MC

Source.

July 02, 2009

 

Cap-and-Trade Means Regulate and Subsidize

By Brian Sussman

 

Last week, prior to voting for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, House Republican Leader John Boehner spent the better part of an hour reading from the 1201-page bill and the associated 300-page addendum, which had been dumped on Congress' door at 3:09AM. He did so, he told The Hill, because he believed "people need to know what's in this pile of s-it."

 

Congressman Boehner was correct. There may be no better description of what's in this phony legislation, designed to supposedly halt global warming.

 

First, a couple quick facts:

 

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it's a fertilizer. It accounts for a feeble .038 percent of the atmosphere. According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the Department of Energy, only 3.2 percent of that thin atmospheric component is created by anthropogenic emissions.

The earth's temperature has only risen 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, and most of that occurred prior to the 1940s. The Thirties was the hottest decade on record, with 22 of the current 50 states having established their all-time high temperatures during that sizzling ten years. There has been no warming of the earth's climate since 1998, and in the past 18-24 months there has been a slight cooling.

 

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth, and therefore there is no need for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Climate change is simply an excuse for another massive government attempt at control and giveaways.

 

For example, buried on pages 1014-1016 of the bill is the "Monthly Energy Refund." According to this plan, for those with a gross income that "does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty line...a direct deposit," of an undisclosed amount of money, will be sent "into the eligible household's designated bank account..."

 

On pages 502-503 we find the "Low Income Community Energy Efficiency Program," whereby grants will be issued "to increase the flow of capital and benefits to low income communities, minority-owned and woman-owned businesses and entrepreneurs..."

 

Further proving this is actually a welfare scheme, on page 973 we discover that for workers who lose their manufacturing jobs because the caps on their companies are too repressive, and their employer either has to shut down, or move operations to the Third World to avoid regulation, the "adversely affected worker" shall receive 70 percent of their prior weekly wage, "payable for a period not longer than 156 weeks." In addition, on pages 986-987 we read the unemployed worker can submit up to $1,500 in job search reimbursements, and get another $1,500 to cover his moving expenses.

And then there are the new federally mandated building codes, which will supersede local rules and regulations. The new codes will be enforced by a green goon squad. On pages 319-324 we read the Secretary of Energy "shall enhance compliance by conducting training and education of builders and other professionals in the jurisdiction concerning the national energy efficiency building code." These EPA badge-wearing G-Men will be funded both through global warming revenues procured through the cap and trade scheme, as well as by $25 million designated annually from the Department of Energy "to provide necessary enforcement of a national energy efficiency building code..." (When I bought my current house, I was required to get an asbestos inspection. They found a tiny bit in the adhesive that was used to put down a floor I was ripping out. Up drives this guy in a BMW, expensive suit, nice shades. He says they have to do an "asbestos removal" required by the government. They took over my house for 3 days, put plastic up everywhere, put some sort of exhaust out the bathroom window (which didn't work and whatever they were pumping out into the AIR actually went down the bathtub drain and clogged my main sewer line), and then I got to pay them $800 (this was in 1996). I can only imagine that the inspectors will say we need to put in - new windows, new light fixtures, new switches, new everything to bring it up to code so we can sell a house (if this is passed). I agree with Boehner on this one. It's total BS!)

 

Oh, but there's more of the stinky stuff Mr. Boehner was referring to. A new office will be created at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government's primary weather body. If this bill becomes law, NOAA will have a "Climate Service Office," as described on pages 1083-1087 of the document. This new office will "ensure a continuous level of high-quality data collected through a national observation and monitoring infrastructure..."

 

Question: shouldn't NOAA already be doing this? If not, perhaps the idiotic forecasts of gloom and doom from the government's chief global warming forecaster James Hansen, who supposedly relies on NOAA products for his scare tactics, have been incorrect after all, due to corrupt data?

 

Anyone can see through this charade -- the Climate Service Office will ensure that skeptics and deniers are silenced, and that all research will be controlled and monitored to ensure that global warming is the lie of the land.

 

In a further effort to perpetrate this fraud, on page 1102 we discover the "Summer Institutes Program and the Regional Climate Center." According to the bill: "The purpose of the program is to provide training and professional enrichment by providing opportunities for interaction between participants and climate scientists in a research and operational setting to-enable middle school and high school teachers to integrate weather and climate sciences into their curricula: and encourage undergraduate students to pursue further study and careers in weather and climate sciences."

