About Me

Name: theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

IKE…The Biggest Campout Ever!

 

Imagine 5,000,000 of your closest friends and neighbors all sharing adventures of nature in an urban setting. It seems that nature invaded our city and surrounding suburbs with a vengeance. Who needs nature programs in HD? We had beautiful trees and wildlife in our living rooms.

With the exception of the random generator we lived an “Al Gore Green” primitive existence for more than week. I want a Nobel Prize for this feat. Hell, I’d like to see Al Gore survive a similar experience to validate his stupid movie and awards.

This experience brought the whole Peak Oil, Global Warming- Sustainable Living Crap that’s being pumped into American homes by soft headed liberals into prospective.

More than ever I want to denounce these dangerous misguided morons that want to destroy our country, economy and culture.

EVERY TIME I HEAR GREEN, I SEE RED.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bad Ideas to Destroy a Nation

 

There are 3 theories that have been concocted to bring our nation to its knees and make the US a second tier country. These are “half baked” ideas that present untrue vision of our nation and its place in the world.

These theories are:

Peak Oil- The idea that all the easy cheap oil has been found so we give up our exploration for energy.

Man Made Global Warming- The idea that our industrial strengths have hurt others in the world and damaged the planet so it can’t sustain life unless we follow some “new green rules” for living.

The United States is on the decline as a world power- This theory can only be true if you believe and live like the other theories are true.

So, if you want to see the end of our nation, believe the world will soon run out of oil, we are destroying the planet and need to pay more taxes to the UN and fee’s to the likes of Al Gore and everything is going to hell in a hand basket and we need leaders like Obama to tell us what to do.

This would be my idea of Hell.

Now I understand why liberals are so unhappy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

C O 2 is a Gas, Obama is an A**

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

KILL PEAK OIL MYTH NOW!

 

It’s time to kill the PEAK OIL Myth. It’s dangerous to our future. Like Global Warming hoaxes it perpetuates the notion than men are smarter than God. Knowing what resources God has given us and where he’s put them is to quote the Obama” is above my pay grade” but I have faith that we can find all we need if we keep looking.

The largest gas field in the US, the Barnett Shale was drilled through for more than 50 years before some people figured out how to produce it. Ditto for the Haynesville and a number of Shale plays that are just now coming online.

We have the Bakken formation found in the 1950’s. We have most of Alaska, the outer continental shelf, the oceans, the Arctic, and a great deal of the western US that has not been explored properly.

For years the greenies have been talking about our unexplored oceans and that we know more about the moon than the deep sea floor. We really know very little about the subsurface of our good green earth. With new exploration tools, drilling technologies, and completion techniques I am confident we can find all we need if we can keep the government and the chicken little’s from getting in the way.

It’s not time to fear the future, buy in to wind hucksters and carbon credit sellers, it’s time to drill.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dr. Roy Spencer vs. Barbara Boxer

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hurricane Dolly , Global Warming Storm of the Week

 

Hello Dolly.. I predict you are as big a dud as Al Gore and global warming. I watch goofy TV types stand in the 6 inch surf and wonder how we all became so foolish. 50 cent brains and $100 haircuts are fooling Americans in believing we have some type of magical scientific control over climate and weather.

We don't. We are a speck of dust on a small planet 3rd from the sun in a average galaxy in Gods great universe. How small we are. How foolish we are. To concern ourselves with the goofy goals of global warming while letting our energy supplies dwindle down to nothing so the rest of the world can steal our wealth and jobs. We can't change the weather. We might be able to get out of the way if we have enough gas.   We can build windmills that will surely blow down in 70 mph winds.

Maybe Dolly will be another dud. Maybe the lack of another big one will blow some sense into the American people that we have not changed the climate and could not if we had wanted .Gore predicted giant storms that would break our country apart and we didn't have any.   

Want to buy some Hurricane credits? They are kinda like carbon credits. They are useless hoaxes to be sold to gullible to enrich the shameless. Hold on, there's another media storm headin this way!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

End of the World, NO-Just the End of Your Freedom

 

 

Don't you get it ?

