About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Blowhard politics? Odds for America's green energy revolution--about one in a million!


Go ahead...pick a number...any number-- as long as it's over a million.

 

Nowadays-- no matter where you turn-- we're being inundated with an unending parade of politicians, TV-radio spots, news broadcasts, talk show interviews, etc., all trumpeting the same, grandiose promises of the so-called green energy revolution ..."It will create millions of new green energy jobs, and reduce our dependency on foreign oil!"

 

Ho hum (yawn).

 

Whenever any liberal politician talks about our new green-energy economy, it's become de rigueur to "hyperbolate" about the unlimited millions of new jobs at hand, once we switch to renewable energy sources. Examples abound:

 

Barack Obama  promises..."We're going to create 5 million new green energy jobs that cannot be outsourced!" 

 

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania... "We're going to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs with clean green energy..."

 

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland..."Renewable energy can create millions of new green jobs."

 

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm..."A transition to a green economy will create millions of new green jobs and will reduce our dependency on foreign oil."


Henry Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Chairman Edward Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee..."Our clean energy legislation will create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and combat global warming."

 

U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, in her speech at the New Hampshire Forum on the Future..."Millions of new jobs will be created in alternative energy, and energy efficiency."

 

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal)... "Green energy means green jobs..."President Obama's new auto mileage CAFE standards are one big step toward creating up to five million new green jobs, and will fuel long-term economic development." 

 

Even England's Gordon Brown is jumping on the bandwagon: (quote) "The president and I share the conviction that green technologies will be a major driver of our future economic growth, and we can create millions of green-collar jobs in the world for the future.”

 

Whew...that's mighty impressive-- add 'em up: So far, we've totaled at least 30 million new green energy jobs, have virtually eliminated our dependency on foreign oil, and we're still counting!

 

But before we all go hoarse cheering, who was it that said..."There's a sucker born every minute?"

 

Calling P.T. Barnum; we're being suckered by both the press and these self-serving politicians, who know nothing about science; know nothing about the hard realities of economics, and ignore the fact that less than 4% of U.S energy is currently generated by "renewables."

 

These untold millions of green energy jobs-- that promise to combat atmospheric "climate change"-- are little more than pie in the sky. 

 

EXAMPLE: Our blowhard politicians omit one grossly inconvenient truth: the failure to consider the millions of  jobs LOST due to the massive changes they espouse for the U.S. economy.

  

Legislation requiring a shift from fossil fuels displaces jobs at coal mines, oil fields, refineries, power plants (plus their support industries), and will do little other than sentencing millions of ex energy workers to the unemployment lines.

 

But not to worry-- they'll be replacement jobs aplenty.

 

The green energy revolution will spark a boom in "administrative services"-- huge increases in trial lawyers, government regulators & administrators, not to mention the ballooning staffs the EPA will require to enforce these preposterous measures. 

  

But for now, the political momentum appears unstoppable. A prime example of the green energy mania can be found in the Keystone state-- Pennsylvania:

 

Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, is raising taxes and spending more than $2 billion on clean, green energy investments; and of course, this includes the standard obligatory promise to create hundreds of thousands of new "green" jobs.

 

Thus far, Rendell's efforts have been an abject failure.

 

His first $1 billion of green energy "investments" created a whopping  3,500 new jobs; a cost to taxpayers of a mere $285,000 per job-- a shining model of efficiency. 

 

Rendell won't be in line for the Nobel Prize in economics anytime soon.

 

And if one were to extrapolate the data  from Pennsylvania, it would cost the federal government more than $1.1 TRILLION to replace the estimated 3-4 million conventional energy jobs, destroyed by a nationwide push to renewables.

 

Aside Pennsylvania, another voice shouting in the wind comes from yet another brilliant democrat, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland...(quote) "Wind turbines  and other renewable sources are not only a less-polluting means of diversifying the state's energy sources, but also, as a job-development tool."

 

Governor Insanity (er, Strickland) wants to make the Ohio Turnpike an "advanced energy corridor", using state land to site wind turbines and other renewable energy technologies.

 

And if state legislators allow Strickland to get his way, Ohio will soon see dozens of giant, hideous windmills sprouting up offshore in Lake Erie .

 

Turn baby, turn... this is fabulous news! Stricklands "advanced" land /lake energy corridor will be based on the 500 year-old, 16th century technology of windmills.

 

Picture it now it now... driving along the scenic Ohio Turnpike...dodging thousands of dead birds, slaughtered by the whirring 40 foot diameter of  windturbine  blades. ODOT (Ohio Dept. of Transportation) will indeed experience a job boom in roadway cleanup crews hired. 

 

And out in pristine Lake Erie, consider the dilemma of the "pleasure" boaters, who now have to dodge hundreds of anti-scenic, offshore wind turbine installations, most of which will remain calm on the numerous wind-free days that are typical of northern Ohio weather.

 

So who was it that said..."look before you leap?" 

 

As America rushes intrepidly into the renewable energy era (and attempts to clean-up the atmosphere) what becomes of the effort if the large developing nations, like China and India, refuse take the same dramatic steps-- something they're unlikely to do.

 

China recently surpassed the U.S. to become the world's number-one emitter of CO2; and India is fast coming up to supplant the United States as number two.

 

If the goal of our actions is to prevent global warming, then to what end? No matter what the U.S. and the western countries may do to restrict emissions, China's carbon dioxide output is on track to double (or possibly treble) during the next decade,

 

So basically, the money the U.S. government spends on renewables will serve no other purpose than to subsidize the Chinese economy, and concomitantly penalize our own.

 

Attention Al Gore-- here's the BIGGEST inconvenient truth-- why spend billions to restict CO 2 emissions in the U.S. when it's a scientific fact that all of China's (and India's) rapidly-increasing CO2 output all eventually mixes within the upper atmosphere anyway?

 

Short of building a gigantic, green energy bubble over each one of these "offending" countries, all U.S. environmental efforts will be for naught.

 

Unlike our liberal, coconut-head politicians in Congress, China recognizes the undeniable indications from around the globe-- green energy literally does not pay.  

 

Evidence from Spain and Germany (and other countries that have attempted to fast-track growth in their green-energy sectors) reveals that such policies often destroy more jobs in other industries than they actually create, and have done virtually nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2.

 

And in reality-- after the U.S. plunges headlong into this climatological fools' errand-- how much global warming are we really avoiding? How many conventional jobs are lost as we destroy our economy in a futile attempt to remake it?

 

But repeating mistakes has long been a storied part of Washington's misguided energy policies of the past.

 

Unlike China, the U.S. will spend untold billions on windmills, solar panels, biodiesel, ethanol, switchgrass, refined cooking grease, and every other boondoogle these radical environmental extremists in Congress attempt to legislate down our throats.

 

But fifty years from now, the U.S. will still be using fossil fuels; the internal combustion engine will have survived America's foolhardy rush to electric cars; and those blowhard, windmill-touting politicians will have eaten their words.

 

The law of economics cannot be repealed. Sooner rather than later, the green energy bubble is bound to burst, and America will return to its former sanity.

 

Or so we hope.

 

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

CO1? CO2? CO3? It's all the same to the EPA!


CO2 a poisonous gas? Well excuse me...for breathing.

April 2, 2007-- the day this fool's errand started; it was when our supremely stupid Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Clean Air Act "empowered" the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles-- and by inference-- from "other sources."

Hold your breath everybody-- aside from those deadly coal plants, 'infernal' combustion engines, and 'other sources' of carbon dioxide-- will we ourselves be getting fines in the mail from the EPA, for our own bodies' hazardous emissions?

But not to worry-- its all a matter of semantics. Just think of it as a sin tax on all of us for our individual contributions to global warming, courtesy of our friends in the federal government who are out to ration our breathing.

So now that we all officially qualify as "other sources" of those killer CO2 emissions, some local jurisdictions (New York City) are considering the imposition of "Exhalation Taxes."

And for all those concerned "Greenies" (i.e. the Sierra Club) who think that CO2 contributes to environmental damage, here's a simple solution: just stop exhaling! That way, you'll be able to confine all that 'hot air' within yourselves.

And what about the New York Marathon this fall? Mayor Bloomberg must be salivating. Can you imagine the gigantic 'Exhalation Tax' bonanza that could be in store for his financially-strapped city?

Based on the best estimates from exercise physiologists, 20,000 marathon runners would burn roughly 40 million calories over the course of 26.2 miles. More than 30 million of those calories will be given off as heat, and this mass of fast-stepping humanity would exude 36,000 gallons of perspiration-- and 'ta da'-- would exhale an estimated 27 THOUSAND POUNDS of carbon dioxide!

So all that mayor Bloomie need do is calculate a "penalty-per-pound" CO2-emissions scale, and his city will soon be in the money.

Who knows? Maybe Mr. Bloomberg could declare a marathon be held EVERY weekend, and make up for income lost from all the 'evil' rich people, who are fleeing in droves from those ever-increasing New York municipal income taxes.

Problem solved!

And why stop at fining marathon runners? Surely there are bigger--much bigger--fish to fry. Clearly we must declare war upon the greatest sources of CO2 pollution on the entire planet: volcanoes and wild fires.

So beware Governor Schwarzenegger. Next time California becomes involved in one of those nasty, planet-threatening conflagrations, it'll cost ya plenty.

And the next time Mt. St. Helens blows its top in Washington State, Governor Christine Gregoire had better get ready to apologize to America, and pay up for her volcano's irresponsible behavior.

Imagine that-- a volcano recklessly warming the planet so egregiously.

And considering the fact that a typical coal-burning power plant kicks out 5,200 TONS of carbon dioxide per day-- whoa baby! Here's yet another federal government bonanza.

And then there's those devil-may-care, fossil fuel-consuming Chinese, who are adding no less than 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity every year; and as soon as the EPA gets wind of this, they'll undoubtedly put them "on notice."

And why should the EPA limit its victims to coal and fossil fuel users? Go after everybody and everything!

If it breathes... fine it! if it moves... tax it!

Go after the bakers, and their perilous use of yeast (which emits CO2). And come down really hard on all those nefarious champagne producers, who's bubbly CO2 emissions are surely causing the rise in sea levels everywhere.

So it's only a matter of time before the fermentation process will be outlawed. Just think how much you'll enjoy a nice flat bottle of beer, or a tepid-tasting can of soda pop.

And then there's those shameless dairy farmers, who are also endangering the planet, raising their lethal herds of methane-emitting dairy cows. The solution? Levy a carbon-footprint tax on milk.

And why stop at cows? Tax all the animals! They breath too. Come on, we're all in this together.

Yes; these irresponsible creatures must all be stopped before its too late!

But seriously folks, we must remember; carbon dioxide is very potent. Even at concentrations of less than one tenth of one percent (0.1%) CO2 is capable of driving bureaucrats at the EPA insane.

And If we lose the EPA, all of humanity may be lost.

We must save the bureaucrats! After all, they are the only ones who are capable of making those critical, planet-saving decisions.

Should fat people be taxed more than skinny people, since they emit more CO2? Should meat be made illegal, since cows produce so much methane? Should we nuke China for emitting more CO2 than the USA?

But here's a funny thing to consider--exhalation of CO2 is an "irrelevance."

Remember the "carbon cycle" diagram in your in your 8th grade science text? Well here's a quick refresher:

Plants take in CO2 (photosynthesis); we eat the plants (or the nice, tasty animals that ate the plants), and following our digestion and respiration, we breath out CO2, which is then taken in again by the plants. Ca-pish?

So boys 'n girls, we can see that the CO2 is simply going 'round in a circle; ergo--the carbon cycle! Conclusion? It is not "dangerous" CO2. And If anyone knows differently, kindly step to the front of the class.

But why should some silly fact of science get in the way of the EPA? After all, aren't they here to protect us, and stave off the epidemic of all those people that are out there gasping and collapsing on sidewalks, streets, and in stores everywhere from all that deadly carbon dioxide pollution?

We must prepare to fend off the impending global warming holocaust...and we must act NOW!

Ah yes-- the beauty of clean air.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

Coming soon to a factory near you...the Waxman-Markey anti-stimulus


Pssst...wanna hear a good one? Henry Waxman (the California ultra-leftist House democrat) has stated that his new climate bill WON'T harm the U.S. economy.

Can this environmental noodlehead actually be serious?

Waxman is the type of guy who stays up late thinking of new leftist ideas to force down our throats-- his dream for an ecological nirvana-- but it's a nightmare.

Yes indeed, the benevolent Henry Waxman, who claims his bill won't hurt the economy. It's like pretending cancer is harmless. Waxman's big lie of lies is nothing more than economic carcinoma in its most virulent form, because it will metastisize insidiously from one industry to another.

And now, we must introduce his partner in crime, Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), another leftist radical who--as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy &  Environment-- has been a one-man wrecking-crew to block drilling leases in Alaska in order to "save" the pristine habitat.

This lunatic claims that the current estimate of 30,00 polar bears are grounds enough to block oil exploration to avoid their extinction; so don't dare try to tell good ol' Ed that there ain't no global warming--no sir-ee--because he's having none of it.

Waxman and Markey are the Laurel & Hardy of environmentalism-- out to pass their clean air bill-- then sit back and watch it slowly leach the lifeblood out of every manufacturer, energy producer, farmer, and you guessed it...everyone else who uses energy-- all because of non-existent global warming.

And God save America if this bill passes! The cost of living, the cost of driving, and the cost of doing business for almost everyone-- all will literally go sky-high in the next decade-- or even sooner.

Their legislation requires that CO2 emissions be reduced 20 percent by the year 2020, and that all greenhouse gases be reduced by 80 percent by 2050.

That's right-- EIGHTY PERCENT!

And once our leftist Congress passes this travesty, we can expect to see life change precipitously for the worse (thanks to these two fascist fools) because it will virtually outlaw the internal combustion engine in the next decade, if "compliance" is to be reached.

We'll be forced to drive "green" cars. We can kiss goodbye to our power lawnmowers, snow-blowers and leaf-blowers. And wait till we open up our utility bills in a few years.

The Waxman- Markey clean air bill will suck so much disposable income from the average American (estimated at $3000 annually per household) that our consumer-driven economy may all but collapse under this final death blow.

And Waxman- Markey won't stop there, not by a long-shot.

This law will force us to adopt the green energy source of the future: windmills-- yes windmills-- a 16th-century, weather-dependent "technology," and forsake reliable, dependable coal-power, which generates almost 60% of our nation's electricity-- and provides it cheaply.

So think about all the coal miners that will be put out of work; think about all the steel workers and the rest of the heavy industry workers that will be forced out of their livelihoods for so-called environmental reasons, while the congressional aristocracy will continue to fly around in their privately-chartered, CO2--emitting jets, and be chauffeured around Washington sitting in the back seats of huge, gasoline-powered limousines.

Meanwhile, the Chinese will be the ones to benefit as our heavy industries either close down, or move overseas to greener pastures. This bill will only serve to indirectly subsidize our foreign competitors who could care less about green energy, and will continue to power their economies with dependable coal and fossil fuels.

But what about all the fun of driving the green cars of the future? It'll be bye-bye gasoline, and hello to battery power-- another "technological" breakthrough that was invented by Alessandro Volta in the year 1800.

And say "so long" to your sports car, "hasta-lavista" to your work truck; and bid "adios" to your SUV. The Waxman-Markey bill will eventually legislate them out of existence, much like the EPA did to Detroit's flourishing muscle car industry in the early 70's.

And to add insult to injury, the Obama administration is calling this--believe it or not-- a jobs bill--youch!

Not only will it grievously wound the private sector and drive millions of people to their local unemployment offices, just picture all the new "energy-police" positions that'll be created as an offshoot of this horrid legislation.

They'll be "energy inspectors" going everywhere, checking for "compliance." It will create an entire new layer of government workers-- a green energy Gestapo-- whose sole task will be the harassment and condemnation of any company (or any household) who refuses to comply--complete with the onerous fines to match.

It's all part of the cover: Create a bigger bureaucracy...more and more government employees; while more and more private-sector workers are forced onto the unemployment rolls, dependent upon their monthly Obama check-- or else starve.

Obama... Markey...Waxman...Congress...the EPA -- they all know what the master plan is: it's all about the tipping point-- where 50% of the people become dependent on the federal government-- which assures enough votes to keep this autocracy in Washington to "serve" the people for at least 4 more fun-filled years.

So they'll keep levying more regulations, which will beget more destruction of the economy, with 15% (or greater) unemployment-- plus a hugely expanded government work force-- as increasing political power inexorably flows to Washington, and hapless citizens with lost jobs, lost pride, facing a bleak future.

But all the while, they'll be breathing sweet, clean, fresh air.



www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

"Solar system warming"... Gore's most inconvenient truth


Calling Al Gore...come out from under your rock-- you'll wanna know all about this:
 
For almost a decade, our most dear and revered ex-vice president has led the charge for drastically changing the way humans do business (bid-ness) in a 'bid' to avert 'catastrophic' man-made global warming.

But alas, the majority of people aren't buying into his panic.
 
Curiously, scientists have recently noted there is ALSO a noticeable climate change taking place on Mars and Jupiter. Reports as far back as three years ago reveal that ice caps on Mars are retreating and reforming in synchronicity with the ice of our own Earth's Arctic circle.
 
But attention Mr. Gore-- here's one striking difference between Earth and the other two planets: both Jupiter or Mars are devoid of people – and from further review--both planets lack so-called "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide.
 
Scientists have long known that similar to earth, both Mars & Jupiter experience 'weather', which implies (ironically) planetary climate change. And according to astronomers from the University of California, turbulent storms first observed on Jupiter two years ago are still raging, and like our earth, its climate also keeps changing.

Mars too, is being hit by rapid climate change-- the red planet may one day lose its southern ice cap. Scientists from NASA say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5 C* since the 1970's. This is in almost EXACT conjunction to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period-- something that Mr. Gore might find rather inconvenient.
 
And for all those who choose to believe in the dire warnings of today's leftist media-- kindly cancel your memberships to the Flat Earth Society and face the facts--there is no man made global warming...period.
 
For more than 100 years, yellow press journalists have been quoting scientists with grave predictions-- the impending "destruction of civilization" by either runaway heat, or a "new Ice Age".
 
But now, the "green press" of the liberal media has intertwined global warming with an ominous political agenda--a concerted effort to support the government's bent to control lives and acquire the power to tax industries, and to levy misery under the false premise of saving the planet.
 
Over the last century, America's major media have exhibited a form of "chicken little" journalism, forever warning of  inescapable global climate crises no less than FOUR different times – each more dire than the previous-- predicting the demise of entire continents, or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die."
 
In 1895, the media was all a-twitter over an "imminent" ice age.
 
Then in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface had warmed by less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s.
 
In 1975, the New York Times' headlines blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable;" which was followed by two incredibly severe winters in 1977-78.
 
Then in 1981, it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted... "global warming of an almost unprecedented magnitude."
 
Today,  much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe," so they're covered either way: if the world gets colder, global warming is still the reason-- a not so-clever deception.
 
The reality is that CO2 emissions do not affect weather in the way our media claims (or as Mr. Gore would have us believe). CO2 makes up roughly .054% of total gases in the Earth's atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is by far, the most prevalent atmospheric "greenhouse" gas.
 
Humans produce less CO2 than volcanoes, animals, bacteria, and dying vegetation. The oceans are the biggest CO2 producers, representing the REAL CO2 reservoir. Climate constantly changes without the help of man. 
 
World temperatures DECREASED from 1948 -1975 during the post World War II economic boom-- opposite of CO2/global warming theory. The gullible warming (global warming) theory also holds that upper-atmospheric temperatures should be increasing more than surface temperature, but they are not!
 
Yet surface temperatures are increasing-- a phenomenon that is easily explained by ocean currents, which like El Nino, have a decided effect on storms, temperatures, and humidity, thus effecting "regional climate changes" of their own.

Warming produces CO2, but CO2 does not cause warming. The reality is that the Sun (sun spot activity) drives changes in climate. There has always been a direct correlation between sun spot activity, clouds and global temperature.
 
But according to the august body of scientists at the IPCC, (a puppet organization of the UN) their message would have us conclude that the sun has practically ZERO effect on climate-- supposedly that humans have infinitely more influence on conditions than some "measly" old Sun, which is large enough to hold one million earths within its incredibly huge, three-dimensional overall circumference.
 
The problem is two fold-- a general misunderstanding of science among the vastly dumbed-down American population-- and the portrayal of global warming by the media, who continually carry the urgent warnings by the left that... we must act now, before it becomes "irreversible."
 
What the media continues to censor is what scientists have discovered by the data transmitted from the Hubble telescope: As Earth heats & cools, so do Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these events.
 