 

This is nothing but government sponsored brainwashing, folks.

 

Thank you Mr. Boehner, for saying it like it is. You, sir, are a great American. Now let's place pressure on the Senate to keep this sucker bill from passing its stinky gas.

You make excellent points, kappy22. I have two "soul mate" girlfriends (who have never met because they don't live in the same city). I can and have travelled with each of them - one more than the other. I spent a week in England with one of them and we shared a room (and a bed because just try to find a room with two beds sometimes!). We marvel at how easy it is sometimes - to travel that way. This is partly because it's "girl" dynamics. We usually want the same things and we're not in competition with each other.

 

I think that because Oprah has never married, the MSM is looking to find some dirt somewhere. "Dirt" would be for her to be hiding that she's gay - the hypocrisy would be stunning for someone whose public persona seems to demand honesty and integrity.

 

But... if Oprah just never found "the one" before she was rich, then why bother once she realized she had her own power and her own money? If she truly was molested when she was a child, she may not want a man in her life that would be hard to disentangle herself from (marriage). She's got Stedman to sort of make her look legit (and they could be good friends, who knows?) Back when they got together, it was the thing to do to make things speculation-proof, regardless if she's gay or not.

 

It's funny - the MSM seems to be so liberal and yet with things like this, they turn into little old church ladies.

And I'm rambling.

 

And kappy22, there is still time to find that soul mate girlfriend. You never know when she'll walk into your life.

 

A 309 page amendment was added to this bill at 3:09 a.m.!!

 

The "Bill of the Century" was passed UNREAD!

 

Isn't it about time we changed this sort of thing? We as the people can change this by voting out everyone who is in Washington to "play politics" instead of representing us!

 

Now it's time to write to your Senators. I'm sure the bill they get will be changed from the one that passed in the House. Maybe we can get them to read it?

Source.

 

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

 

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

 

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

 

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

 

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

 

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

 

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

 

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

 

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

 

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

 

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

I wish that they would realize that since they aren't positive about what is going on with climate change they shouldn't take any drastic actions in any direction until they are positive that action will help, not harm us. My instincts say that we really do need to wait.

Write to your Congressman. This isn't about saving the planet. This is about money. Al Gore got rich by having a stake in the companies that make this kind of new technology, then scaring the population into buying it. Or bullying people. I call them "environazis". Who can argue against harming the planet? Gore won't debate scientists, he just preaches chicken little stuff and escalates the alarm. It's easier to just go along with him and his cronies than it is to actually stand up and fight them. They're a huge lobby. One thing is for sure - if this passes, investing in the companies that get the business would seem to be a smart move.

 

I just wish our lawmakers would insist on either smaller "bills", or enough time to digest the information and discuss it.

Source.

June 24, 2009

After Global Warming

By Larrey Anderson

 

Science and ideology don't mix. They never have and they never will. The house of cards that is the science behind "climate change" is collapsing at exactly the same time it is being imposed by the Obama administration and Congress as an ideological "truth." America is facing the perfect storm of an imploding scientific theory that will be enforced by the rule of law.

 

Make no mistake: the big bad wolf of truth is about to blow the straw house of global warming to bits. This is why there was a sudden shift, in the last nine months, from the use of "man made global warming" to "climate change" by the proponents of the theory.

 

The scientific tug of war over whether or not the planet is heating or cooling has been going on for over 100 years. The difference between the past and our current situation is that governments around the world are passing (or attempting to pass) draconian laws and enforcing (or attempting to enforce) authoritarian treaties in order to "regulate" the planet's temperature.

 

The predictions of impending doom are nothing new. Business and Media Institute published an article titled "Fire and Ice" that details the media's historical treatment of the debate. The article includes these two charts of historical time lines that say it all:

 

 

I predicted months ago (in a couple of different places), "Man made global warming" would be replaced with the new term "climate change." The reason for this shift: the proponents of man made global warming are having a tough time with the evidence.

 

The original hypothesis foretold, and the computer models affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. The exponential increase in CO2 is, apparently, occurring; but the exponential increase in temperature (predicted as a result of the increase in CO2) is not.

 

The earth's overall temperature in the last several years has either remained steady or slightly decreased -- depending on which side of the issue is interpreting the data. No one is maintaining that the world is getting warmer and warmer every single year, which was the initial prediction.

