn’t completely accepted that the idea that global warming was a hoax (I told you it would be hard), he does come pretty close:

Check it out here.

For me the line of this entire affair is, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented! Oh the irony!” LOL I’ll remember that one for a long time!

I have to say that I find it so humorous now to see commercials on television pitching “green” features. Imagine twenty years from now talking to our grand-kids and trying to tell them how we all fell for such an outlandish proposition. Hopefully, by then, we can all laugh about it without throwing up in our mouth. . .just a little bit.

Can I recycle the last thrity years of my life?

In my last post, I detailed the apparent fraud which has been exposed by the release of some material from the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit in Britain. For some of you, this may come as startling news, since virtually none of the old guard media have made much of this story. I guess you can file this in the same file with Van Jones and ACORN. But if the global warming hoax is officially over, it’s time to take count of all the changes we’ve made and how that might affect the rest of our lives.

I was more than a little chagrined when I started to realize all the things we have done in the name of protecting the environment over the last thirty years. For example, I have always resisted the idea of recycling. Oh, sure, I’d drop some aluminum cans in a recycling bin if it was handy, but to actually go out of my way to store refuse until I could haul it to a recycling center, out of the question. Until I moved up north. In the town I live in, we are all issued a recycling bin with very specific instructions on what should go in it and what should not. Here’s the kicker – it is actually illegal for me not to recycle. That’s right, government has decided that it is for the greater good to prosecute those who refuse to recycle in order to protect the planet. So far, the trash Nazis haven’t checked my trash – yet!

And it’s not like there is some more economical reason for cities to mandate recycling. In fact, I’ve read recently that California’s recycling program is in shambles and nearly bankrupt. California is a state that has completely sold out to the environmental hoax and look where they are. They are almost completely bankrupt, they can’t pr0duce enough energy to serve their citizens, and they keep raising taxes to cover their budget shortfalls. It’s time for California to take the restrictions off of businesses, let people live their lives and make the economy for California flourish.

Another aspect of the environmental movement has been to ban a series of chemicals because they are supposedly causing global warming or harmful to the environment. For me though, one of the most appalling things that has happened is the ban on the incandescent light bulb. The light bulb is the quintessential American invention. It helped define us and establish us as a force for industry in the world. Now we are turning our back on the light bulb in favor of a far more hazardous alternative: the compact fluorescent light bulb. This, as you may know, is far more hazardous since it contains mercury. If you break it or it burns out, you must take it to your local hazardous materials dump. You can’t simply throw them away. To me, it is an insult that we would make it illegal to sell incandescent bulbs when they are far safer than the alternative.

Perhaps this is why I have always had a problem with the so-called environmental movement. At it’s heart, I have always believed it was anti-technology and anti-freedom. That is to say, someone who thinks all our consumption is obscene wouldn’t get you to stop consuming without guilting you into it. So we end up with more dangerous light bulbs, cars we don’t want to drive, and environmentally-friendly chemicals which don’t do what they’re supposed to.

The demise of the global warming movement comes at an interesting time. Next month, the United Nations is having a huge climate change convention in Copenhagen to discuss new strategies governments around the world (this means you, United States) can take to combat catastrophic climate change. Can anyone say. . .”Never mind!” No! In fact, it wasn’t until the release of these documents that the President confirmed he would make an appearance at the convention. It’s handy since he’s going to Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize and Copenhagen is in the neighborhood. . .I guess. No doubt, President Obama and many of the other dignitaries will do their best to resuscitate the environmental movement, but the people of the world aren’t stupid. They may compassionate to a fault, but they are not stupid.

So what does it all mean, where do we go from here? Obviously, with so much money tied to the environmental movement, there will be a continued attempt to keep the gravy train rolling. They may call it something else, but the bottom line is that they will continue to tell you that you must do this or that or the planet will die. Remember the lies they have been telling you for the last thirty years. Remember how you felt when you realized you had been duped all these years (if you have). Don’t feel bad, it isn’t your fault. You only wanted to help save the planet. You did what you thought was right. It’s never time to trash the planet or disrespect our environment, but it is time to reject a political movement whose goal is to get you to live a smaller life than what you are capable of. Elect people who reject the constraints of the “environmental” movement and help get America back on its feet at the same time!

Maybe I should’ve deleted ALL the emails!

I really thought this period of time would always be remembered as some of the most dismal days in American history. Make no mistake, these are dark days. Unemployment is nearing an all-time high and there is no end in sight. Our President cannot make a decision whether he wants to win the war on terror or what he wants to call it. Debt is running out of control and the Congress is about to pass new health care legislation that the American people have said loudly they don’t want and don’t need.

But as dark and ominous as all of those things are (and I just scratched the surface), I am sure I will remember this year as the time when the global warming hoax was finally revealed. For the last year, I have been detailing the rapid decline of the believability of the global warming/climate change proponents. (If you type “global warming” in the search box, you can read the others.) But the latest shot across the bow is probably the fatal one. In case you haven’t heard, someone (we don’t know for sure who. Maybe a hacker, maybe a whistle-blower on the inside) uploaded a package of files detailing the subterfuge exercised by the scientists involved in the hoax. These files, including over a thousand emails and several thousand other documents, originated at the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglia University in Britain (CRU). This lab has been at the forefront of the global warming hoax, working closely with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In fact, most of the emails refer to “AR4” which is the IPCC’s shorthand for their Fourth Assessment Report. The IPCC has been the major panel which has been pushing the idea of man-made global warming for decades now.

So now you know the “who” of these documents, here’s the “what.” I have read some of the media’s examples, but I have decided to use some of my own. I have by no means read ALL of the documents in the folder labeled “FOI2009.” But I have read enough that the tone is clear to me. For example, in one email, Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, writes to Michael Mann, an American climatologist who also does a sizable amount of work for the IPCC. He says:

Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please !  I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !!  Pot calling the kettle black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available.  I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best.  Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm.

Cheers
Phil

There are other references like this in other emails. Phil encouraging people to delete emails of conversations they’ve had. This to me is important for a variety of reasons. In the US, and now in the UK, there is legislation called the Freedom of Information Act. That is, anyone doing work for the government must keep a papertrail of their communications so anyone who requests them may see what their government is doing with taxpayer dollars. Since Mr. Mann works for a state university (at the time of the email, he worked for the Univeristy of Virginia and now works for Penn State), he would of course be required to keep this papertrail. Mr. Jones is covered by the same legislation in the UK. To me, someone as well respected as Jones and Mann colluding to delete emails in violation of law says there must be something in those emails incriminating enough to risk their going to jail! So that begs the question, what are they trying to prevent us from finding out. One thing is for sure, this deosn’t need context to be understood. If someone is requesting emails to be deleted in violation of law, they’re trying to cover something up. . .period! And remember, these are not underlings or interns or flunkies. These are the big-wigs!

In another email between Mann and Jones, the subject of providing data to independent researchers comes up. Stephen McIntyre, a climate researcher from Toronto, had asked for the underlying research for his so-called “hockey stick” graph. For a complete explanation of the “hockey stick” issue, check Wikipedia. Basically, Mann and Jones were trying to show the aggressive nature of global warming by producing a graph with a sudden and dramatic rise in temperature beginning in the 90’s. The problem was that is there aren’t accurate records of temperature before the 1800’s. So. . .they made them up. I mean. . .estimated them. McIntyre (among others) didn’t like their estimations and wanted them to back up their graph with data. Here’s Mann’s conversation with Jones after receiving McIntyre’s querie:

Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud. You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc… Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too…

talk to you soon,
mike

While this isn’t necessarily incriminating, it does reflect an underlying animosity for anyone whose opinion they disagree with. They apparently don’t feel that their data could stand up to scrutiny so they demonize anyone who wants to review their work. Peer review is typical in the scientific community, but not with these guys. As I read over the emails, there are several people who express difficulty with their assumptions. Their responses are never straightforward.

However, the smoking gun appears to be an email Jones wrote saying, “I’ve just completed Mike’s (Mann) Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Again, I’m not sure we need any context for this. If a scientist, no not just a scientist, the head of the most important climate research unit in the world, says he is using a “trick” to “hide” a decline in temperatures, that’s a very important piece of information. At best, it means that global warming theory is far from “settled science,” as we have been told by Al Gore and others for many years now. At worst, it is fraud perpetrated on the entire world by a cabal of unethical “scientists” for more than thirty years!

Make no mistake, they will not go quietly into that good night. There is too much at stake here. We are talking billions of dollars in research grants worldwide not to mention the lawsuits, threats of criminal prosecution and professional reputations. Well, perhaps the professional reputations are beyond repair at this point, we’ll see. I just hope that as we begin a new decade, we can get politics out of the laboratory and back into the gutter where it belongs!

Mom! Noah’s trying to save the animals again!