During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun, a period dubbed the “Maunder Minimum.” This event coincided with the coldest years of the "Little Ice Age",  a 350-year cold spell that once gripped much of Europe and North America.
 
Then beginning around 1725, ships' logs kept by sea captains spoke of a discernible warming trend, which lasted well into the 19th century, before a leveling in earth's temperature was observed--- evidence that warming -cooling cycles are a natural earth phenomenon, and hence, cannot possibly be blamed on CO2.
 
In Russia, St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's 'irradiant' output...(quote) “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars has always been practically parallel."
 
Solar irradiance depends upon sunspot activity, a phenomenon first observed by Galileo nearly 400 years ago. Sunspot cycle behavior is largely random, and when scientists think it has hit a low-point, it sometimes has gone even lower.
 
There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the last year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more "spotless" suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. But for 2009, the count so far has dropped even LOWER.

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum-- the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century.
 
After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness using radio wavelengths, with records extending back to the early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955.

Since the "Space Age" began in the late 1950s, five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. But right now, we're in a period of what scientists have dubbed, "a deep calm."
 
But the IPCC panel of UN scientists refuses to be 'confused' by these widely observed scientific facts.
 
As the old axiom goes... just "follow the money."
 
All the main players – from governmants to scientists and the United Nations – stand to profit insatiably from instilling fear over the unproven theory of man-made gullible (global) warming.
 
Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up their latest scare, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries reported to the U.N. that..." the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a "global tax" on greenhouse gas emissions.
 
That's right boys 'n girls; we've been conditioned (brainwashed) as we hear over & over..."Global problems require global solutions." Sound familiar? This means global warming equals CO2 taxation without representation-- the ultimate climatological scam of the ages.

And any credibility we would normally give to well-respected group of scientists (IPCC) quickly goes down the swirly bowl when it becomes clear that they've tossed aside science in favor of political fearmongering.

But fear not-- these global warmongers shall not be deterred-- they pretend to remain oblivious to the fact that "concerns about global warming" are dead LAST on most Americans' priority list. And in a recent annual poll, the percentage of people who suspect exaggeration of the problem hit an all time high-- over 80%.

So how much more political hay will these fruitcakes be able to generate out of a couple degrees, and some altered weather patterns? It's painfully obvious that the die-hard global warming fanatics won't pass into irrelevance quietly.

But how many times can you cry wolf?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

Gullible warming (global warming)-- the big lie in the sky!


Here's a couple of quotes that'll shake your booty:

Quote #1: "If you tell a lie BIG ENOUGH and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the consequences of the lie...Thus it becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress the truth, for truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

These chilling words were brought to you by the infamous Joseph Goebbels-- Hitler's propaganda minister; circa 1935.

Quote #2: “A lie told OFTEN ENOUGH becomes truth" (unquote). And these words of marxist wisdom were written by Vladimir Lenin, first head honcho of the Communist revolution; circa 1919.

And 50 years hence, there came a third quote from one James Hansen, who in 1970, released his earth-convulsing statement on climate change: (quote) "The world was warming, and greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were the reason" (unquote).

And back then (as it is now) it's still the biggest lie and potential scam ever known to all mankind.

Mr. Hansen-- former NASA scientist and renowned researcher-- now speaks of an approaching worldwide "zero-hour", predicting a hellish rise this century of 5.3 to 7.2 F* in average temperatures, and warns that melting polar ice sheets will swamp Manhattan with 18 inches of seawater within the next decade!

And Hansen claims it's fact--NOT a theory-- because he understands the 'carbon cycle' well enough to forecast, (quote) "Civilization has a only a 10-year window of opportunity for decisive action to avert catastrophe."

Holy inferno Batman! This guy makes Gore look tame by comparison.

And then we have a fourth quote from another well known liberal prevaricator, Tom Brokaw, deposed NBC news anchor, who hosted a recent special on the Discovery Channel entitled, "Global Warming- the New Challenge", where Mr. Brokaw declares that, (quote) "Global warming is real, and is getting worse."

But this then begs the question: If global warming is real and getting worse...why the necessity of sounding an alarm? Wouldn't we ALREADY be aware of this?

But in actuality, there's a growing body of evidence that earth has been COOLING over the last decade, and opinion is shifting to the view that global warming is actually "gullible warming"--a fraud perpetrated by liberals and their scientific minions-- all geared toward propagating fear, and using it to wrest control of our lives-- and our wallets.

Global warmongers never seem to shrink from their task at hand. Like a sinewy nest of frenetic ants, they tirelessly work to fabricate a facade of lies, "justifying" their pretension that ALL of science is on board with man-made global warming, and their accompanying worn out exhortation: "We MUST act now!"

But what if fossil fuels were outlawed, yet the poles kept melting and hurricanes actually were intensifying? What would the global warmongers say then?

Earth's history abounds with climate changes. But politics is now dictating that we plunge into game-changing economic proposals (such as cap-'n-trade) before any proof of cause.

The proposed scam of cap and trade projects to vacuum 700 billion dollars from the private sector in what amounts to energy taxation, which will catastrophically shrink our economy and cost the average household an additional $1,300 a year in utility bills--all for the purpose of attacking fossil fuels, which provide 85% of America's energy.

Meanwhile, so called "scientists" such as Mr. Hansen, continue to recite the standard liberal party line..."Fossil fuel use will in time, doom the earth".

But will it?

With the recent spate of bitterly cold winter weather in the U.S. and Europe, it's become obvious to the point of being ridiculous: Science and global warming are not joined at the hip.

True evidence of global warming would require validation by scientific equations-- they are the key measure to derive proof of discovery, and validate any claim or prediction. But to this day, nothing in the way of actual scientific evidence exists-- only computer models-- which can be fabricated to project any point of view, and make it seem factual.

Scientific equations provide ABSOLUTE physical basis for all of Newton's laws; and these can be easily applied to refute gullible (global) warming.

We know heat is energy; and burning any form of energy (or matter) cannot create more or less energy--  proving Sir Isaac Newton's First Law.  But this proof has been decidedly absent from the fray where it pertains to fossil fuels, and the heating of the atmosphere.

Newton's Law indisputably proves that significant warming is NOT a by-product of fossil-fuel combustion, otherwise Los Angeles-- with the world's largest density of motor vehicles--would be the hottest city on earth. But it is NOT, because Sir Isaac Newton's First Law is impossible to violate.

But for the global warmongering fundamentalists, no amount of contradictory science can shake their "faith"-- or their lies.

Nowadays, because so few people now possess even a rudimentary grasp of science, the warnings of the Alarmists are held dogmatic. Thus people obligingly ascribe to the fallacy that CO2 emissions will inevitably evoke calamity with earth's climate.

And to backup their false pretexts, the Alarmists now have us riding a merry-go-round of conflicting terminology: pollution...greenhouse gas... warming... CO2 emissions.... climate change-- all have become subtly intertwined to make them seem interchangeable-- they are not!

But indeed, these terms are cleverly interchangeable in the Alarmist's lexicon. And this is the ball-of-confusion groundwork behind all the political correctness to vilify oil, glorify windmills and solar panels, and confusing CO2 with carbon monoxide (CO).

Scientific measurements prove atmospheric CO2 as a paltry 32 molecules per million, and in no way exists in dense enough quantity to influence much of anything--especially earth's temperature.

And carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. All plant life depends on it.

CO2 is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in. The earth contains much CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. But the liberal media will have none of the truth.

So global warming continues to remain an unproven theory. Yet the Alarmists clamor that our carbon footprints will inexorably lead us into a global furnace of hell-- but always devoid of any scientific proof.

Truth can be inconvenient-- just ask  Al Gore. And recent statistical analysis from the University of Alabama (Huntsville) has caused Mr. Gore to remove his hockey-stick temperature graph and the weather slides from his powerpoint.

What we continue to be told (or not told) by the media amounts to censorship-- thus all the deception about gullible warming. More than 700 international scientists now dissent over man-made global warming claims. They comprise more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who support the media-hyped IPCC 2007 "Summary for Policymakers", which has only served to increase the controversy.

But the false Alarmists thrive on controversy. And the louder they warn, the more celebrity they receive. They're skilled in the art of obfuscation-- pollution can be seen-- but warming is invisible. And they're disobliging of the fact earth's climate ALWAYS changes through time.

So proof continues to "exist" either affirming global (gullible) warming, or that it's a hoax, depending on whomever is comprising the data.

But can global warming EVER be proved? Will Man's finite mind ever be capable of answering the infinitely complex questions about global interactions between weather, ocean currents, and the heat dynamics within earth's molten core?

Only the infinite intelligence of the Supreme Being can answer that.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

The "DUH" generation...will it destroy the Republican party?


School days...school days.


Ah yes; most everyone remembers them fondly.
 
But inside our hallowed halls of education, what's taking place could be more aptly be described as a school daze-- a leftist-slanted, decidedly liberal way of not instructing our children in the "three R's", but rather feeding them a constant stream of "San Francisco" style mainstream liberal teachings.
 
Today's students aren't being educated-- they're being indoctrinated!
 
The children of today can't read, write, add, subtract, multiply, divide, or spell, or even speak English correctly. They, like, uh, like, can't communicate too well-- unless it's by text messages.
 
But these youthful, ecological tyrants can talk all day about how plastic bags are destroying ocean life, or argue vehemently about why the United States should never have gone into Iraq. They learn all about social injustice, and the necessity of trying to be "fair" to everyone at all times.

Many elementary school children are profoundly troubled by the thought that global warming will eventualy burn up their earth. And in almost every school (and college), students are led to believe that CO2 is a poison gas, and its release into the atmosphere must be placed under some type of government authority.
 
Today's children aren't being taught science; but they can tell you why we should use the new light bulbs. And they can talk extemporaneously for hours about coastal cities being swamped because we refuse to give up oil-- the commodity which is basic to our economic strength.

Today's students don't have a clue about why it's critical to construct new power plants and refineries (to enable the U.S. economy to expand along with its population). But instead they're taught to hate the big oil corporations. Thus, they retain a basic anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, anti-American liberal inbreeding.

So what is going on in the classrooms of today? Apparently not education.
 
In 2007, only 36 percent of American eighth graders were rated ''proficient'' in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The math results were similar. This means hundreds of thousands of students, having reached the threshold of high school, have yet to master the ability to read critically or do basic computations, let alone grasp the essentials of science, history and civics.