 

Nevertheless, the current administration is risking America's economic future on "green" energy in an effort to solve an unproven crisis. The cap and trade legislation is moving ahead in spite of the fact that the United States is already one of the leading nations in curtailing CO2 output.

 

Other countries, which are rapidly expanding their manufacturing base, are doing exactly the opposite. China, for example, now uses more coal for producing power than the US, Europe, and Japan combined. President Obama, on the other hand, has openly called for the destruction of the coal industry in the United States.

 

Obama wants to build windmills instead:

 

We're going to have to, I think, invest heavily in clean energy. And if we have a cap and trade system, we can generate $150 billion over ten years to invest in solar and wind and biodiesel and train people to build windmills and build solar panels and make buildings more energy efficient. And make alternative fuels.

There are two problems with the President's approach. Windmills don't reduce the amount of CO2 (if that is really the issue) and windmills don't provide nearly the amount of energy promised.

 

The President has promised to pump billions of dollars into new "green" energy systems. Hundreds of companies will lay claim to the federal dollars and America will soon have a new Silicon Valley that produces windmills and solar panels. The problem with this strategy is that, absent subsidies and regulations, there is no real market anywhere in the world for these products.

 

So while America fails to provide inexpensive and reliable energy sources that would attract and hold real manufacturing in the United States, countries like, China, Japan, India (and even most countries in Europe) will move, full steam ahead, with fuels including nuclear, coal, and natural gas. These are far more efficient forms of energy production than wind or solar.

 

Look down the road America. In ten years, energy prices in the United States are going to go through the roof. China, by comparison, will have less expensive (and more abundant) energy, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Who, in his or her right mind, would start a new manufacturing company in the US when faced with such obstacles?

 

How much will this new cleaner energy cost the average citizen? CNN recently reported:

 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under a hypothetical cap and trade law, this would cost a household an average of $1,600 a year for the first ten years...

 

This means that every family in America will be paying more money for less reliable energy.

 

Obama's proposal is based on environmental ideology -- not on science. He has proposed a system that is guaranteed, in the long run, to provide fewer jobs and more expensive energy for all Americans.

 

That is a lot of change ... and no hope.

 

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved , and the new memoir , Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

Source.

 

 

Gov't posts sensitive list of US nuclear sites

 

 

Jun 3, 7:59 AM (ET)

 

By EILEEN SULLIVAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of all civilian nuclear sites and their activities in the United States.

The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to the U.S. Congress. According to the document, the list was required by law and will be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."

While there is security at the facilities, the list could presumably be useful for terrorists or anyone else who would like to harm the United States.

The publication of the list was first reported in an online secrecy newsletter Monday.

The document details the location of the nuclear sites and what is being done there.

For instance, there are nuclear reactors at the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh, Pa. This facility is currently working on research into what happens when there are accidents with the nuclear reactors. The project started in 2006 and is expected to end in 2012, according to the document.

The document was posted on the Government Printing Office Web site, and has since been removed.

TubaGirl, your avatar is hysterical!

Source.

 

Liberty Co., FAA to discuss report of object near plane

By MIKE GLENN Copyright 2009 HOUSTON CHRONICLE

June 1, 2009, 11:38PM

 

Liberty County Sheriff’s officials are expected to meet with the FAA on Tuesday to discuss what a Continental Express pilot reported as a “missile or rocket” flying near his airplane.

A pilot reported to the Federal Aviation Administration that at about 8:15 p.m. Friday, an object passed within 150 feet beneath the aircraft, sheriff’s officials said.

The aircraft was near the southern edge of the county, flying at about 13,000 feet, officials said.

 

“The pilot, from what we understand, was former military. He was able to get the coordinates down real quick,” said Cpl. Hugh Bishop with the Liberty County Sheriff’s Department.

Sheriff’s deputies searched Friday night for signs of evidence where a missile might have been launched or landed.

“We couldn’t find anything,” Bishop said.

I'm a huge green tea drinker (drink about half a gallon of it a day) and would love to try this stuff. Where can I get it - any place online?

I drink that amount of green tea every day as well. I can't wait to hear about this new stuff though.

A very interesting theory can be found here.

I hate that Juliette is gone because now the love triangle with Sawyer, Kate, and Jack will continue. And I really thought Sawyer and Juliette made a great match during the 3 years together. I really like Sawyer more and more each season.

I like Juliette too. Maybe Sawyer will carry a torch for her and Kate will pine for him, but never be able to get him back. That is IF they do anything more than land safely in LA. LOL.

Or it's going to be like Groundhog Day and the end will be like galaxygirl said, and it will end at the beginning.

Source.

 

 

May 13, 2009

The Coming Ice Age

By David Deming

 

Those who ignore the geologic perspective do so at great risk. In fall of 1985, geologists warned that a Columbian volcano, Nevado del Ruiz, was getting ready to erupt. But the volcano had been dormant for 150 years. So government officials and inhabitants of nearby towns did not take the warnings seriously. On the evening of November 13, Nevado del Ruiz erupted, triggering catastrophic mudslides. In the town of Armero, 23,000 people were buried alive in a matter of seconds.

 

For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or interglacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.

 

We don't know what causes ice ages to begin or end. In 1875, a janitor turned geologist, James Croll, proposed that small variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun were responsible for climate change. This idea enjoyed its greatest heyday during the 1970s, when ocean sediment cores appeared to confirm the theory. But in 1992, Ike Winograd and his colleagues at the US Geological Survey falsified the theory by demonstrating that its predictions were inconsistent with new, high-quality data.

 

The climate of the ice ages is documented in the ice layers of Greenland and Antarctica. We have cored these layers, extracted them, and studied them in the laboratory. Not only were ice ages colder than today, but the climates were considerably more variable. Compared to the norm of the last million years, our climate is remarkably warm, stable and benign. During the last ice age in Greenland abrupt climatic swings of 30 °F were common. Since the ice age ended, variations of 3 °F are uncommon.

 

For thousands of years, people have learned from experience that cold temperatures are detrimental for human welfare and warm temperatures are beneficial. From about 1300 to 1800 AD, the climate cooled slightly during a period known as the Little Ice Age. In Greenland, the temperature fell by about 4 °F. Although trivial, compared to an ice age cooling of 50 °F, this was nevertheless sufficient to wipe out the Viking colony there.

 

In northern Europe, the Little Ice Age kicked off with the Great Famine of 1315. Crops failed due to cold temperatures and incessant rain. Desperate and starving, parents ate their children, and people dug up corpses from graves for food. In jails, inmates instantly set upon new prisoners and ate them alive.

 

The Great Famine was followed by the Black Death, the greatest disaster ever to hit the human race. One-third of the human race died; terror and anarchy prevailed. Human civilization as we know it is only possible in a warm interglacial climate. Short of a catastrophic asteroid impact, the greatest threat to the human race is the onset of another ice age.

 

The oscillation between ice ages and interglacial periods is the dominant feature of Earth's climate for the last million years. But the computer models that predict significant global warming from carbon dioxide cannot reproduce these temperature changes. This failure to reproduce the most significant aspect of terrestrial climate reveals an incomplete understanding of the climate system, if not a nearly complete ignorance.

Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.

 

Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to be entering a new period of quiescence. August of 2008 was the first month since the year 1913 that no sunspots were observed. As I write, the sun remains quiet. We are in a cooling trend. The areal extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean.

We have heard much of the dangers of global warming due to carbon dioxide. But the potential danger of any potential anthropogenic warming is trivial compared to the risk of entering a new ice age. Public policy decisions should be based on a realistic appraisal that takes both climate scenarios into consideration.

 

David Deming is a geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

Source.

 

Oprah: It’s Great to Have a Private Jet

 

By Robert Frank

 

The private-jet industry may have finally found its savior.

 

During a speech to Duke University’s graduating class, Oprah talked about the secrets and joys of success. Among them: owning a mansion and a jet.

 

Bombardier

 

“It’s great to have a nice home. It’s great to have nice homes! It’s great to have a nice home that just escaped the fire in Santa Barbara,” she told the students. “It’s great to have a private jet. Anyone that tells you that having your own private jet isn’t great is lying to you.”

 

She went on to explain that “you haven’t completed the circle of success until you help someone else move to a higher ground and get to a better place.”

 

The golden nugget here is the jet part. In these times of hair-shirt capitalism and envy politics, the wealthy have been going to great lengths to pretend they don’t enjoy luxury or want nice stuff. If Oprah were like most of the faux-populist rich today, she would have said something like, “I don’t need private jets, in fact I’m happier flying commercial and living in a small house. I like the simple life.” Of course, she would be lying.

 

But she didn’t. She told the truth, which is that flying in a private jet is one of the great material perks that money can buy. (Talk to anyone who used to be rich and they will say one thing they really miss is the jet. Apparently Oprah’s ride is a $42 million custom-build Global Express XRS built by Bombardier Aerospace).

 

For the past few months, the private-jet industry has been mounting an enormous public-relations campaign to get people to fly private again. It will take a recovery and wealth creation to really turn the business around. Perhaps for the public-relations part, it should forget all the boring arguments about jobs and productivity and efficiency and run a picture of Oprah with one simple line: “It’s Great to Have a Private Jet.”

I predict.....

 

 

That the show will end (the last season) with the island being "fixed" and therefore none of it happened, and the flight will land in LA as originally intended, and everyone will go their separate ways, not knowing each other.

I'm reading Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levine.

His view of what "true" conservatives believe in.

Heavy but interesting to read

I may have to check that one out, basal. It has been on the NYT Best Seller list since it came out (they must hate that LOL).

Source.

 

 

May 04, 2009

Discovered: 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

James Lewis

Good news for America undermines the green energy agenda. The Wall Street Journal reports a huge new discovery of natural gas --- a fossil fuel so clean even liberals can stand it.

 

"CADDO PARISH, La. -- A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation's energy landscape. After an era of declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas."

 

"Even conservative estimates suggest the Louisiana discovery -- known as the Haynesville Shale, for the dense rock formation that contains the gas -- could hold some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That's the equivalent of 33 billion barrels of oil, or 18 years' worth of current U.S. oil production. Some industry executives think the field could be several times that size.

 

... Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current U.S. natural-gas demand."

 

Good news, right? It's good for consumers, it's good for the country and the economy, and it's good for the world's resources. It's a great compliment to those who have worked hard for the technical advances that made this discovery possible. It shows (again!) that better exploration techniques pay off in huge new discoveries. A dollar invested in natural gas exploration pays off a heck of a lot more than the same dollar in Green Fantasyland.

 

But ... it's bad for the Fear Industry ... it's bad for our media airheads, who have to think of whole new scare headlines ... it's bad for the Green Doom Brigade ... it's bad for that brilliant new all-electrical vehicle ... it's terrible for Governor Arnie's vision of a Hydrogen Economy for California ... and it's very upsetting to all the suckers who have fallen for the global warming scam.

 

Bottom line: Good for real people, bad for Greenophobiacs.

 

I'll take that tradeoff.

A radio talk show had a caller who used to be a mechanic on Air Force One. He said that Air Force One and One-b are always together (to have a spare) and that there's no way that second plane would have gone off by itself unless the White House authorized it. It's there to evacuate the President if there's an emergency. So somebody is lying here. At least I hope so. Because of even bigger concern to me would be if the President really didn't know that his spare plane was being taken for a ride. Of course the cynic in me wonders if Rahm wanted to create another little crisis so he can make sure it doesn't go to waste.

 

Source.

 

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic

Threatened Federal Sanctions Against NYPD, Secret Service, FBI & Mayor's Office If Secret Ever Got Out

 

 

Marcia Kramer NEW YORK (CBS) ―

 

A furious President Barack Obama ordered an internal review of Monday's low-flying photo op over the Statue of Liberty.

 

CBS 2 HD has discovered the feds will have plenty to question.

 

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

 

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

 

What are your feelings on federal officials demanding the NYC flyover be kept secret by the NYPD and the mayor's office?

 

"To say that it should not be made public knowing that it might scare people it's just confounding," Sen. Charles Schumer said. "It's what gives Washington and government a bad name. It's sheer stupidity."

 

The flyover -- apparently ordered by the White House Office of Military Affairs so it would have souvenir photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background -- had President Obama seeing red. He ordered a probe and apologized.

 

"It was a mistake. It will never happen again," President Obama said.

 

The NYPD was so upset about the demand for secrecy that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly vowed never to follow such a directive again and he accused the feds of inciting fears of a 9/11 replay.

 

"Did it show an insensitivity to the psychic wounds New York City has after 9/11? Absolutely. No questions about it. It was quite insensitive," Kelly said.

 

The cost of the frivolous flight was about $60,000 an hour and that was just for Air Force One. That doesn't include the cost of the two F-16s that came along. Our tax dollars at work folks! They berate the auto execs for using their own planes to travel to D.C. but we get to pay for this photo op that scared the sh!t out of NYC. Remarkable.