Tonight, I was watching TV, minding my own business. Then along comes Noah Wyle depressing me with talk of the melting glaciers and the dying polar bears. This seemed so apropos since I just finished a TERRIFIC article on the global warming or climate change alarmists, whatever they’re calling it this week. Take a look if you want:

Very convincing. It actually looks like there are dying polar bears. Of course, polar bears do die, I’m not suggesting they don’t. But there’s no evidence in this commercial that the climate change has anything to do with the supposed dwindling polar bear herds. There isn’t even any evidence in this commercial that the herds are actually dwindling. We’re just supposed to believe it and fork over our money.

So, naturally, I did a little research. Since I had global warming on the brain anyway, it seemed like a good follow-up. Let’s start with the polar ice cap. We’re being told that the bears are dying because their habitat is melting. The truth is that arctic ice has an ebb and flow much like the tides. If you take a short amount of time, you could reasonably make the argument that the ice is melting or that it is growing. I found a rather detailed and well-sourced work on the subject going way back to a time before we had satellites and other such sophisticated equipment, but had boots on the ground. The reports from people who had been to the arctic and had seen differences between times they had visited. For example, this report from the President of the Royal Society to the Admiralty in London, 1817,

“Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues (a league is 3 miles) of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

So, even back in the 1800’s, they were observing decreased ice in the north. But it came back. In 1868, we get this quote from a British expedition to Greenland:

“Cape Parry was passed at midnight, and we came across some heavy ice, being the first met with since leaving the straits. On the 30th it was so close as to compel us to haul in shore, affording a great contrast with the state of the ice at the same period two years ago, when the pack was 30 miles from the land.”

Ok, well that’s great for 200 years ago, but what about now. Now we have satellites and thermometers and gauges of every conceivable kind. Well, it looks like the ice is coming back. According to NASA (you know that right-wing propaganda organization), they believe the melting ice is a result of currents which bring more warm water to the north, causing the ice to melt. But recently, they have noticed a change in their data. In a project headed by Jim Morison (no not THAT Jim Morison, the one from the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, in Seattle), it was discovered that there is a decrease in water pressure, suggestion the ice is reforming. According to Mr. Morison, “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming.”

So the fluctuation in arctic ice is quite normal and nothing to be alarmed about. But what about the cute little deadly bears? Surely, cute little Noah Wyle wouldn’t be lying to us about them being endangered? Would he? Well, the polar bears have had a rough history. Up until the 1960’s they were hunted to near extinction. According to Wikipedia’s very well-sourced article on polar bears, there were only 1,250 polar bears in the world in 1968. In 1973, all five nations whose territories are inhabited by polar bears signed an agreement to protect the animals. Fast forward to today. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Agency, current polar bear populations are stable at 22,000 to 25,000! That doesn’t sound very endangered to me. If they in danger from anything, it’s that there isn’t enough food to support that large a herd.

But the attempt to suppress this information is in full swing because it doesn’t fit the template. Late last month, a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group took place in Copenhagen. This is one of a series of events in a run-up to the UN’s big climate change summit to be held in Copenhagen in December. But according to the UK Telegraph, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, one of world’s leading experts on polar bears, has been told to stay away from the conference. Why? Apparently, Dr. Taylor, who has been studying the bears for more than three decades, believes the polar bear population is just fine, thank you. According to the Telegraph, Dr. Taylor was told that his views, “are extremely unhelpful.”

Clearly the UN’s climate change initiative is not interested in the truth, or they would have all hands on deck. Why not hear from all sides and then let the chips fall where they may? If that happened, it would put doubt in the minds of people and then they wouldn’t be able to dictate our behavior they way they want to. But why the polar bears? That’s easy.  If they can put a cute cuddly face on the global warming scam, they can get more money and sympathy from us. Using the polar bears also gets the kids on their side. Remember what Al Gore told a group of kids in Washington earlier this year. First he compares the climate change crusade to the civil rights movement when he was a kid, and how the kids forced their parents to make changes. He then said that older people don’t want to change the old ways. That’s when he said this:

“In a period of rapid change, there are times when new understandings are more apparent to young people.”

That means, you kids should trust your instincts and not listen to your parents. If we tell you the polar bears are dying, don’t listen to what your parents say, trust us.

Don’t be misled. Use your brain. Take a moment to read through some of the material I’ve posted and see if it’s possible that there could be another point of view.

Confessions of a Global Warming denier

Hello, my name is Reed. I’m a global warming denier. They say admitting it is the first step. Unfortunately, I am not interested in getting “healed.” I have long been a skeptic of the idea that we have anything to do with global climate change, but now it looks like science is catching up with me.

First, let me say that the main reason I’m addressing this now is because of a conversation I had with a close friend of mine last week. (You know who you are!) He voted for Obama and I was asking him how he thought things were going now that we’re $1 trillion in debt. That led to a discussion of the recent cap and trade bill making its way through Congress. (for a detailed discussion on “cap and trade,” see my blog “2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.”) He told me he was glad that we were finally doing something about the global warming problem. He believes global warming is “settled science.”

So let me tell you where I stand. First, I’m not convinced the earth is warming. Second, I’m not convinced that if it is warming, people have anything to do with it, or that we could change it even if we’re not causing it. Some of my beliefs are what I consider to be simple common sense and others are science-based. For example, I have read in my history books about an ice age. I wasn’t here when it happened but I believe it did happen. Clearly, now, we are not in an ice age. Right? So what were the man-made devices or activities that substantially warmed the planet? Any suggestions? I presume the earth cooled and warmed on its own. I think that’s reasonable.

Is it reasonable to blame vehicle emissions for global warming? We are told that our vehicles emit gasses which pollute the atmosphere and enhance the “greenhouse effect” which we are told keeps us all warm and toasty in a cold, cruel world. Too much emissions – too much “greenhouse effect.” Thus, global warming. Ok, so cars have been around for a little more than 100 years. No doubt, that’s a lot of emissions. But is there anything in nature which could compare to the amount of emissions the automobile has generated? How about volcanoes? A quick perusal of Wikipedia shows devastating effects on the earth from volcanoes, especially over the last century. According to an article by the Environmental Defense Fund, in 2004, US cars emitted 314 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Ok, that doesn’t include all the cars on the earth, and it apparently doesn’t include commercial vehicles, but it’s a good place to start.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, volcanoes account for 130 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. Well, that’s not very comparable to cars, is it. Unless you consider the fact that there have been volcanoes on the earth far longer than there have been cars. In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines. This was an unusually catastrophic eruption. It was so devastating that the global temperature dropped .5°-.6° C in the northern hemisphere from 1991-1993 (so much for global warming!). This was a result of the volcanic ash that covered over 100 miles, 10 billion tons of magma, and 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide. You know, the same sulfur dioxide that creates the acid rain you’ve heard so much about. Yeah, we didn’t invent it, the earth did!

So here you have all these volcanoes blowing all this gunk into the air for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years. But WE are the biggest polluters on the planet. Whatever. . .

But I’m told that global warming is “settled science” and so far I’ve just given you my opinion. Let’s see what science has to say about it. The general respected authority on the subject is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations project. (Ok, you just lost me!) Trying to read one of their reports will make your head spin. Trust me. . . I know. I have to say though that it looks like they are making a variety of assumptions. I don’t understand why things are “likely” or “very likely.” It seems they really don’t KNOW anything. They have charts showing global temperatures shooting up dramatically.

The much bally-hooed hockey stick

In Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” he called this the “hockey stick.” After 1950, it shoots through the roof. But wait, didn’t we just learn that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo reduced global temperatures?!? Where’s this in the hockey stick?

According to the CATO Institue, that’s not the only problem with the IPCC’s assertions. We now have some super-sophisticated instrumentation. Apparently, we now have a network of weather balloons, as well as satellite technology which are making their own measurements. The IPCC measured “surface temperatures” and the balloons and satellites measured temps in the lower atmosphere, between 5,000 and 30,000 feet. According to this report, “a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above.” Oh really? Tell me more! “The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. . .Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979.” Wow! Did you hear that? No significant difference! Hmmmm. Who’s right? The people at the IPCC who are making estimations and projections or the instruments. It’s a mystery!

But you absolutely have to read this. In an article in the National Post (a Canadian newspaper, you don’t think you’d read this in an American paper do you?), apparently it’s over! Yup, don’t worry, there won’t be any more global warming for another 10 years. Maybe more! (Read that:  “We don’t really know, actually!”) A German team of climatologists using the UN super computers (I love the irony) entered data on ocean circulation cycles and voila! No more global warming! Now, of course, they are all trying to back-pedal and say that it is completely expected that there would be a plateau before more exponential growth. But that is a little far-fetched. No one is anticipating this to stop, that’s why they’re scrambling to pass as much legislation as possible before the stink hits the fan and everyone wakes up and realizes it was all just a scam to get us to open our wallets.

For the record, here’s where I stand. This earth is a gift from God and we have an obligation to be good stewards of it. That means we shouldn’t pollute it, nor should we take it for granted. So don’t be disrespectful to the earth. I also believe the earth is far more powerful and self-sufficient than we can ever imagine. It has been here long before us and will be here long after us. The idea that we have any ability to affect it globally is vanity. We can pollute our own areas, like rivers, roads, etc., without affecting all the other places in the world.

The most important point to me is the people who are trying to convince us of this don’t simply want us to agree with them, they want us to change our lifestyles. They are trying to use our good nature to guilt us into giving up some of our freedoms. I find that offensive! Not only that, but you aren’t allowed to disagree with them. I used the term “denier” because that’s what I’ve been called. Now I’m no better than a holocaust denier. There’s something terribly wrong with that. Why should I trust these idiots! Aren’t they the same people who tried to tell us in 1979 that there was a coming ICE AGE!!!

Time warns of a coming ice age in 1979

If I am a global warming denier, I’m in good company. 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth” Still doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.

Oh and one more thing (you know I’d save the best for last). Remember at the beginning of this when I said the big problem was the “greenhouse gases” trapping heat in the atmosphere? Guess what. That’s factually not true. Most of the global warming alarmists point to carbon dioxide as the big offender. They say the more carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet is getting. According to a report at scienceandpublicpolicy.org, “In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66).” Did you get that? Global warming CAUSES a rise in CO2, not the other way around! So the entire premise of “greenhouse gases” causing global warming is at best suspect, and at worst a lie!

All I’m trying to say is that the issue is clearly far from settled and the idea that we have to act now is alarmist. I, for one, will not fall in line without some hard evidence.

The truth hurts, but so does the dentist.

The cries are coming from all corners now. You don’t have to look very far to see newspaper articles and news features about the plummeting stock market, rampant inflation, and rising unemployment. The government has allocated thousands of millions (that’s billions, in case you’re keeping track) of dollars to try to stem the tide and the tsunami of bad news is still rolling over us. I have detailed in the course of this blog why this strategy of spending won’t work and I believe the Obama administration and his party cohorts know it won’t.

I believe we are going through a seminal time in American history. The Obama administration has left no wiggle room. They are spending at a pace not seen in HUMAN HISTORY! No nation has ever undertaken this kind of spending program and no nation could. Even we can’t! So why do this if it’s apparent that it risks far more than it helps? Well this is the part that takes bravery, on my part as well as yours. I’m going to speak the truth, it’s up to you to believe it or not. If time proves me wrong, feel free to point it out to me. I expect to get as much as I give. Here’s the bottom line: this spending spree is less about helping the country and more about entrenching Democrats in office for years to come!

In the late 60’s, LBJ unveiled the Great Society. We were going to end poverty in our lifetime. Over the course of the last 40 years, we have spent billions. Does anyone think we have ended poverty? What’s the solution we hear from the left? “We just haven’t spent enough!” Well, now that surely isn’t the problem, right?!? Is this enough, yet? Are we going to fix the problems with our economy by spending into oblivion? What did happen as a result of the Great Society was that there was a bevy of social programs that Democrats could point to as having the potential to solve all their woes. During every election cycle, they could threaten that the opposing Republican was just going to cut their favorite programs and they wouldn’t have them anymore. And it worked! For the next 30 years, Democrats remained in control of the House of Representatives. Their dominance was so complete, they usually didn’t even tell the Republicans when the committe meetings were because they didn’t need them. It wasn’t until Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America in 1994 that the GOP got the House back.

We are starting a new Great Society. These spending measures and this pricetag are only going to grow. They will continue to drive the economy down because that’s not what’s important to them. In fact, they HOPE the economy continues to tank. They can’t win in the arena of ideas because all of theirs have failed miserably. What they want to do is create crisis and scare the hell out of you so you’ll let them do whatever they want. Heck, even Hillary echoed what Rahm Emanuel said a few months ago: “never waste a good crisis.” They believe by hyping the crisis mentality, they can re-engineer our economy and our society.

Dick Morris is a former Clinton aide, but he has worked for many candidates as an advisor for many years. Recently, he pointed out that by cutting taxes for the bottom half of taxpayers, he’s effectively removing them from the tax roles. So now he raise taxes on the “rich” and over 50% of the taxpayers won’t care cause they’re not paying any taxes! And the really devious element of this plot is that no one will want to vote for someone who wants to even the playing field. The cries of “tax cuts for the rich” will be heard from every corner. This is Democrat entrenchment.

One need only listen to what the President is actually saying to know what his agenda is. He said the other day that, “What I am looking for is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market … but the long-term.” I’ll give him credit. He told us what he was going to do when he was running, and he is doing it. And he is telling us now what is important to him and we should listen. Since he was elected, we have lost about half the nation’s wealth in stock value. This will also result in lower tax revenues since they are based on a percentage of wealth. This will inevitably result in higher tax rates to try and recover the lost revenue, further driving down wealth. If the President thinks what is going on in the stock market is a gyration, we are all in trouble. Stocks are in a steady decline with no end in sight.

Well, at least the one bright spot is the relatively low oil prices. We won’t have to worry about high gas prices any time soon. Really?!? This week the President unveiled his new cap and trade policy which is designed to ruin the energy industry. It’s almost like they are targeting various sectors of our economy for destruction. (Well, if it walks like a duck. . .) The simplest explanation is . . .THEY ARE!!

So what does all this have to do with the dentist? Well, just like going to the dentist, this is going to hurt for a while. We will have to make some hard choices. Do we let the banking, automobile, and housing industries go bankrupt? All at the same time? YES! This is the market’s way of clearing out the dead wood. Sort of like a controlled burn. When the forest gets too overgrown, we sometimes set them on fire INTENTIONALLY so they won’t burn out of control. So we should INTENTIONALLY let the industries fail and help those people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of a job. I promise you it will cost WAY less than the amount of money we are spending now and in about a year, those jobs will start to come back. The companies will have a new sense of purpose and a better grasp of who they are so they can grow into the future.

This will not happen though as long as this bunch is in power. They have no interest in creating wealth. They are not actually trying to help the little guy. They are just trying to make everyone the little guy.

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – Telegraph

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – Telegraph

So my friend at anamericanidiot.wordpress.com posted a great blog about the global warming hoax. Fortunately for us all the Brits seem to be leading the way on the anti-global warming movement. This article is a good time capsule since it catalogs a point in time when the tide started to shift. I feel it will take a few more years for us to come to this realization here in the States. We now have an unadulterated, unabashed, global warming alarmist in the White House (well, not NOW, but soon). This guy is proposing a cap and trade system which he says will drive up energy costs and could bankrupt the coal industry if they try to build new plants.

In case you’re not aware of the meaning of “cap and trade,” I’ll do my best to explain. Apparently, Obama wants to pass regulations limiting the amount of emissions any company can emit safely. That’s the cap. If the company exceeds that limit, they will be fined. These fines will go to companies who emit less than their allotment. Essentially, the offending company is “trading” emissions with other companies. Obama’s idea is to make the cap so low for some companies and the fines so high that they will either raise prices (which will of course stifle business) or force them into bankruptcy, if not in fact close altogether.

I know, I’m just an Obama-hater. No one would ever get elected with a scheme like this as a cornerstone of their energy policy. If they did have this agenda, they would keep this completely quiet so no one would ever know about it until they were in office and it was too late. Oh yeah. . .?!?

Let’s pick up a couple of these points. First, he says that his plan is the most aggressive. This means that the “cap” will be VERY low and the “trade” will be VERY costly. He then brags about being the first one to advocate a 100% auction. This means the cap will be Z E R O!!! That is to say, the number one supplier of electricity to our nation will not be allowed to emit ANY “greenhouse” gasses!! That’s when he says they can build new plants if they want to (which we will eventually have to do, or we will have to do with less energy) but it will bankrupt them.

Here’s where the plan starts to fall apart. Obama believes that this will raise billions which he will spend on new technologies. The problem is as he has stated: that the heavy fines will stifle business so much that companies will not be able to pay the fines. This will, of course, require heavier fines, which will put more companies out of business. This is what always happens when you start taxing a behavior in order to raise money for some special project. If the goal of the tax is to raise money, it will fail. Sometimes I would advocate a tax if the goal is to curb a certain activity. Taxing an activity always reduces the activity. But if the goal is to raise money for new technologies, taxing the coal industry and others at such a high rate will cause havoc.

Our hope at this point is that he has surrounded himself with clearer heads. As usual, time will tell. I don’t think the global warming hysteria has left Washington yet though.