Global Warming Hoax Becoming More and More Obvious

So what's the leftist, global warming hoax peddling tool to do when it's announced that global warming is on a "10 year break"? Of course that's going forward from now and doesn't account for the DROP in temperatures over the last few years. For starters, they're not about to admit they are completely wrong. They simply can't do it. It would fly in the face of the premise of the hoax in the first place. Global Warming is nothing more than a Leftist agenda to promote global collectivist ideas. They won't admit they are wrong, but even if they did admit it, it would go something like this, "well it was for moral reasons..." Which is exactly the kind of garbage the fascists pedal all the time when their schemes are exposed.

I know that some people reading this will essentially say that I'm something of a "flat Earther" as Al Gore would say, but let's for a moment pause to consider some of the tenets of Global Warming:
1. The world is overpopulated (i.e. abortion as a means of population control is a good thing)
2. Scientists who have produced evidence to the contrary of global warming hysteria or expressed doubts with regard to the theory are silenced (suppress opposing speech)
3. World governments need to pass binding resolutions in order to reach common laws regarding carbon and greenhouse emissions (surrender national sovereignty to an international body)
4. Through these international organizations and restrictions control the means of production and determine what levels are acceptable to be manufactured (the destruction of capitalism)
5. Limit the use of carbon to those who can pay high taxes or "carbon credits" (a type of restoration of creating a class of serfs)

I could make list that goes on and on, but again, I realize that many of you are thinking that I am some nutjob for precisely some of the reasons I touched on earlier. I urge you to consider the destructive ethanol bill and it's impact on the world. When our Congress passes the ethanol mandate and produced huge subsidies for corn, they did so with the best of intentions, but intentions don't make for good policy, as we have seen. In the short time since this bill passed, world food prices have surged, famine and malnutrition are on the rise, and there has been no reduction in our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can not even be transported with our current pipeline system, meanwhile, we have largely hampered the free market to develop the technologies that are readily available and clean, such as nuclear, solar, etc. Additionally, in the short term expanded drilling and oil production domestically would have a huge impact both on our economy and on our energy supply. The government's intervention, however, has hampered the development and implementation of what many fair minded people would agree would be the fastest and best solution to our energy problems. No one would agree that depending on foreign sources for our energy is a good thing. Meanwhile, you have to give John McCain credit for not pandering to Iowans today when he told them flat out, he's against the destructive farm subsidies.

There are many economic friendly things that can be done to preserve the economy including recycling, using a water filter instead of using tons of bottled water, not littering, using a mulching lawn mower, etc.

Global Warming and they hysterics behind it, however, are nothing more than a political ploy by the left to get individuals to surrender their rights to people who "know better" than they do, and that is a very, very dangerous idea.

-Caomhin

House Democrats Attack Oil Industry; Threaten to Raise Price of Gasoline and Heating Oil

Nearly unbelievable, but then, this is the Democratic Party after all, basically the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party. I know a good number of the people who are on the Left side of the political spectrum will consider that an unfair argument, but let's take a look at just how socialist of an antic this destined to be vetoed bill is:

1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.

2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:

In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.

Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.

3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.

4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.

5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."

6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.

I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.

Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.

Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.

With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.

Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.

While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.

-Caomhin

Start Drilling in Alaska

Environmentalists and hippies simply do not care about the average man, woman, and child in America. How else can you explain the majority of their actions? They try to block anything that can help solve the energy in the short term while we gear up for the long term solutions. Long term, of course, we need to have a completely domestic solution to our energy needs. Nuclear is a long term solution and an environmentally friendly one at that, but they oppose that measure. Hydrogen is off the table for them as well, as evidenced by the Liberal Energy bill that specifically excluded the two technologies that could immediately take flight, perhaps because Global Warming Hoax spokesman Al Gore doesn't have those types of stocks in his portfolio. Solar is promising as well, but it takes time to cut off an immense portion of oil, that much is irrefutable. Rationally speaking, in terms of economics and in national defense, domestic production should be increased. However, Liberals refuse to drill anywhere in Alaska, as once again, the Libtards have blocked drilling in an area that has immense oil reserves that will help to drive down short term prices and help the average human being living in America by saving us a great deal of money an increasing our standard of living. Here's a snippet:

It would be the first federal OCS oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea since 1991. The agency estimates it contains 15 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of conventionally recoverable natural gas.

...

The sale is backed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and community and tribal leaders, he said.

"We believe our decision is a good balance, and will allow companies to explore this intriguing frontier area while still protecting the resources important to the coastal residents," Luthi said.

Miller and Brendan Cummings of the Center for Biological Diversity said the MMS ignored dangers to animals and birds if an oil spill were to occur.

"No one yet has figured out how to clean up a spill in broken ice, so they just stick their head in the sand and pretend it won't happen," Cummings said.

He also said the agency's environmental assessment ignored changes brought by global warming.

Comprehend those numbers? That's a substantial amount of domestic oil production we are ignoring. ANWR has vast reserves as well. That's just a fraction of what is available domestically. Under the envirofascists logic, nothing should be done because it's possible something could go wrong. Under that same logic, I should cease to work or walk down stairs as something could go wrong doing that as well. If we are going to get serious about solving our energy needs domestically and stop spending such a large portion of our GDP on energy, we must develop more sources of oil and liquefied coal domestically while working feverishly to implement a combination of other sources. Again, for economic and national defense purposes chiefly. The so called global warming alarmists are using their hoax as some sort of sick pseudo-religion that is a disgusting political and self service trick as the major proponents are profiteering off of this effort even as more scientists step up efforts to tell the world community to stop drinking the Kool Aid. That's the only reason they have that reference to the hoax in that article, as a way to justify their irrationality and complete lack of logic. As a practical road map to economic security, lowering energy prices would greatly help the American family. If gas was even still at $2.00 a gallon right now instead of $3.00, how much would that help the American commuter? The only way that will happen is with a larger supply, one not controlled by OPEC. We need to do this short term and it must start ASAP while we develop the new technologies needed to fully supply our own energy needs, and the first step is to utilize what will work now.

-Caomhin

More Global Warming Communist Tactics Pushed at Bali

First, I suggest you go back and read the post I published last month: Going Warming Hoax Update (Where Going Green = Going Red). The UN's pollution spreading conference in Bali is another cover to use Global Warming in order to push a very leftwing agenda upon the world and attack the sovereignty of all nations (please see the Law of the Sea Treaty). The AP has a story on the idiocy and here's a sampling:

The draft lays out three options for how to proceed after Bali -- ranging from non-binding talks over the next two years to a deadline for adopting a new global pact at a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009.

Rich nations should consider ways to step up efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases by setting "quantified national emission objectives," the draft says.

Poor countries should take "national mitigation actions ... that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions," it says. It adds that "social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities" for poor nations.

Got that? So "rich" nations need to set emissions standards that will drastically reduce "emissions levels" while "poor" nations will be able to ignore this standard in order to socially and economically develop. See the hypocrisy there? The USA is considered a rich nation, but with a large population of poor people. By buying into this system, we surrender economic freedom over the UN and the damage it will have economically on our nation will do nothing to help the poor people but will in fact, do more, to destroy the middle class and create a larger pool of poor people. Conversely, China (a nation completely exempt from The Kyoto Protocol) is considered poor and can do whatever they want, in fact, their levels of emissions make ours look tiny. So got that? USA bad, China good.

Next, let's look at what exactly the UN is getting at by dividing the world into "poor" and "rich" nations, while completely ignoring the socio-economic differences within a nations borders, be it from East to West, rural to urban, etc. The UN is attempting to mandate that "rich" nations re-distribute the wealth into poorer nations under the guise of "Global Warming":

Currently, adaptation money comes from two global funds that rely on voluntary donations from wealthy nations, but falls far short of what is needed. Rich nations have pledged a combined $220.4 million, but as of September had delivered only $116.6 million – a "pathetic" amount, says Ms. Raworth, who puts the immediate needs among the poorest nations at $1 billion to $2 billion a year.

That's right, we all need to pony up for the failings of other nations to develop themselves, and damn it to hell, if that means making those of us who have politically and socially developed tactics that will allow us to grow foot the bill and let those who have made these choices poorly to have exactly what we have, but not to work for it. Sure there are natural advantages, but how does that matter? Should we feel guilty that we have resourceful land? Absolutely not, we should feel blessed. For as much whining the left does about outsourcing jobs the "carbon credit" industry that Al Gore his cronies are making a killing off of, in part by fueling the fear over this hoax, is doing just that:

Under the protocol, a company can earn emission credits by building emissions-cutting projects in developing countries – dubbed a clean-development mechanism (CDM). CDM credits can be traded on the international carbon market, with 2 percent of the value set aside in an adaptation fund. But by some pessimistic estimates, that levy is only likely to generate several hundred million dollars a year. So developing countries want to expand the levy to cover all carbon credits issued under the protocol – not just those issued via the clean-development mechanism. Their goal here is to put the protocol's adaptation fund squarely on the agenda for the protocol's first operational review, slated for next year. The protocol's first commitment period takes effect Jan. 1. In addition, developing countries are pushing to streamline and cut the high cost of applying for adaptation money.

Meanwhile, you still can't get any Democrats on board for Wind Farms because Teddy Kennedy doesn't like the sight of them while sailing, and Democrats specifically blackballing hydrogen and nuclear energy (the only reliable source of clean energy available) from their doomed-to-fail energy bill, while raising taxes immensely on oil companies. Their efforts are reckless and baseless. They ignore the energy solutions that will work and respond the damaging effects of highly inflated gas prices by trying to shove a tax increase what will be passed along and funded by the tax payers. Luckily, President Bush and the Administration are taking a "thanks, but no thanks" approach to the lunacy in Bali as well as the Democrats latest logic lacking bill. Finally, for your consideration, I give you this excellent post by Stephen Milloy, entitled, The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007, a must read.

-Caomhin

Buck the Leftist Scare Tactics. Ethanol Not Feasible. It's Nuclear and Hydrogen or Bust

For all the talk that the Lefties belt out in regards to breaking our dependence on foreign oil, they continually balk at one source that we have that is cheap, effective, and clean. That source, of course, is nuclear energy. The amount of energy that can be derived from a nuclear power plant is awfully impressive, and to increase the number of active plants in this nation, with updated technology would be a huge difference in decreasing the volume of oil we consume. I don't subscribe to the garbage that is the Global Warming scam, but the inevitable fact is that one day, be it 50 years, or 1,000 years, oil will be gone. Our national security dictates that we decrease our needs on foreign oil, and nuclear is our best bet. We have not, however, had a new nuclear power plant built since the 70s. Huge mistake. The technological advances we have made since then are immeasurable. Think of it this way, back then, the Atari was the shit, now compare that to the Xbox 360, and that's just a simple game console. So, this should be a no-brainer bi-partisan effort right? Wrong. Dems are doing their damnedest to stop a nuclear fuel waste facility to be built in a remote part of Nevada. Not shocking, however, when you consider Harry Reid is from Nevada, and the left has so scared the public with the "nuclear is evil" rhetoric in terms of weaponry that the average American is scared to go that route. There's also the whole "Not In My Back Yard," mentality to cope with. It's imperative we use this source. It's cheap, efficient, and mastered. It should be done.

Speaking of alternative energy, if it's possible to turn sewage into hydrogen energy, I'm all for it. The problem of course is that the most promising sources of alternative energy are not endorsed by the Dems. The only one they endorse is the least efficient, a higher pollutant than oil, and one that causes inflation on the masses due to higher prices for corn, which is used much, much more than the average person realizes. The reason they support it is to appear to be behind a made up cause, so that they can profit off of the scare tactic, using tax payer funds to sell the ineffective ethanol to the public.

-Caomhin