 

The mayoral aide who neglected to tell Mayor Michael Bloomberg about it was reprimanded.

What a f*** up! I feel so sorry for the people in those buildings!

 

Source.

 

Apr 27, 2009 11:10 am US/Eastern

Military Jets Flying Over NYC Part Of Photo Shoot

FAA Confirms F-16s, 747 Seen Flying Near Statue Of Liberty Affiliated With Department of Defense Photo Op

 

CBS 2 Flooded With Phone Calls From Concerned Residents, Workers

NEW YORK (CBS) ―

 

Hooray For The Red, White And Zooom! 2009 Celebrity Deaths More Openly Gay Celebrities Celebrities Separated At Birth? Jessica Simpson: Then & Now Celebs Who Lean To The Right Funniest Caption Contest Hottest Female Athletes Best Picture Blunders Hottest Celebrity Moms Some military aircraft flying over lower Manhattan caused a brief scare for residents, workers, and pedestrians on Monday, but CBS 2 has learned the jets were part of a Department of Defense photo shoot and that there is no threat to the city.

 

According to many callers who flooded CBS 2 with their concerns, at about 10 a.m. the aircraft were seen flying at low altitudes over the Statue of Liberty and parts of lower Manhattan. The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed that two F-16s escorting a Boeing 747 that beared a similar appearance to Air Force One were part of the Department of Defense photo shoot.

 

Did You See The Jets? Tell Us What You Saw & Upload Your Pictures, Video Here

 

 

Many residents and workers who saw the aircraft evacuated their buildings as a result, but officials say there is no reason for a panic.

 

Ellen in Bayonne, N.J. described what she saw to WCBSTV.com: "I saw the jet flying very very low over the Hudson river, it looked like it was going to fly through our office window. Then it banked sharply toward New Jersey. But our building was evacuated because it did this 3 times. A photo shoot should have been communicated to the building in the area. We haven't forgotten 9/11, people were in a panic, lots of rumors, not a good situation."

Air Force officials say this was a photo mission for their crew. They were shooting from the Statue of Liberty to south of the Holland tunnel, as well as from the Newark Bay to north of the Staten Island Expressway.

 

Officials say the shoot was part of a normal training mission. They added that they do these mission quite often.

 

Here are some other descriptions sent in to WCBSTV.com by witnesses:

 

David Frank of Jersey City wrote: "I work in 30 Hudson, which is the largest building in NJ and is right on the water facing the Statue of Liberty. I ran out of the building after a stampede of people began running out of the building as they saw the jumbo jet being followed by two fighter planes veer sharply towards our building and climb right over it. By the time I got outside, it was coming around for its THIRD pass, and I watched it level off below building height over the water and then once again veer sharply towards the building. Several hundred of us began to run away fearing for our lives before it climbed steeply and flew over our building. Whoever thought that this 'photo op' was a good idea should be removed from command...why couldn't this simply be done with Photo Shop? Hollywood can create an entire armageddon on film but the US military can't photo shop a plane by the Statue of Liberty?"

 

Patrick Kennell of NYC wrote: "We saw a low-flying 747 buzz the Southwest edge of Manhattan, at Battery Park City, with a fighter jet appearing to chase it on its left wing. At about Rector Street or so, it took a hard left and looked to be headed straight for Jersey City. It flew over J.C., turned south, and continued to climb over Newark. It left our sight, only to return on the same path a second time about five minutes later. It was confusing and panicked the office. We dialed 9-1-1 and considered whether to evacuate. We were told by 9-1-1 that it was 'authorized' to be there. We later learned, from your website, that it was part of a DOD 'photo op.' NotifyNYC advises it was 'part of an approved federal activity.' To conduct a 'photo op,' unwarned in advance to Lower Manhattan residents and workers, in that manner was completely irresponsible."

 

Nancy in Lower Manhattan wrote: "Our building, One New York Plaza, was evacuated, as were most of the high rises in this area. How could the US MILITARY think that NYers wouldn't be alarmed by low-flying jets? Why was the city not notified beforehand?"

 

Stay with wcbstv.com and CBS 2 HD for more on this developing story.

Gore, gored.

 

It's 29 pages long (but very large print). It's Lord Monckton's answers to Gore's assertions.

 

I heard Lord Monckton on the radio the other day and he said that he was allowed to speak before Congress a few years ago, and he believes that the reason they won't let him come back is because they know he's correct. Imagine if the "global warming" or "climate change" had nothing to do with our gasoline, lightbulbs, or lifestyles? Then what? See? They NEED this to be true. Too many people are making billions off this "climate change" phenomenon. I know I'm a huge cynic, but I've lived through the eras of giving up paper bags for plastic bags - and now going back! I lived through the decade of the global cooling scare. This has just been more perfectly engineered and managed. And because of the internet - more people have access to this misinformation.

All of this global warming (conveniently now "climate change") hysteria started with Al Gore's movie. How is it that he will not debate the issue with anyone? What do you think that says about him and his theories?

 

Source.

 

April 24, 2009

House Democrats shield Gore from debate on warming

Thomas Lifson

 

The scandalous refusal of Al Gore to debate his contentions on global warming continues today, as House Democrats reportedly shielded him from testifying alongside Lord Christopher Monckton in a high profile hearing today. Climate Depot has an exclusive report:

 

UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

 

Sooner or later, it will become obvious to most Americans that a case so weak it cannot be debated with an informed skeptic is not worth wrecking the economy for.

Grey Gardens is sitting in my DVR list, waiting to be viewed. This gives me much more motivation to watch it!

Source.

 

April 24, 2009

Global Warmists' Sly Polar Disorder

By Marc Sheppard

 

 

If there’s one thing climate alarmists have become quite good at, it’s retrofitting both their computer models and the climate phenomena those models predict whenever they fail to do so correctly. And whether projecting increases in temperature, sea levels or atmospheric carbon dioxide – that means often. But some of the most brazen intellectual corruption warmists have committed under fire concerns the sometimes polar opposite trends of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

 

Back in 2005, NASA attempted to excuse the failure of their climate models to predict continued southern ice expansion as an omission of the “snow-to-ice conversion” process in their programming. Once that algorithm was incorporated, they insisted, their models properly recognized the phenomena as completely consistent with warming predictions, and they offered this assurance:

 

“A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.”

Two years later, alarmists everywhere were screaming about what horrors the opening of the Northwest Passage would portend. It seems the lowest level of Arctic ice since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago had actually created the fabled Arctic Ocean shipping lane that had eluded explorers from John Cabot in 1497 to Henry Hudson in 1609 and beyond. That could only mean one thing --- frightened pundits warned -- global warming of unprecedented magnitude was unquestionably upon us.

 

But as I pointed out then, while it was true that satellite photos had found an ice-free corridor along Canada, Alaska and Greenland and Northern Hemisphere ice at its lowest level since such images were taken in 1978, it was also true that Antarctic ice levels (Southern Hemisphere) were at record highs for that same period. And that fact was being completely ignored in the headlines.

 

Consequently -- all eyes were directed to the catastrophe looming in our northern waters.

 

Fortunately for realists, since the Northwest Passage hysteria of 2007, Arctic ice has made a rapid comeback, as you can see from this DMI Centre for Ocean and Ice graph, constructed from Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility data. In fact, the 2009 Arctic ice extent appears to be well on track to exceed the previous four years.

 

 

 

So why do we continue to hear warnings about receding Arctic ice? How is that possible when the extent is quickly approaching its 1979-2000 mean? Simple -- the rules have changed again. It’s no longer the area of the ice that counts, but rather the volume. You see, thicker winter ice is better able to survive the summer and in turn help cool the planet while reflecting sunlight back into space. And, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), “This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February.”

 

So there’s a new metric in town -- The ice that has been forming at a record pace since the 2007 record low simply doesn’t count because it’s not yet as thick and “effective” as older ice.

 

And that nonsense somehow gives cover to a mainstream media (MSM) that, despite continually expanding ice, dutifully repeat the retrofitted analysis in headlines the likes of Arctic ice is thinner than ever according to new evidence from explorers and Arctic ice continues to shrink and thin and of course Arctic will be ice-free within a decade.

 

Pretty slick, huh?

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, ice area is nearly 30% above normal and last year managed to set another record maximum. Sounds like great news. But for some strange reason, the MSM have again all but ignored all that southern in favor of the northern ice.

 

Perhaps that’s about to change. You see, just as in 2005, the greenhouse gas crowd have come up with an explanation for global warming’s polar opposition. But this time, they’re not compelled to blame “snow-to-ice conversion” or any similar modeling oversight. And no perilous expeditions await intrepid green explorers in order to challenge the quality of the growing ice. No, this time warmists can blame the disparity entirely on their favorite villain -- mankind.

 

Now, you’re probably wondering just how even alarmist logic might reconcile mankind’s accountability for shrinking (even though it isn’t) ice in the North and simultaneous expanding ice in the South. Here’s how:

 

A study published Wednesday by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) confirms that Antarctic ice is indeed continuing to expand. But does that suggest there’s no global warming taking place? Quite the contrary, insists lead author John Turner. Actually, there’s another phenomenon that’s temporarily canceling out warming’s effects -- the hole in the ozone layer. That’s right, the “depletion of the protective ozone layer has altered wind patterns and caused temperatures in most of the southern continent to fall so that more cold air flows over the Southern Ocean, freezing the water.”

 

And according to the report, that accounts for every bit of southern hemisphere ocean ice cover increase over the past 30 years. Strangely, the report puts that growth at about 1% per decade, while the NSIDC calculates that rate at nearly 5%. But why quibble? I’m sure it must have been an honest mistake.

 

Anyway, here’s the real beauty of this new study.

 

As Dr. Turner explains:

"While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic, human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice.”

 

Outstanding play, that.

 

Point One -- Our gas-guzzling SUVs and coal-fired power stations release CO2 into the atmosphere. Point Two -- According to more than a few scientists those additional molecules are wholly or partially to blame for the late 20th century warming period. Point Three -- Our air-conditioners, hairsprays and deodorants once released chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere. Point Four -- Most scientists blame their stratospheric decomposition for depletion of the planet’s vital Ozone Layer and the Ozone hole in the polar vortex over Antarctica.

 

Conclusion -- The selfish actions that melt northern sea ice would do the same to southern sea ice were it not for yet another group of our selfish actions. What exquisite eco-perfection.

 

Mind you, BAS’s is not an entirely new theory. In April of last year, a joint study by the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA also predicted that “Ozone Hole recovery may reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change and amplify Antarctic warming.” But it would appear that somehow, the political potential of the ice extent correlation took a while to sink in.

 

Of course, as with all things which dare stall the symptoms of the impending global warming doom predicted by their infallible climate models, this one too will be conveniently short-lived and therefore depicted to in no way preclude immediate and extreme action. In 1987, CFCs were banned under an international treaty called the Montreal Protocol. As CFCs have rather long atmospheric lifetimes, scientists predict another 50 years before all those previously released fully dissipate from the stratosphere, allowing ozone concentrations, and the Ozone layer, to stabilize.

 

Says Turner: "We expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the century, and by then there is likely to be around one-third less Antarctic sea ice."

 

Of course there is, Doc.

 

And as soon as the already 9-year-old Modern Solar Minimum we’re evidently experiencing ends, normal sunspot activity will resume. And when the current 20-30 year cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ends, Pacific Ocean surface temperature reduction will end with it.

 

And all that natural cooling will leave more substance frozen at both poles, and significantly less substance to the already gossamer anthropogenic global warming theory.

 

But in the meantime, I doubt we'll wait much longer for the MSM to suddenly discover Antarctica.

 

 

 

 

Marc Sheppard is the editor of AT’s forthcoming Environment Thinker.

Source.

 

Energy Secretary Offers Dire Global Warming Prediction

Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change.

 

By Major Garrett

FOXNews.com

Sunday, April 19, 2009

 

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- Caribbean nations face "very, very scary" rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Saturday.

 

Chu's comments followed meetings with environmental ministers attending the fifth Summit of the Americas. He did not shy away from the most perilous predictions about the potential effects of global warming.

 

He said global temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree Centigrade, that another 1 degree increase was certain to occur and "there's a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more."

 

Chu painted a dire picture of the implications.

 

"So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It's not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It's not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out," Chu said.

 

"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear," he added.

 

Chu said the United States would not be spared, either.

 

"Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that," Chu said.

 

He said a rise in levels of one meter, coastal areas around Florida around Louisiana would move much farther inland.

 

"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous," he said.

 

Conservative climate change skeptics immediately denounced Chu's assessment of the threat and potential consequences of global warming.

 

"Secretary Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of 'evidence' of a looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

 

"Secretary Chu's assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12, 2008: There is 'no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.'"

 

Morano said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at 30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT's Kerry Emanuel and Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "are now backing off their previous dire predictions."

 

He said Chu is out of date on the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary.

Susan Boyle. Click here.