Today's high school graduates can't make change, or compute percentages; many couldn't qualify for a part time retail job even if it were available
 
But this isn't even the worst problem. Yes, it's bad enough that we'll have 75 million functional illiterates interacting throughout our society for the foreseeable future.

Let's call them the "duh" generation.

And functional illiteracy is only the beginning; the worst problem is political demographics-- the effect this dumbed-down generation will have on future elections.

Just in the last election, Barack Obama won by a 52.7% vs. 46% margin over John McCain; but Obama didn't exceed 50% in any voting groups, except for the under 25 (69%) and the black vote (94%).

Could this portend future doom for the Republican party? Definitely!

Political conservatism is slowly going the way of the incandescent light bulb. The National Education Association (teacher's union) is seeing to that. Anecdotal stories of liberal-slanted teacher-classroom incidents abound:

Last summer, in the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, a ten year old boy had written a letter to president Bush, and got a reply. But when the excited 4th grader brought his letter from the President to school, his teacher told him to put the letter away, citing, "no politics in class". Then the same classroom teacher instructed all her students to write a letter to President-elect Obama several months later.

In the classrooms of today, republicans merit zero tolerance:

In Carmel, California, a 16 year old high school girl, the only Republican on her debate team, was told to... "sit down and shut up until you have something intelligent to say''.

American Enterprise Institute's magazine published a survey of voter registrations. More than nine out of 10 teachers belonged to the Democratic party.

Disturbing stories have surfaced over the past months, further highlighting just how far many segments of American education have now elevated Barack Obama.

A concerned parent reveals that his 1st grader son complained of having to pledge allegiance every day at school to a huge projected image of Mr. Obama.
The 6-year old told his father that the teacher put up a large image of the new president next to the flag. What is worse is that he said all of the kids in class each faced Obama, instead of the flag that hangs in the corner.

What the heck is going on...is this supposed to be what we call citizenship in the community?

Or what about citizenship in the nation? The liberally-slanted history that today's students are being taught is so polarizing, it's almost as if we're splitting into 2 nations --the old vs young, depending on WHEN one went to school

Modern American history textbooks speak little of the American  Revolution, or Civil War; or the 2 world wars; or all the United States stands for-- freedom won through hardfought victory over tyranny through all its years.

Today, revisionist history texts focus on the U.S. as an imperialistic, racist country, with groups being pushed in & out of slavery; groups have been denied rights, and America's bullying of nations.

The story of the Klan is given more weight as an influence in the country than all the great inventors, all the great Presidents, and all the great statesmen of our American past.

On campuses, conservative opinion doesn't qualify as respectable inquiry. You won't often find conservative principles discussed, or patriotism argued on the American campuses of today

Imagine the America of the future:

A country where all the doctors, engineers, and architects are foreign, due to today's  inability of teaching science or math properly.

An America sliding to its inevitable third world migration, where enviro-radicalism abounds:  Recycling bins everywhere. People riding bicycles, and driving little insect-like "green energy" cars to work. People living in small houses, with green "living" roofs, sleeping in 55 degree bedrooms-- to both conserve energy and the save environment.

And imagine the politics-- our Constitution, hanging by a thread...traditional marriage, individuals right to property, freedom of speech-- all under assault, becoming subservient in the name of moral equivalency.

And a constitutional amendment forbidding animosity towards homosexuals-- that preventing two people from marrying one another is discrimination. Such an amendment would be a likely offshoot of the inevitable march toward a one-party form of liberalism, that would guarantee a communal life, with no liberty, and the pursuit of social injustice.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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

global warming vs. reality...the Taxman cometh

 

 

 

It's all so very interesting: If  we were to believe the mainstream media news being broadcast these days, we would be led  to think that America was mired with two daunting problems -1) the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression (false);  2)President-Elect Obama’s energy policies will address our severely deepening climate change crisis (false again).

 

But actually, premise #2 (Obama's energy policies) may actually trigger # 1 (a Second Depression), and bring the greatest financial crisis since 1933 to a head, if we continue the pied piper march off the precipice (i.e. the "consequences" of global warming).  We may actually be moving in a direction to third world energy dependency (all OPEC), whereby America may never recover its glory days of the past.

 

And just what type of climatic consequences are we facing ? In a previously hidden San Francisco Chronicle television interview, Obama was revealed saying that he wants to implement..."an aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies".  He further stated..."energy prices would skyrocket as a result". So if Obama's out to bankrupt coal companies, how will that affect electric and utility bills in another few years? 

 

And Obama believes that global warming is a critical issue, and besides cap & trade, he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. But why is this all so critical to do NOW? Is the environment really on the precipice? Or is it because Mr. Obama knows that scaring people to death is very good for the environmentalist business?

 

And Obama isnt the only one employing political scare tactics.The U.N. Climate Panel (panel of disinformation) claims human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are blanketing the planet., and the resulting increasing temperatures will bring more floods, heatwaves, more powerful storms and rising sea levels; so RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! 

 

But ironically, the United Nations first chairman of the climate panel, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that..."unless we ANNOUNCE disasters, no one will listen". And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the matter: the U.N., Obama, Sierra Club, and all the other radical environmentalists have foisted upon us a huge mythological, so-called problem that doesn't even exist!

 

If the so called threat of global warming wasn't constantly being drum-beated in the news, would anyone even be capable of discerning anything so sinisterly wrong, that it could destroy us all if we don't act AT ONCE?  Example: if someone were to emerge out of a 30-year coma and go outside, they would probably wonder... "what in the world is going on with all this climate change hype? I don't notice anything different with the world!"

 

And that's the point: climate change is a political hoax of biblical proportions! Take a walk outside; have you noticed anyone in your neighborhood rolling on the ground, coughing violently, and gasping for clean air? And are we about ready to abandon our furnaces because the climate has gotten so dangerously warm? And are people fleeing away in panic from the coastlines ahead of the fast-rising sea levels?

 

But yet, all we get is warning after warning, threat after threat, and guilt trip-upon-guilt trip, that burning coal is similar to releasing some lethal form of krypto-chloro-mustard gas, and every time you start your car, or eat a cheeseburger you are damaging the environment; and the oceans are about to swamp the cities and replay Katrina vs. New Orleans. And to what end?  It's the master plan to politicize the weather, and open up the way to tax our heavy industries, and raise the cost of gasoline to the point of forcing us into those hideous, insect-bodied, green cars of the future.

 

But curiously, less than half of Americans surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions. So evidently, much needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as 'green' taxation' or carbon trading, to help them understand how much higher utility bills and gasoline will cost in the near future.

 

And even more curiously, what would have happened to Obama if he'd campaigned for president on this particular platform of "change"?

 

So what's all the rush about? If we listen to Obama and the way climate change is being hyped, you'd think there was something akin to a plague of locusts sweeping across the country, devouring the world before them. In a recent D.C. press conference, Obama addressed the nation..."The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," Obama said, after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.

 

Obama continued..."We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years...this is a matter of urgency and national security... and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

 

But what kind of scientists is Obama listening to? Mad scientists! Carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on CO2. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in. The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. But the liberal media will have none of the truth!

 

But If CO2 is a such a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in earthly temperature history, going all the way back 250 years ago to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England. But we haven’t. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago, when meterological records were starting to be kept.

 

Fossil fuels are not ruining the environment; and the world is not running out of oil. The truth is that we’re all married to fossil fuels. And divorce is not currently in the cards for many of us. Securing the country's supply of oil for our military and for economic expansion  is more important to national security than tackling climate change.

 

But the politics supporting the notion that fossil fuels equal some sort of calamity around the corner, is leading us to the very thing we want to avoid; a slow-motion economic train crash, caused by the government's liberal agenda over climate change and energy policy,

 

John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel, recently weighed in last month on climate change: (quote) " Some dastardly scientists, with political motives, manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus" (unquote). Of course, none of the major media outlets chose to pick up the story, or give Coleman's comments any national exposure.

 

 

But how about the recent national report quoted  from a magazine article saying that... "a huge chunk of sea ice had broken off an island in the Arctic". So what happened? Boom! All the “man-made” global-warming extremists jumped up and started crying about how we are all doomed, and how this sea ice was just another sign of the end of the world.

 

But if the meda had bothered to cover to the end of the article, it would have also reported that the island had at one time been free of sea ice about 1,000 years ago, which is evidence that mankind has never been a factor, and never will be able to cause this vast earth to warm up and trigger some climatalogical event of apocalyptic proportions. It is simply not within our power!

 

The latest observations from balloons and satellites confirm that warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis. But the media remains slanted, and constantly reports about "computer-based climate models" as providing the evidence "supporting" claims that the world is "dangerously warming", and there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like. Yet these same models failed to predict the temperature peak in 1998, and the steadily cooling trend that set in from 2002.

 

 

So what does it all mean? Well, it means that only ignorant, uninformed, idiopathic people believe that man is causing global warming. But with the dumbed-down state of our educational system, and the liberal slant of the news, there are enough ignorant uninformed people to total 75%, which is the number of Americans who have been brainwashed into voicing, "they want something done about it" . So lets all blame the sun!

 

The effect of the sun is the major reason for global warming, to the exclusion of all others. Solar flares and sun spots are the real reason earth gets warmer or cooler. And ocean currents, such as El Nino and La Nina', are the reason for the melting at the poles.

 

So just ask John Coleman-- it may be a shock to readers that many scientists do not understand the earth’s climate very well enough themselves to make informed judgments about the ACTUAL (not perceived) danger of global warming (er…climate change).

 

Past events in recorded history show warmer climates have been accompanied by more rain, longer growing seasons, more crops and more land to settle on, and bringing upon times when past civilizations have prospered. CO2 is no problem; it is not a toxic emission, but rather, the gas of life.

 

The problem is climate change policy, not climate change, which is beyond man’s control. Global warming is a widely accepted myth. World temperatures have fallen from their peak ten years ago while CO2 has been rising rapidly. The world was much warmer in the Bronze age 4,000 years ago and there was much less airborne CO2 then, because none of the rain forests had been cut down. The bounteousness of world vegetation goes up with CO2; so we could use more CO2, not less.

 

But now, with the prospect of an increasingly Democratic Senate, and a president who will go along with the madness of climatalogically futile energy policies, look for a revival of the old Beatles song, "The Taxman", from the 1966 Revolver album, a bitter song about how much money The Beatles were paying in taxes back then...

        

        "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
         If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
         If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
         If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...
         Taxman!"

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »