Glaciers As Global Warming Drama, Part Of The Big Lie

The nonsense about man-caused global warming and climate change just keeps coming.  It is the grandest hoax of our age, and that is saying a lot.  What is the latest outrage to irk me?  Glaciers.  Plain old ice.

Everyone responds to dramatic effects.  The news media knows that.  Hollywood knows that.  We are a culture bred to respond to video or photographic images.  Man was first influenced by verbal story tellers, then accompanied by song, then came the written word, then the drawn or painted visual word, followed by photographs, then moving photographs, now video and everything digitized and available anywhere at the speed of light. 

This is why glaciers are used so often to depict "catastrophic" global warming, because they are visual, huge, dramatic, and awe-inspiring.  Imagine, people take cruises to places like Alaska, Patagonia, Argentina, and Antarctica, for what?  To see big ice cubes (glaciers) melt.  Then they attribute the melting to man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Apparently, many people are so awed by this melting ice they are willing to open their wallets and freely give money to those who promise stop the calamity of big melting ice cubes.  This melting and freezing of glacial ice has always been going on.  It is nothing new.  Al Gore did not invent it.  It is not a catastrophe because President Obama's teleprompter says so, or because John Kerry is instructed to say it is.  It all sounds insane, doesn't it.  Well, it is.

Why do they continue lying to us about global warming and climate change as being (or implied to be) man-caused in articles like the following? The only answer is we are being manipulated. What is the reason? If this effort is based on lies, it is wrong, and our money (taxes) are being taken unfairly and we ought to be outraged. Can it be much simpler than that? Are we so afraid to dissent and disagree that we march along like sheep to the slaughter? Have we as a people, as a nation, sunk so low, become so passive, so obedient? I hope not, even if recent election results seem to indicate otherwise.
Peter

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.U6uKCjco6eQ

"THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?"

 

(Is the above statement from the linked article complete sensationalist nonsense, or what?  Of course it is, and it is typical of what our young people are being fed and considered science.  Think of what a steady diet of this poison does.  And we wonder why people vote the way they do?  Peter)

The Big Lie: Global Warming And Climate Change, cont'd.

Man-Caused Global Warming And Climate Change: A Monstrous Lie

It is well known and documented that Alpine Glaciers (those found in mountainous areas) have advanced and retreated many times in recordable history.  This is history witnessed and written of by man during the past approximate 5,000 years.  There is unmistakable and unarguable evidence these glaciers have advanced and retreated many times since the end of the last Ice Age, when Continental Ice Sheets covered much of the Polar Regions and the Northern Hemisphere.  Something caused this glacial retreat, or melting, and it wasn't man-caused.  At least this melting occurred before he burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

These were also at least as rapid climate changes as we see in the world today.  So what is unique about current events?  Why are we in such a frenzy to "stop climate change"?  It is nothing unusual, unless we're being scared and panicked by fear?  Is it so we will happily, or a least willingly, pay more taxes, carbon taxes or otherwise, to solve this imaginary warming problem?  We should be worried, but not about global warming.
Peter

Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentine Patagonia

Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

Tuesday, 17 Jun 2014 07:59 AM

By Larry Bell

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

 

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

 

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

 

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

 

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

 

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

 

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

 

 

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

 

Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

 

Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

 

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

 

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

 

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

 

Yes. That should worry everyone.

 

Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.

see more

19 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

All "Environmentalists"....Read With Care

The following article accurately sums up the sad state of affairs surrounding the entire sordid man-caused global warming fiasco.  It has and is costing humanity dearly.  Let's hope we wake up in time to recover.  I have been preaching and pleading for people to listen to these truths for years.
Peter

The Greying of Green?

Posted By David Solway On May 16, 2012 @ 12:30 am In "Green" tech,economy,Elections 2012,Politics,Science & Technology,US News | 11 Comments

original here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-greying-of-green/

It has been reliably estimated by many researchers into the subject of “Global Warming” (or any of the other sobriquets by which it is known) that in fulfilling the draconian prescriptions of the Kyoto Accord or its successors, such as the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world, the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels, and the inhabitants of the Third World will be deprived of the minimal immunities, comforts, and amenities to which they aspire.

Fiona Kobusingye, coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, has vehemently denounced the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming. “These policies kill,” she writes. As for the combustible Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.” Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral. It is a crime against humanity” (Townhall.com., July 29, 2009). Her article is a must read. Graced with common sense and logical reasoning, it is one of the best puncturings of the hot air balloon in the relevant literature.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the nonprofit National Center for Policy Analysis, would clearly agree. He correctly argues that recommendations based on “flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles” should be taken “into account before enacting laws to counter global warming—which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.” Such consequences are already in evidence. Benny Peiser, editor of CCNet science network, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 climate conference in New York, sounded the death knell of the green movement in Europe owing to huge costs and minimal results (Climate Realists, March 11, 2009). Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon quotes Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada, whose studies show that “every green job created ploughs under 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy” and that green jobs are proving to be unsustainable since the creation of even one such job costs $1 million in government subsidies (National Post, March 31, 2009).

These are costs that may be suffered in other, frankly ludicrous, ways as well. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its 2008 Annual Report, published in 2009, jubilates over the replacement of motorized vehicles by “bicycle rickshaws”—which, it must be admitted, will certainly help to decongest metropolitan traffic. That it would reduce America and the West to Third World Status does not trouble UNEP overmuch. Perhaps that is the plan.

The much-ballyhooed T. Boone Pickens strategy of introducing large-scale windmill technology is now proving to be a similarly quixotic project, unsightly, land-consuming, bird-killing, neurosis-inducing, expensive and totally inadequate to its declared purpose of meeting even a fraction of our electricity needs. Alex Alexiev of the Hudson Institute has laid the cards on the table for all to read: green electricity bills are rising exponentially; Europe is gradually abandoning many of its green energy programs as cost-ineffective and injurious to both wildlife and human health; and, as of the end of 2008, American solar and wind-power stocks had lost 80% of their value (FrontPage Magazine, March 31, 2009). Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission has rejected a deal to build an offshore wind farm that would have entailed “hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs…” (The Providence Journal, March 31, 2010). New Zealand has repealed its carbon tax scheme and Australia’s opposition party is vowing to follow suit.

The writing is on the wall in majuscule ^[1]. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has closed shop, putting an end to its estimated $10 trillion carbon trading scheme. In August 2011, President Obama’s pet green project, the California-based Solyndra solar plant, filed for bankruptcy, costing the U.S. $535 million in wasted stimulus funds and 1,100 jobs (NBC Bay Area, August 31, 2011). Other such futilities are impending. The Beacon Power Corp, recipient of a $43 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, has filed for bankruptcy after being delisted by the NASDAQ (Moneynews, October 31, 2011). The solar cell company Spectrawatt, recipient of a federal stimulus boost, and Nevada Geothermal, which profited from Federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies, are on the brink of failure (FrontPage Magazine, January 26, 2012.) Ener 1, which received a $118 million stimulus grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop lithium storage batteries for electric cars, has filed for bankruptcy protection (Bloomberg Businessweek, February 2, 2012). This is bad news for the plug-in Chevy Volt, the president’s car of choice, which is beset with problems anyway; GM had to suspend production to cut inventory owing to anemic sales (Left Lane Online, March 2, 2012).

Abound Solar, which makes cadmium telluride solar modules to the tune of a $400 million federal loan guarantee, has laid off 300 workers, amounting to 70% of its workforce (New York Post, March 10, 2012). And now the electric vehicle battery company A123 Systems, beneficiary of $300 million in Obama’s Recovery Act funds and $135 million in state tax credits and subsidies, courtesy of Michigan’s former Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, is about to go belly up—another instance, to use Michelle Malkin’s term, of a smart grid, crony-inspired “enviro-boodle” (National Review Online, March 30, 2012).

The reason for many of these failures in green energy-production companies is simple. As noted environmental consultant and author Rich Trzupek explains, the energy density of convertible wind and solar is risibly low and dispersed, which renders electricity-generating power plants, whether large or small, “the most inefficient, least reliable, and expensive form of power we have” (FrontPage Magazine, March 23, 2012). As happened in Spain, Europe’s bellwether country for climatophrenic ruination, Obama’s “solar alchemy,” which demonizes traditional forms of energy extraction and application, has become a recipe for an American economic debacle.

Finnish professor Jarl Ahlbeck, a former Greenpeace member and author of over 200 scientific publications, points out that “real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” Contrary to common belief, he continues, “there has been no or little global warming since 1995” (Facts and Arts, November 25, 2008). His findings have been supported by many other studies. To adduce just a few instances: geophysicist Phil Chapman, basing his results on careful analyses from major weather-tracking agencies, reports that global temperature is “falling precipitously” (The Australian, April 23, 2008); geologist Don Easterbrook, associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University and former U.S. representative to UNESCO, is also convinced that recent solar changes suggest the advent of a new cooling cycle which could be “fairly severe” (GlobalResearch, November 2, 2008); and a new study conducted by three Norwegian scientists, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum, indicates that the next solar cycle, which is imminent, will see a “significant temperature decrease” over and above the current decline (Climate Depot, March 7, 2012).

Moreover, as Robert Zubrin has decisively shown in his recent Merchants of Despair ^[2], there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth’s climate is a stable system,   (I've been saying this for years now, Peter)  that CO₂ emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul, and that under cyclical conditions of global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life immensely improves.

In a brilliant article for the Financial Post (April 21, 2012) analyzing the eleven logical fallacies on which the argument for man-made climate change rests, Lord Christopher Monckton, known for tracking and exposing scientific hoaxes, has effectively proven that the anthropogenic thesis has absolutely no basis, neither in fact nor in theory. So-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology. It takes no less courage and perhaps even more for a climate “Warmist” to buck the trend, as culture-hero James Lovelock has recently done. Lovelock, who in his 2006 The Revenge of Gaia ^[3] prophesied the charring of the planet, now admits he had been “extrapolating too far.” Despite predictably hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future, he avers that “we don’t know what the climate is doing” and disparages his previous work, including Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth ^[4] and Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers ^[5], as “alarmist” (MSNBC.com, April 30, 2012).

Nevertheless, the Global Warming meme continues to circulate in defiance of the accumulating evidence, which leads one to wonder who the real “deniers” are. In my own country of Canada, “Warmist” foundations are determined to continue issuing environmental fatwas, in particular to tie up state-of-the-art, economically productive oil pipelines in endless litigation. That such a move would impact national revenues and cost thousands of potential jobs is a matter of no concern.

But the problem does not extend only to adversarial institutions and fellow-traveling NGOs. In other respects, Canadian governing parties, on both the federal and provincial levels, have not yet caught on to the perilous, impractical and pixilated nature of the Green crusade. Unsightly, government approved wind farms, for example, are literally driving people crazy and adding steeply to electricity bills.

Despite being hyped by the left-leaning CBC News (May 22, 2008), solar energy installations and SpongeBob-looking photovoltaic panels disfiguring the landscape do not seem like a reasonable prop
osition in a country already burdened by a dark, six month winter, as the Ontario Power Authority will shortly discover. Government and industry supporters, to cite the enthusiastic CBC report, base their projections on the presumed success of the German model. But there is a slight hitch, namely, the German solar experiment is a possible “government boondoggle,” is “cost-inefficient,” ^[6] will soon be obsolete, and has become “debatable” (MIT Technology Review, July/August, 2010). Indeed, it is now being phased out (Slate, February 18, 2010).

And then we have the soon-to-be-mandated mercury-laden CFLs, an undoubted domestic hazard, that are replacing standard light bulbs. Like many of my fellow citizens, I am assiduously hoarding incandescents in my basement, enough to see me through at least five years of environmental madness. Perhaps by that time, Green may have greyed sufficiently to be put out to pasture. One can hope.

GOOD JOB OBAMA, MORE BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS LOST

Wake up America.  Obama's "green energy" policies are a complete failure!!!!

World's Largest Solar Plant, With Second Largest Ever Department of Energy Loan Guarantee, Files For Bankruptcy

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/02/2012 - 20:14 Citigroup Creditors Department Of Energy Deutsche Bank Germany Joe Biden LIBOR Obama Administration President Obama Reuters Term Sheet
Solyndra was just the appetizer. Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world's largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America ("STA"), filed for bankruptcy.

And while one could say that the company's epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE's Stephen Chu. That amount was supposed to fund the expansion of the company's 1000 MW Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside, California.

From the funding press release, "This project construction is expected to create over 1,000 direct jobs in Southern California, 7,500 indirect jobs in related industries throughout the United States, and more than 200 long-term operational jobs at the facility itself. It will play a key role in stimulating the American economy,” said Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America and Executive Chairman of project development subsidiary Solar Millennium, LLC."

Instead, what Solar Trust will do is create lots of billable hours for bankruptcy attorneys (at $1,000/hour), and a good old equity extraction for the $22 million DIP lender, which just happens to be NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, another "alternative energy" company which last year received a $935 million loan courtesy of the very same (and now $2.1 billion poorer) Department of Energy, which is also a subsidiary of public NextEra Energy (NEE), in the process ultimately resulting in yet another transfer of taxpayer cash to NEE's private shareholders.

Decades Of Environmental Fraud Being Exposed

Maybe it is taking economic disaster, massive unemployment, bottomless governmental debt, despair, hopelessness, bitter partisan politics, and rioting in the streets, (to name a few of the symptoms of the illnesses afflicting the world) to wake us up to the fact that modern "environmentalism" may actually be the PROCESS by which this illness spreads.  The illness is a deadly CANCER on society.  This deadly cancer is the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The idea that ONE group of men (people), an "elite" group for sure, can and SHOULD control ALL others.  Call it socialism, welfare state, nanny state, communism, or fascism......it is EVIL and has caused more deaths and suffering than any movement in human history.

If they can't do it through climate control, they will do it through health control, or water control, or through the creation of massive debt and perpetually higher taxation (slavery).  Who are "they"?  We know the names well by now, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. and now the principal flag-carrier, Obama.  We must fight this trend with everything we can.  Destroying the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change is a good beginning.  The following article summarizes some of the issues well.
Peter 

The entire fraudulent environmental house of cards is crashing down.......and that is a very good thing.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9994-peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

www.climatechangedispatch.com

 

 

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | February 25 2012

Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Peter Gleick obtained documents falsely from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. HI was a major target for promoters of human caused climate change because they dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate. This was actively surpressed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) members, as leaked emails showed. (Disclosure; I was privileged to be a keynote speaker at the first conference in New York and commented in my opening remarks, I’ve waited thirty years for this day.)

Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. (Precisely the problem,; this is not science, but politics and it is NOT good.  Peter)  This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The penultimate sentence is wrong frightening and not justified by the last sentence as Schneider apparently thought. Scientific ethicist Gleick agreed with Schneider as he wrote, “He taught me and many others he mentored to understand and honor the science, but he also taught us the importance of speaking up in defense of the integrity of science and the public interest. “

Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.

Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for One World government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled “Only One World: An Awakening” Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control.

Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote: “What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.” Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied, “Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.”

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity." They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required.

Regarding truth and science you might also like to look here: 

http://thefellowshipofscientifictruth.blogspot.com/

Environmental Falsehoods Are Costly And Common

The ClimateGate leaking of Emails and computer climate programs revealing the corruption, deceit and lies by "climate scientists"promoting the myth of man-caused global warming is just the tip of the iceberg where the "environmental movement" is concerned. This disease costs everyone dearly and will take a long, long time to cure. Maybe ClimateGate will be a beginning of much needed change into how science is conducted and viewed by the public. Thank goodness for the internet!
Peter

 

 

 

 

Obama In La La Land: Algae For Fuel? He Must Be Joking

Combustible fuels can be made from all kinds of organic matter, from corn to manure.  Algae is little different.  What makes these ideas so ridiculous is their small scale.  Compare them to the tens of thousands of feet of organic-rich shale rocks in ancient sedimentary basins found all over the world.  That is where the oil and gas fuel that powers the world really comes from.  These miraculous-sounding alternative sources of energy are miniscule compared to what the liberal media has so demonized by using the term "fossil fuels". 

Someone needs to inform the public about the truth of this matter, to put it into perspective and explain it in a way everyone can understand.  We're sure not getting the straight story from President Obama.  But then we can't expect too much of him, he's just a "community organizer" from Chicago......or so the story goes.

Hopefully he is just simply ignorant and not being purposely misled by his advisors, or "handlers"?
Peter

Oh yes, and this is freaking brilliant.......fuel to solve our energy problems by creating it from algae. Geezus who is advising this poor sod?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-energy-plan-algae

Obama's Energy Plan -- Algae | CNSNews.com

cnsnews.com

President Barack Obama speaks at the University of Miami Field House in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

A Moving View Of North America At Night From Space: Energy? Who Needs Energy?

A moving view from the space station of North America at night, from Mexico to New Brunswick.  Look closely and you will recognize the Great Lakes and major cities.  Pay particular attention to all of the lights.  What would America, or anyone anywhere for that matter, do without electricity?  We would be in a world of hurt.  And some people think we can substitute all the energy we get from those "evil" fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power plants with solar and wind power?  Oh, and today Obama is suggesting pouring money into a cockeyed scheme to make fuel from.....hold on to your coffee......algae.  Yes, that would amount to about a fart in the wind.

Someone ought to send Obama up to the space station and have him orbit the Earth a few times like in the following video.  Ask him to look down at all the lights, imagine all the people, all the activity, the work and productivity, and then ask him if it can really be replaced by his bird-brained (sorry George) alternative energy ideas.  Sure let's do some research on alternatives, but not at the cost of bankrupting ourselves.  Obviously our "community organizer" President knows nothing about energy, and amazingly, neither do his advisers, or are they his "handlers"?
Peter

Mexico to New Brunswick

www.youtube.com

For High Resolution version, visit our video page: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Videos/CrewEarthObservationsVideos/#mexbrunswick_iss_20120130 This video was taken...

Obama Destroying America

They have failed by trying to scare people into using less and paying more for energy with the global warming hoax.  Now they're using the bullying and extortion tactics of the EPA and The Department Of The Interior, all while circumventing Congress and the Constitution.  Some call that treason.  The following article says it well.
Peter

Destroying America by Denying Access to Energy


Posted: 22 Jan 2012 08:46 AM PST

It is the crime of the century that America, home to some of the world’s greatest reserves of coal, natural gas and oil, is being deliberately destroyed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior as they do everything in their power to restrict access and drive energy producers out of business.

It is common sense that a nation that cannot produce sufficient electricity to turn on its lights and power its manufacturing sector will be destroyed if current Obama administration regulations and actions continue. Our vital transportation sector and all others that utilize petroleum-based products will suffer, too.

con't here

A Bit Of Economic Sanity.......

It seems that lately there has been little common sense coming from our leaders in Washington, D.C. However the recent failure of the Cap and Trade (really just "cap and tax") legislation offers Americans a glimmer of hope. Anyone who has followed this issue as it relates to "man-caused global warming knows these laws can not possibly have any affect on climate change or global warming. Therefore it is painfully obvious that the proposed Cap and Trade legislation is just a way of increasing tax revenue, further controlling the energy industry, and promoting the Obama Administration's "green" energy agenda, all at the expense of the taxpayers. It doesn't look like the public, and even some Democrat lawmakers, are buying the hype. The following article comes from The Wall Street Journal. Thank goodness for global warming skeptics!
Peter

The Death of Cap and Tax

Harry Reid's latest energy bill is designed not to pass.

President Obama's undeniable success in passing liberal legislation hasn't translated into greater popularity for himself or the Democratic Congress. So perhaps he'll get a bump in the polls now that he's suffered his first setback on one of his signature promises.

We refer to the failure of cap and tax, which Mr. Obama once modestly promised would signal "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave the plan, if not the planet, up for dead this month, and last week he unveiled a new energy bill whose major provisions include a Cash for Clunkers replay for home appliances and a $5.8 billion subsidy for natural gas vehicles.

Associated Press

Harry Reid

In other words, the green lobby has suffered a landmark defeat, and the recriminations in the liberal press are remarkable. Either Mr. Obama didn't sell it well enough, perfidious Big Business intervened (never mind that many CEOs were supporters), the obtuse middle class won't sacrifice for the global good, or evil Republicans . . . Everyone is to blame but the policy itself.

In fact, the bill went down for lack of Democratic votes, in particular those from Midwest coal and manufacturing states. Voters in those states have figured out that cap and tax is a redistributionist exercise from the carbon-dependent heartland to the richer coasts. A Democrat—Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia—is also leading the charge to repeal the EPA's climate "endangerment" regulation that imposes cap and trade though the backdoor.

The American Council for Capital Formation released a study on Senator John Kerry's "compromise" climate plan—which the greens castigated as too modest—that showed cumulative GDP losses of $2.1 trillion through 2030 and consumer electricity price increases up to 42%.

Environmentalists didn't even get consolation prizes like a "renewable portfolio standard," the mandate for utilities to generate a set percentage of their electricity from wind, solar and other marginal sources that was supposed to be their cap-and-tax fallback. The new oil and gas taxes that Mr. Obama endorsed in January, which would have run as high as $60 billion, didn't make Mr. Reid's cut either.

Left as collateral damage are House Democrats who Nancy Pelosi forced to walk point last year on a promise that the Senate would also take up the bill. Mrs. Pelosi has no regrets, last week calling that vote "one of our proudest boasts." The Blue Dog Democrats who voted for it will now deny paternity as they try to save their seats.

As for the Senate, Mr. Reid's new nonclimate energy bill is all about trying to link Republicans to Big Oil. With BP as the corporate villain, Democrats are proposing to lift the $75 million oil spill liability cap for economic damages to infinity. And to do so retroactively on all rig leases.

This is a bad-faith exercise. Mr. Reid knows that Democrats like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana have criticized Democratic proposals to set even a $10 billion cap, while Senate Republicans have proposed giving regulators the power to raise the cap based on specific circumstances. Mr. Reid's proposal is designed to throw a bouquet to the trial bar and undermine any grounds for compromise so Democrats can have an election issue.

The main effect, if it passed, would be to push the small- and mid-sized producers that account for most domestic drilling out of the Gulf, regardless of their safety records. Only the supermajors would be able to afford insurance under the unlimited liability regime.

A study by the consultant IHS Global Insight found that the vacuum of independent players would result in some 289,000 lost jobs in the Gulf states by 2015 and "significantly shrink offshore oil and gas activity, reduce the dynamism of the industry, and dilute U.S. technological and industry leadership."

Another Reid inspiration is a break-up of the Minerals Management Service. (The agency was recently renamed by the White House, like rebranding Philip Morris as Altria.) Liberals have always hated an agency that encourages energy production, not that another round of bureaucratic musical chairs will prevent the next blowout. In addition to ensuring higher energy costs and more green-tape delays, the reorganization will ensure that no one in government is accountable when the next leak does occur.

Whatever one thinks of the science of climate change, cap and tax is the wrong policy response. At enormous economic cost, it would do little to reduce global carbon emissions. To the extent that it reduces growth, it would make the world less able to cope with the consequences if temperatures do rise. The richer the world, the more resources the world will have to adapt and ameliorate bad effects.

Meantime, the failure of cap and tax removes one more threat to the still-mediocre economic recovery. With more such failures, Mr. Obama's approval rating might start rising too.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved (source)

Obama And EPA Out Of Control

It is good to see someone fighting Obama's EPA Gestapo. They are worse than a runaway BP oil well.
P


Friday, May 28, 2010, 12:06pm CDT
Gov. Perry pushes back against EPA, Obama administration
Dallas Business Journal - by Kerri Panchuk Web Reporter source
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is firing back at the Obama administration over a recent federal initiative to quash a Texas program that deals with air emissions. Perry said switching to a federally mandated program puts the state at risk of killing jobs.
He defended the emissions control program that Texas has in place now, saying it went into effect under Gov. Ann Richards and was approved by then President Bill Clinton.
“Since then, the EPA’s unelected bureaucrats haven’t ruled on it once, yet, with the arrival of a new administration in Washington, they have put a bulls-eye on the backs of hardworking Texans,” Perry said.
Perry said the feds decision to trade the Texas air permitting policy for a new federal plan ignores the fact that Texas has seen a 22 percent reduction in ozone and a 46 percent drop in emissions. He added that the EPA’s program is an overreach and violates the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.
kerripanchuk@bizjournals.com

Obama Has Entered The Stage On Energy And Climate Change

Obama just keeps looking more and more foolish, digging his (and our) hole deeper....
Peter

Obama's News Conference: Blah, Blah, Blah

By Alan Caruba (source)

5/27/10 - The President, after a lapse of 309 days, held a news conference Thursday. It came shortly after news that earlier in the day the director of the Mineral Management Service, Elizabeth Birnbaum, had either resigned or been fired. Obama professed to not know the circumstances. Yeah. Sure.

What we do know is that Obama’s method of dealing with a news conference is to talk each question to death. In addition, he makes sure that we all know that, no matter what the problem under discussion, it was all George W. Bush’s fault.

Watching Obama’s head swivel back and forth between the TelePromters as he read his opening prepared statement for the first fifteen minutes or so was mildly comical and it occurred to me that he has become a real life parody of a Saturday Night Live parody, the latter of which is at least entertaining.

The press conference was devoted largely to blaming oil company, British Petroleum, for the mess while, at the same time, saying that “BP is acting at our direction.” This is known as having it both ways. Somehow, knowing that the federal government is in charge is not all that reassuring. And, of course, the real problem began “under the previous administration.”

The president then used one of his snore-inducing answers to segue to the usual blather about a “clean energy” economy. This is pure fiction. America and the rest of the advanced nations of the world depend entirely on oil, natural gas, and coal. Long after all of us and our grandchildren are dead these hydrocarbons will still be used.

By then, however, Obama’s nonsense about clean energy jobs will have been long forgotten. They don’t exist now and they will not until the last drop of oil is extracted, the last cubic meter of natural gas, and the last lump of coal is dug from the ground. Wind and solar energy is largely a huge fraud based on the even bigger fraud of “climate change.”

And of course the President took the opportunity push the legislation before the Senate that would put the federal government in charge of who gets energy, how much they get, and how much they will pay for it. Using the bogus claim that carbon dioxide is a threat to human life the EPA is currently trying to gain control all energy use. Cap-and-Trade, a huge tax, would destroy what little hope is left for the economy to recover.

Continued here:

Obama's Sinking Ship.....

Nearly 60 Percent Say President Obama’s Decisions ‘Bad for America’
(CNSNews.com) – A majority of Americans believe an increased government role in health care would lead to more government corruption, while a plurality of Americans think that scientific data supporting man-made global warming is “mostly falsified.” The poll also shows that 58 percent of Americans believe that decisions by the Obama administration have been “bad for America,” as opposed to 37 percent who think Obama’s decisions have been “good for America.”

Geothermal Energy: Wishful Thinking?

The concept of extracting and using heat energy from within the Earth (geothermal energy) will not go away. In theory the amount of energy available is nearly infinite. However, as is so often the case, "the devil is in the details". Yes, the heat is there, but can it be used in a safe and economic way? In most cases geothermal energy remains a dream, but one that is being increasingly funded by a science and integrity-challenged Obama Administration. Stay tuned.
Peter

Could New Clean Energy Source Trigger Quakes?

Theunis Bates Contributor Source

LONDON (Dec. 18) -- The Obama administration has a lot riding on geothermal energy, which it sees as a future source of clean, green and virtually unlimited electricity. Over the past year alone, the U.S. Department of Energy has invested some $440 million in projects trying to turn heat trapped in bedrock deep underground into electricity. But the trial this week of a Swiss geologist – accused of causing earthquakes during the construction of a geothermal power plant – has raised doubts about the safety of some geothermal schemes, and may have contributed to the collapse of one government-backed project in California earlier this month.

Worries about the link between this new power source and earthquakes came to the fore in 2006, when the building of a geothermal plant in the Swiss city of Basel triggered a series of tremors. Although no one was injured, the quakes caused $9 million in damage and seriously shook the locals. On Tuesday, Swiss prosecutors opened their case against Markus Haering – head of Geothermal Explorers, the firm behind the project – who they accuse of deliberately causing landslides and damage to property. He denies all charges and could face up to five years in prison if found guilty.

When construction of the geothermal plant began in 2006, few residents of Basel, a prosperous city on the border with France and Germany, would have believed it would end in earthquakes and court cases. Residents were told that a new, cutting-edge technology known as an enhanced geothermal system would be used to create enough power for 10,000 homes.

Manny Crisostomo, Sacramento Bee / ZUMA Press

An ambitious project to tap geothermal power at The Geysers in northern California was suspended after reports of earthquakes at a similar project in Switzerland.

Traditional geothermal plants tap water trapped in hot rocks relatively near the surface. The Basel project aimed to harness the energy from a hot layer located three miles below the city made of water-free, impermeable rock. To generate power, Basel would have to pump water down a deep borehole. On reaching the layer of superheated rocks, the water would turn to steam, race back to the surface and be used to spin electricity-generating turbines. Leftover hot water would heat nearby homes.

The first stages of the project went smoothly. By December 2006 the well had been drilled and Geopower Basel was starting to pump in pressurized cold water, which was supposed to open up fractures in the rock, creating pores for water to run through. It was then that Basel started to suffer the shakes -- the greatest of which was recorded at a house-moving 3.4 on the Richter scale -- forcing the company to stop pumping.

Paul Younger, a professor of energy and environment at Britain's Newcastle University, says that it's not unusual for much smaller tremors to be felt on the surface when pressurized water is forced into rock deep underground. But, he adds, the process is normally only carried out in seismically stable areas, as the shakes caused by hydro-fracturing can interact with existing deep faults and cause larger trembles.

And Basel is anything but stable. The city has a long history of quakes and was all but wiped out in 1356 by an estimated magnitude 6.5 earthquake – the largest ever known to have occurred in Western Europe. "What they were doing was actually fairly conventional," Younger says. "It's where they were doing it that was unconventional. If you go drilling and stimulating near a known active fault, you're asking for trouble."

The Basel plant, which was finally closed on Dec. 10, didn't just cause trouble in Switzerland. On Dec. 11, U.S. firm AltaRock Energy shut down a California geothermal project known as the Geysers that was based on a similar design as Basel. The Energy Department – which supplied $6 million in funding – had been investigating the project's safety following reports by federal officials that the company had failed to supply sufficient information about the Basel quakes when applying for the go-ahead. But AltaRock also had other serious engineering problems at the site: It couldn't break through shallow formations known as caprock to reach the hot strata.

Experts accept that the closure of Basel and the Geysers is a setback for geothermal power. But, says Colin Williams, a research geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey, neither closure "is a showstopper." He says the technology behind projects such as Basel is still at a relatively "early stage." And while he has no doubts it will eventually be advanced enough to use in urban areas, "it's wiser that we do this in less sensitive locations at the moment, so then we can build up a series of case histories."

Younger believes a key advantage geothermal holds over most green energy sources – that it can be on 24 hours a day – means new projects will continue to spring up around the world. "It's not dependent on wind, tide or sunlight," he explains. "That means that it can deliver baseload power much like an ordinary fossil-fuel power plant." Or possibly more. According to a 2007 Energy Department report, advanced geothermal power in the U.S. could – at least in theory – produce up to a staggering 60,000 times the country's current annual energy usage.

That explains why Switzerland and the United States still have the hots for geothermal, despite the Basel quakes. AltaRock has received some $25 million in U.S. government funding to start a new project in Oregon, and the Energy Department is backing more than 120 geothermal initiatives across several states. Engineers in Zurich, meanwhile, started drilling last month to see whether the area was suitable for a new scheme. Geothermal, it seems, could still shake up the world. But in a good way.

Filed under: Nation, World, Tech

Obama Tries To Save Face In Copenhagen

..Obama’s short speech to the conference plenary was probably the most insulting and patronising speech delivered by a US President in a long time. Obama poorly understood the mood of the audience and chose to behave like an infallible school master lecturing children about the importance of keeping their socks up to maintain school dignity, rather than appealing to each leader’s hopes to share in collective victory....

source
Tim Wilson

"NO WE CAN'T !"

FROM-UK Telegraph

Copenhagen climate conference: global warming talks meltdown

The Bella Centre in Copenhagen looks more like the aftermath of a particularly messy house party rather than the place where 120 of the most powerful men and women have just met to discuss saving the planet. The largest gathering of world leaders in recent history began with hope and excitement as President Barack Obama himself swept into town.

He said America was ready to fight climate change by cutting greenhouse gases as long as other countries also cut their emissions - and crucially agree to being monitored by the outside world.


“Yes we can!”

Umm, actually no we can’t.

It soon became clear that China was not signing up to any treaty that allowed other countries to snoop around in their dirty emissions laundry.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly left for his hotel in a huff and suddenly the whole conference was plunged into chaos.

Despite two weeks of hardcore talks it now seemed like the world could not agree after all – or rather the two main superpowers would not agree.

Negotiations were cancelled and thousands of delegates wandered the corridors looking confused and rather sad.

Meanwhile, somewhere in a posh hotel in town or perhaps in the Bella Centre itself, no one is really sure, President Obama and his counterparts met to try and salvage an agreement.



Copies of the Copenhagen Accord, as it has now become known, began to circulate. But as soon as one was agreed another would emerge – each weaker than the next.

Environmental groups began to panic as any reference to binding targets was removed, then a date for emissions peaking. The need to report emissions was watered down so that countries could do it domestically and then simply tell the world what they are doing. Finally – and most importantly perhaps – a date at which to make the whole thing into a legally-binding treaty was dropped.

Just as it seemed all was lost, it was reported President Obama was giving a press conference. Hundreds of journalists sprinted through the corridors and cafes only to be told it was cancelled and see a fleeting glimpse of the President leaving for the airport.

Twitter alerts were going mad as rumour and counter-rumour flew around the conference centre saying the deal had collapsed, or was imminent, or coming in few hours. Eventually, of course, it was announced by the White House.

The President calmly pronounced that a deal had been done. It was not sufficient to fight climate change and it was not legally binding but it would do, he said.

The 'Copenhagen Accord' was immediately attacked by the French, the Germans and the British but they accepted it and so did the world’s press as deadlines loomed.

However there are 192 countries in the UN process and they all need to sign. Many are angry. They call the “accord”, pushed through by the Americans and barely acknowledged by China – even though they have apparently signed up – a joke.

In the early hours of the morning, as delegates limped out into the snow it was still unclear whether a deal has actually been done.

More...

Going Down With The Ship Of Fools

It looks like Obama wants to go down with the (Titanic) ship of fools called man-caused global warming.
Peter

White House Dismisses ‘Climategate’ Because ‘Most People’ Believe in Global Warming
(CNSNews.com) - As President Barack Obama prepares to travel to a global climate summit next week in Copenhagen, the White House is dismissing the “climategate” controversy that has one Republican senator calling for an investigation. Leaked email communications between top climate-change scientists has cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims that human activity is causing global warming.

Global Warming Alarmists Are Leading America Down The Road To Ruin

Is America Committing Economic Suicide?

I wonder how much of the information in the following article is true. Is America committing economic suicide by chasing "alternative energy" (solar, wind, biofuels, etc.) while demonizing the oil and gas industry? This is where the radical environmentalists and global warming alarmists have led us. It is way past time to turn this "ship of state" around, because we're headed in the wrong direction.
Peter

A rush for black gold in the Gulf

Examiner Editorial

August 20, 2009

Major new offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico will soon be a reality. The big question is whether Americans will be part of it. Brazil, China, India, Norway, Spain and Russia have all signed agreements with Cuba and the Bahamas to initiate exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico within the next two years. So the prospect of seeing Russian oil rigs 45 miles off the Florida Keys -- where American oil companies are now forbidden to drill -- is a very real possibility.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the eastern Gulf region contains 3 billion barrels of oil and more than 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Last summer, former President George W. Bush lifted the executive branch moratorium his father signed in 1990 on new drilling in 85 percent of America's territorial waters. The Democratic Congress then wisely let the congressional ban expire as well. So the only thing keeping U.S. firms from drilling off our own continental shelf is President Barack Obama and his secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, who is slow-walking the approval process that must be cleared before the work can begin. Meanwhile, foreign nations are jockeying for the best spots. The Obama administration, incredibly enough, is giving Brazil a $2 billion loan from U.S. taxpayers to finance that nation's development of its own off-shore energy resources in the Atlantic.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, the development of America's coastal oil and gas resources would generate more than $1.3 trillion in new government revenue and 160,000 high-paying jobs over the next two decades. Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Ark., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., are bipartisan co-sponsors of a bill that provides coastal states such as Florida their fair share of revenues produced by off-shore drilling and production. The same thing should be done for states on the East and West coasts. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's lawmakers hope to tap deposits off Santa Barbara to generate billions in royalties, and Virginia's front-running gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell has made drilling 50 miles off that state's coast a key component of his energy plan.

Many environmental objections to deepwater drilling have been overcome. For example, 4-D seismic surveys provide pinpoint accuracy for well location. New technology also enables one drilling platform to reach deposits 40 miles away in water up to 10,000 feet deep (note the same technology could help other nations drill just outside our coastal limits while tapping into resources inside the boundary). According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, less than 0.0001 percent of the 1.4 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore since 1980 has been spilled -- a remarkable safety record and a tribute to American energy ingenuity.

Find this article at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/A-rush-for-black-gold-in-the-Gulf-8127872-53705292.html

Telling It Like It Is

These in the following article have been said before but they warrant repeating. The big lie about global warming being foisted on Americans by the Obama Administration must be objected to and rejected.
Peter


"Clean Energy" is a Dirty Lie
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Sunday, 19 April 2009 (source)
What does it take to be a dedicated environmentalist—a Green—these days?
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” An example would be a belief in “global warming” despite the fact that the planet has been cooling for a decade.

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.” This describes anyone who says that carbon dioxide, CO2, is responsible for a warming that is not occurring or that this gas could cause it.

“To deny objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.” This is how Congress can restrict access to national energy sources—oil, natural gas, and coal—while claiming it wants the USA to be “energy independent.”
The definition above comes from George Orwell’s “1984” and describes “double think” in his allegory of Communism.

President Obama’s environmental beliefs and policies are a composite of outright lies and high on the list is his promise of “Green jobs.” This is based on his intention to radically transform our society from one in which energy jobs in areas such as oil production and mining are replaced by those providing wind and solar energy.

The auto industry is getting a makeover as General Motors brands that sell well are forced by government fiat to be abandoned for those few that people want or can afford.

Regarding so-called Green jobs, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, recently pointed out that a study in Spain that was released in late March made clear that, “Spain has spent billions in taxpayer resources to subsidize renewable energy programs in an effort to jumpstart its ailing economy and what they have gotten in return are fewer jobs, skyrocketing debt and some of the highest and most regressive energy prices in the developed world.”

The lies Greens are telling, whether in Spain are here in the USA, always produce the same results. For every “Green job” created by the Spanish government over the past decade, 2.2 other jobs were destroyed as a result. To not expect the same result here is to be willfully ignorant.

All the talk of “clean energy”, wind and solar, is now shifting into high gear with the introduction of the Waxman-Markey legislation on March 31. It is touted as “a new direction for America’s clean energy future and fighting global warming.” At the risk of being repetitive, there is NO global warming. The Earth is now ten years into a cooling cycle.

This is possibly the most dreadful piece of legislation to be put before Congress in the history of the nation. It is the deliberate reordering of American society because without adequate energy, the economy will implode and the lifestyles that Americans take for granted, all based on affordable electricity and fuel for transportation will cease to exist.

It is based entirely on the “global warming” lie. It is based entirely on the lie that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driving force behind “climate change.”

Clean jobs are just one more of the endless lies that Greens tell in order to put an end to America’s capacity to compete in the global marketplace.
Clean energy is the term applied to wind and solar energy, deemed “renewable”, amidst more lies about the oil and coal which most surely will neither be renewable nor even available if Congress and the White House continue to put the national lands under which they exist off limits to all exploration and extraction.

Totally supported by government subsidies and mandates for their use, wind and solar energy represents barely one percent of the electricity Americans use every day.

In countless ways, the Greens are working to destroy America’s ability to have the energy it needs to survive and grow. Our economy, already suffering from government mandates that destroyed the nation’s housing market, will utterly collapse when it can no longer access the energy required for the future.
Clean energy is a dirty lie.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com and a weekly commentary at http://www.anxietycenter.com , the website of The National Anxiety Center.

Obama's Energy Policy: The Blind Leading The Blind

The picture could not be any more clear than it is. Our dependence on foreign oil can not be eliminated by producing more ethanol, or building more windmills, or installing more solar panels. The magnitude of our energy needs makes these solutions just a literal drop in the bucket. It does not take a PhD. Economist to see this. The numbers are there for everyone to see. I'm afraid I agree with what the following writer (and many others) is saying. The U.S. is setting the stage for higher energy prices, more dependence on foreign energy supplies, and more economic hardship. GP

March 13, 2009
Obama's energy policy will increase dependence on foreign oil
By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. (source)
President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Yet, the alarms are not sounding and the red lights are not flashing.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not warning Obama that his oil policy will increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Administration, is not alerting the President that his oil policy will increase carbon dioxide emissions.

National Security Advisor James L. Jones is not cautioning the President that his biofuel and oil policy increases the US vulnerability to a Second Arab Oil Embargo.

Christina Roner of the Council of Economic Advisors is not counseling Obama that his biofuel policy continues a 30-year-old blunder wasting taxpayers multiple billions of dollars annually.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is not warning the President that his biofuel policy is doomed to failure because of the impossibility of providing sufficient bio products.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is not advising Obama that his tax on oil will destroy proven US oil reserves.

Why aren’t the alarms sounding and the red lights flashing? It is probably because of the lack of knowledge and experience on these specific subjects by the new appointees. All must be given benefit of any doubt that their duty and loyalty lies with the United States of America instead of their political party or its head.

President Obama’s energy policy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil imports by eliminating oil and replacing oil with alternative renewable “clean” biofuel. That sounds good in speeches. It is quite impressive to all those who know little about oil or biofuels, which includes the majority of the public. The devil, of course, is in the details which no one seems to have investigated.

Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Ethanol has had 30 years of taxpayer-assisted experience. Ethanol is the only “feasible” alternative renewable biofuel in the competition. All other biofuels lack the production potential that ethanol has.

According to the latest data from the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production is currently averaging 0.60 million barrels per day. At the subsidy of 51¢ per gallon, this amount of ethanol production costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.

The ethanol future looks much worse. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” required maximum ethanol production of 2.35 million barrels per day by 2022. But, this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.
According to Professor Chris Hurt of Purdue, in 2006 the US had about 79 million acres of corn. Professor Richard Meilan of Purdue estimates that one acre of corn will produce 450 gallons which is 10.7 barrels of ethanol. Using all of the corn crop land in the US for ethanol — no movie popcorn, no corn syrup sweetener, no bourbon, no tortillas, no grits, no corn to eat at all — ethanol production can reach only 845 million barrels in 2022, or 2.31 million barrels per day.
Department of Energy data shows that the US is producing 4.95 million barrels of oil per day and importing 9.00 million barrels of foreign oil per day. Including the 0.60 million barrels of ethanol per day, our current oil demand is 14.55 million barrels per day.

US oil production has been declining since 1985. This decline is almost ruler straight. By 2022, it is estimated that US oil production would be approximately 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, in year 2022, ethanol production is expected to be 2.3 million barrels per day and US oil production is expected to be 3.0 million barrels per day, for a combined total of 5.3 million barrels per day. That leaves a shortfall of 9.25 million barrels of oil per day from our current oil demand — to be filled by foreign oil imports. Even assuming there is no increase in demand in the next 13 years, foreign oil imports will be greater in 2022 than they are now. Attention Secretary Chu!

A Department of Energy study made by Decision Analysis Corporation shows that ethanol emits 28.7 grams more carbon dioxide per mile driven than gasoline. Ethanol is not the “clean” biofuel that President Obama thinks it is. The Department of Transportation estimates that 2,656 billion vehicle miles were traveled in the US last year. Ethanol would put millions of tons more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as compared to gasoline. Attention Administrator Jackson!

In 1972, foreign oil imports were 811 million barrels, 19% of demand, the year before the devastating Arab Oil Embargo. Currently, foreign oil imports are at a rate of 3.3 billion barrels annually, 62% of current demand, and are expected to increase in the future. Attention General Jones!

Ethanol subsidies of 51¢ a gallon are $21.42 per barrel. In 2022, when ethanol production is expected to reach its maximum of 845 million barrels annually, the taxpayers would pay over $18 billion dollars for this 15.8% of the current oil demand. Clearly, taxpayers would not be getting a reasonable bang for the buck. Attention Economist Roner!

The United States just has so much crop land. It is a finite number of acres. In 2006, Professor Hurt estimated that it was 79 million acres for corn. Encroachment from development and improvements may have eaten away at some of this. There is an absolute limit on the maximum production of an annual crop such as corn which is determined by acreage. This limit, of course, can be reduced by flood or drought. Removing corn from the food supply by reaching maximum ethanol production is an extremely serious related issue. Attention Secretary Vilsack!

All oil wells decrease in production. Each oil well has an “economic limit” defined as the number of barrels of oil per day which is required to keep the well from losing money. This economic limit determines the life of the well and the proven oil reserves for the well. The equation for the economic limit of an oil well is the daily operating cost divided by one minus the tax times one minus the royalty times the oil price. The economic limit of an oil well is determined by entering the daily operating cost, tax, royalty, and oil price into the equation. A higher tax on oil raises the economic limit, decreasing the life of the well, resulting in decreased proven oil reserves. With an equivalent loss occurring in each of the half million oil wells in the United States, the loss in proven oil reserves to the United States from an increase in tax on oil can be in the billions of barrels. Attention Secretary Salazar and Economist Roner!

Why isn’t there outrage, if not rioting in the street, over this oil and biofuel policy of the Obama administration? Is it because the domestic oil industry -- what little is left after Jimmy Carter -- is cowering in the corner in fear, waiting for the coup de grace?

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national organization representing the domestic oil industry. Jack Gerard, the President and CEO, has never worked in the oil industry. He came to the API from the American Chemistry Council last year. He has been in Washington since 1981. The API runs expensive television advertisements telling the public that everything will be fine in the future.

Everything is not going to be fine in the future under President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy. President Obama’s biofuel and oil policy is on a collision course to a national catastrophe. Among a great many other critical problems, it will cause an increase in our dependence on foreign oil.

Seldon B. Graham, Jr. is Associate Editor, US of Energy Tribune. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html at March 16, 2009 - 11:55:22 AM EDT





Turbo Tax - File for Free
Prepare, Print, & File Taxes Online Easily: TurboTax Free Federal Edition
http://www.TurboTax.com