 Global warming and the environmental movement has been used to steal your freedoms away from you. They took property rights away from landowners. Now they have taken your ability to travel and work by shutting down the engine of our economy with promises of windmill farms and solar power mini-cars. Peak Oil and Global Warming are outright lies to scare you into giving up your heritage as free people engaged in the free enterprise system.

It's taken them years to kill off the energy supply with restrictions on offshore drilling, drilling in public lands like ANWR, the development of Oil Shale and Heavy Oil. Our politicians from both parties along with well funded public interest groups have created a crisis that may end our forefathers dream and the best hope of free men everywhere.

Global Warming is a hoax, the Energy Crisis is real and I'm sure it's manmade.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where's Global Warming? by the Weather Channel Founder

 

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. 

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predicta calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. 

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. 

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. 

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story. 

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. 

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus. 

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.   A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over. 

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. 

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slaves to Global Warming , IBD

Global Warming: The Senate takes up a bill to strangle the economy and mortgage your children's future in the name of saving the planet. Hold on to your wallets and your jobs. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

 

The U.S. needs a Domestic Energy Development Act, but what it might get this week is a Climate Security Act that makes human sacrifices of the American people on the altar of the environmental earth goddess, Gaia.

As Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation points out, global warming is a concern, not a crisis. We have recently noted scientists who, on the basis of actual observation and not computer models, have said warming stopped in 1998 and will remain dormant at least for the next decade, even as emissions rise.

Global warming has been proved to be a natural, cyclical phenomenon determined by natural forces such as ocean currents and solar activity. This bill even ignores the global part, imposing draconian costs on just the American people and economy for marginal and temporary gains.

Lieberman states that the bill sponsored by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., no relation, would cost the U.S. manufacturing sector alone more than 1 million jobs by 2022 and 2 million by 2027.

GDP losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030. All this pain, he says, would "reduce the Earth's temperature by one- or two-tenths of a degree Celsius — too small to even verify."

The bill targets power plants, refineries, factories and transportation, and simply ignores the fact that from 2006 to 2030 the U.S. population will grow by 22% and the number of new housing units by 25%. Americans will need more energy, not less.

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of Warner-Lieberman at $800 to $1,300 by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36% to 65% by 2015 and 8% to 125% by 2050.

Heritage reckons the bill will raise gasoline prices by $1.10 a gallon by 2030. To which Sen. Lieberman glibly responded: "People would be thrilled to have gas prices rise only 2 cents a year."

But they'd rise much more than that, Joe, as you and your peers cut off forever the nation's abundant energy resources.

According to Heritage, because of Warner-Lieberman, from 2012 to 2030 every U.S. household will pay on average $8,870 extra to buy energy, aside from higher gasoline prices resulting from locking out oil and gas in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and in Rocky Mountain shale.

The bill aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 35% to 40% below 2005 levels. It will employ a "cap and trade" system whereby emissions would be limited on a yearly basis, with manufacturers and energy producers trading carbon credits like baseball cards. Since the European Union adopted them three years ago, their emissions have actually gone up several percentage points.

President Bush, estimating the proposed law "would impose roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the American economy," has rightly said he'll veto the bill in its present form.

What America needs is a bill with a Manhattan Project for nuclear power plants, a plan to develop the two trillion barrels of North American shale oil, and a map of where the rigs in ANWR and offshore will go.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eco-Anxiety Workshop #19- Forgive Yourself-It's Not Your Fault

As a public service I offer this to the eco-anxious to reduce their guilt and take away their sins toward the planet.
 
 

 

Video

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Feeling Blue About a Green Planet?


Why not End It All, Now?

Psychology: The alarms that environmental extremists have sounded have given rise to a market for therapists who treat eco-anxiety. What a concept! Scare the wits out of people, then make money off their fear.

It's possible that none of the 100 or so "eco-therapists" practicing in the U.S. have been part of the environmentalist shock campaign. Or it could be that, at more than $100 an hour, these practitioners are simply taking advantage of others' weaknesses.

But given that the treatments they're prescribing — taking shorter showers, turning off lights, making do with less — are scrawled on the stone tablet of environmentalist commandments, it's no surprise.

"Fear, grief, anger, confusion and depression," Sarah Edwards told Fox News in explaining the eco-anxiety that caused her neck and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia and fatigue.

Last month, the British Independent reported that eco-anxiety can be responsible for overeating, despondency, bulimia, depression and alcoholism.

Whatever happened to our sense of proportion and basic powers of observation? Is it possible that people suffering from eco-anxiety are, as the Independent asked, "just plain nuts"?

What's clear is that Western society has achieved such a level of prosperity that some of us have the time and energy to let ourselves be consumed with worry and guilt over a problem that may very well be imaginary.

Let no one say that this world of abundance has come at the expense of the environment. Despite the psychoses, our earth is a cleaner, more livable place than it was even 40 years ago.

Don't think so? Then take a look at a government report (start with www.earthday.gov) that actually measures air and water quality, and wetlands gains.

Instead of driving ourselves up the proverbial wall over greenhouse gases, old-growth trees, pesticides, polar bears and plastic bags, maybe we should work toward becoming even more prosperous and spreading that prosperity around the world.

It seems that capitalism is the only economic system that can afford cleanliness.
 
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming Media Running Hot, Cold, Hot, Cold

  Thanks to the release of Al Gore’s latest effort on global warming – this time in book and movie form – climate change is the hot topic in press rooms around the globe. It isn’t the first time.

     The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

     As the noise from the controversy has increased, it has drowned out any debate. Journalists have taken advocacy positions, often ignoring climate change skeptics entirely. One CBS reporter even compared skeptics of manmade global warming to Holocaust deniers.

     The Society of Environmental Journalists Spring 2006 SEJournal included a now-common media position, arguing against balance. But that sense of certainty ignores the industry’s history of hyping climate change – from cooling to warming, back to cooling and warming once again.

     The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute (formerly the Free Market Project) conducted an extensive analysis of print media’s climate change coverage back to the late 1800s.

     It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.

     In addition, BMI found:
  • “Global Cooling” Was Just as Realistic: Several publications warned in the 1970s that global cooling posed a major threat to the food supply. Now, remarkably, global warming is also considered a threat to the very same food supply.
     

  • Glaciers Are Growing or Shrinking: The media continue to point to glaciers as a sign of climate change, but they have used them as examples of both cooling and warming.
     

  • Global Warming History Ignored: The media treat global warming like it’s a new idea. In fact, British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar argued that mankind was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions – in 1938. That was decades before scientists and journalists alerted the public about the threat of a new ice age.
     

  • New York Times the Worst: Longtime readers of the Times could easily recall the paper claiming “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” along with its strong support of current global warming predictions. Older readers might well recall two other claims of a climate shift back to the 1800s – one an ice age and the other warming again. The Times has warned of four separate climate changes since 1895.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming Study : CHINA'S #1, CHINA'S #1,CHINA'S #1

Go to China and See Real Pollution and it ain't just CO2(plant food)

 

Global Warming: A new study will confirm China is the world's No. 1 polluter, not including the carbon emitted by carrying around the Olympic flame. So why does the U.N. want it exempted from carbon restrictions?

In a report to be published next month in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management, a University of California, Berkeley, research team will say China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's biggest polluter and that current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China.

The report, based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency, says China probably passed the U.S. in 2006-07. The report also says China's projected emissions growth will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by the major industrial nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Not known is whether the figures include the 5,500 tons of carbon that ABC News reports the transporting of the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Olympics will put in the atmosphere. The torch is being carried to 23 cities around the globe aboard a fossil-fuel-guzzling Air China A330 jet.

The A330 burns 5.4 gallons of aviation fuel per mile and will use 462,400 gallons for the more than 85,000-mile trip. Each gallon of jet fuel burned generates 23.88 pounds of CO2. To put it in perspective, the A330 carrying the torch will generate the emissions equivalent of 550 SUVs.

This report confirms findings issued last year by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The Dutch agency reported that CO2 emissions in China rose an astounding 9% in 2006, giving that country a great leap forward over the U.S.

The Berkeley researchers say China's emissions are now growing at an annual rate of 11%. In 2006-07, China added 186,000 megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation capacity, equivalent to two United Kingdoms.

China is exempt from Kyoto as a "developing" nation, which is one of the reasons the U.S. Senate once voted 97-0 not to consider the protocol for ratification. China would love to see the U.S. economy handcuffed as it races to make this century a Chinese one.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat, wants to keep China, and India for that matter, exempt from Kyoto and similar agreements.

Nations such as China, De Boer said in an interview with the Washington Times last weekend, are "still at the beginning of development," while developed nations such as the U.S. bear "a historical responsibility" for gases generated by their economic growth.

Huh? It's OK to be developing, but bad to be developed?

De Boer seems to be admitting that restricting emissions also restricts economic growth. So why should the U.S. economy be restricted from growing, especially when it's been demonstrated that free-market economies like ours are best able to develop the technology and efficiencies to manage, even reduce, pollution?

According to the Energy Information Administration, the big, bad USA's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell by 1.3% in 2006 while our booming economy grew 3.3%.

We used energy more efficiently and reduced emissions without Kyoto. Energy use per unit of GDP fell by 4.2% that year, and carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP fell by 4.5%.

"The history of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and present-day China show a clear correlation between Big Government socialism, pollution and poverty," Patrick Michaels, co-author of "The Satanic Gases," wrote in 2002. "In freer societies, there is less government, less poverty and less pollution."

We saw this after the fall of the Soviet Union, when it became obvious that the worst despoilers of the environment were not greedy capitalists in the West but the micromanaged economies of the evil empire.

Economic growth requires energy growth, and we have often said that restricting energy growth in agreements such as Kyoto is a recipe for global poverty.

All the evidence we've seen is that such economic pain is not worth a reduction in global temperatures too small to measure.

The world does not need less energy or more regulation. It needs more freedom.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CO2 is Pollution? I Thought It Was Plant Food, Is Bush Drinking Again?

Climate Change: The president's plan to reduce carbon emissions legitimizes the environmentalist agenda of destroying the earth in order to save it. At least one scientist says we need more CO2 emissions, not less.

 

It must have seemed a good idea at the time, this attempt to blunt the global warming agenda and head off a regulatory train wreck. But President Bush's announcement Wednesday of a plan to halt growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, while not embracing all the enviro groups want, legitimizes their argument that global warming is caused by humans and an imminent threat to mankind.

As Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming," says: "All this accomplished was to legitimize the agenda, wrench the political center of the issue far to the left, and leave some very good men and women out there hanging."

It also comes at a time when an increasing number of scientists are giving warming theories a cold shoulder.

Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short-time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

But it's not nice to blame Mother Nature when you have the Industrial Revolution and the internal combustion engine as convenient scapegoats. This comes after a debate driven primarily by ideology and not by sound science. It's a way of achieving economic, political and social control that communism, another tyranny sublimating freedom to the greater good, could only dream of.

The Environmental Protection Agency already is under orders from the Supreme Court to determine if CO2, the basis for all plant and therefore animal life on Earth, is endangering the public health and welfare. If so, the EPA must regulate it and our economy.

Global warm-mongers are using the polar bear, poster pet for climate change, to force action through the Endangered Species Act. They're also trying to hijack laws such as the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Bush global warming plan, whatever its intent, will not slow them down. It merely will provide a sanctioned tree on which they can hang their ornaments.

"U.S. taxpayers are already spending $40 billion a year to address climate change," notes Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research. "And to date we're achieving better results than the Europeans are under a bureaucratic regulatory framework."

Horner agrees, pointing out that the U.S. "is the world leader in reducing the rate of growth of CO2 emissions while also growing its economy — faster on both counts, as with population as well, than its principal antagonist, Europe. "

Global warming extremists have wreaked more havoc on this planet through their policies to save it. The rush to biofuels such as ethanol has raised the price of food around the globe to the point of causing food riots. Agricultural runoff from increased cultivation is degrading rivers and coastal areas. Meanwhile, trendy "carbon offsets" turn needed Third World farmland into tree farms.

Solar scientist David Archibald recently told a Hong Kong conference on climate change that because of declining solar activity, we should be thinking of ways to increase CO2 emissions. Seems we might be heading into global cooling.

By taking ownership of the issue in this manner, Bush is only setting himself up as the fall guy for the unintended consequences to follow. Our advice to him is to cool it.
 
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Sells Out to Global Warming Kooks -Waisting Our Economy

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush on Wednesday proposed a new target for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years.

"To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter," Bush said in excerpts of the speech released early by the White House.

"By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies."

Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he'll lay out a strategy for "realistic" emission reduction targets and "principles" he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation.

The new goal for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is an attempt to short-circuit what White House aides call a potential regulatory "train wreck" if Congress doesn't act on climate change. The president's speech is aimed at shaping the debate on global warming in favor of solving the problem while avoiding heavy costs to industry and the economy.

The Bush administration has been a staunch opponent of a mandatory so- called "cap-and-trade" approach to reducing greenhouse gases. While it has backed some mandatory programs, it has preferred largely voluntary measures to broadly address global warming. In his speech, however, the president will not slam the door on discussing market-based approaches to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

"We aren't necessarily against cap-and-trade proposals," White House press secretary Dana Perino said earlier this week. But she added quickly, "What we've seen so far from Congress is not something that we can support."

The president remains opposed to a Senate bill that would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, calling that proposal unrealistic and economically harmful.

"I believe that congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Bush said. "Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share."

Bush will speak forcefully about concerns he has over a possible rush to address the Earth's warming through a hodgepodge of regulations under existing federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Senior White House officials last week told a group of conservative Republican lawmakers in a private meeting that the administration wants Congress to act on climate change to avoid regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping—or greenhouse—gases under existing laws.

The administration is concerned about a potential regulatory "train wreck" as a result of climate-related court rulings.

Several of the conservative GOP lawmakers who heard the White House presentation last week said they viewed it as a move toward endorsing a limited type of "cap-and-trade" emissions reduction proposal, targeting power plants, and a reversal of long-standing administration climate policy.

The new White House climate initiative comes as Bush appears, in the view of congressional Democrats and environmentalists, as increasingly irrelevant in the climate debate both on the domestic and international stage.

All three presidential candidates—Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain—favor a more aggressive program on climate change than does Bush, all supporting mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

Senate Democratic leaders plan to begin debate in June on legislation that would cap greenhouse gases and allow polluters to ease some of the cost by buying emissions credits. This cap-and-trade approach is aimed at cutting the emissions by 70 percent by mid-century. The House also is moving toward considering a cap-and-trade proposal. And many industry lobbyists have become resigned to some type of cap-and-trade proposal moving forward, if not this year probably next, and are trying to find ways to limit the damage.

"The key is whether the president supports a mandatory cap on emissions," said Tony Kreindler, a climate specialist at the advocacy group Environmental Defense. "You never achieve any real reductions in pollution without legal limits. That's what we're going to be looking for."

Meanwhile, many environmentalists maintain that the congressional debate may be overtaken by the courts—the same prospect the White House is fretting over.

The Environmental Protection Agency already is under orders from the Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide is endangering public health or welfare. If so, the court said, the EPA must regulate CO2 emissions.

Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas, so named because its accumulation in the atmosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dangerous warming of the planet.

At the same time, the Interior Department has been told by another court to decide whether the polar bear should be brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act because of disappearing sea ice—a phenomenon blamed by scientists on global warming.

"The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles," Bush said in prepared remarks.

"If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted. ... Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges," he said.

The United States and other countries agreed at a meeting in December in Bali, Indonesia, to work to set firm targets for reducing greenhouse emissions by the end of 2009, as a follow-up to the Kyoto reduction targets that expire in 2012.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »