Given all three of these seemingly unrelated human interest stories, what do they share in common? In deference, we now move on to story number four:

A headline breaks in the London Times: "Unknown Alleged Russian Entity Hacks Into Computers of Major Center on Global Warming."

Indeed, hackers had now "exposed" the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England - obtaining 1079 emails and 72 files - containing nearly 4000 documents on global warming - proving it to be the greatest of all hoaxes...EVER!

The Russian hacker(s) released 61 megabytes of confidential files. The site - apparently originating in Tomsk, Siberia - is now down (closed).

Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 e-mails) that had been available online:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Suspiciously, things began getting a bit shaky when "global warming" was esoterically morphed into 'climate change'. Then, in conjunction, the EPA "reclassified" CO2 as a "greenhouse gas." The stage was now set: the weather itself had become politicized:

- Blizzards in China? Climate change.

- Snow in Saudi Arabia? Excess greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. 

- Volcano eruption in Pago-Pago? Silly fool; it's climate change.

- Atlanta flooded by 11 eleven inches of rain? Yep - it's that nasty ol' climate change thing.

Until the Russian 'saviors' had intervened, UN liberals had been well-poised to use CO2 as a pretext to bankrupt developed countries; they would transfer trillions of their dollars to the "underdeveloped" nations by charging penalties pegged to carbon emissions (per metric ton).

But If Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a such a grave danger (as the EPA tells us) what is it doing in our childrens’ soft drinks? And why has it been delineated as a so-called greenhouse gas?

The IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) had for twenty years been using computer models that ominously had predicted a warming rate in the troposphere; with rises of 1.2* Centigrade per decade, using calculations based upon 'greenhouse-forcing' scenarios.

This implied carbon-tax increases of $14 to $24 per-ton - per DECADE.

At the upper end of the IPCC "warming forecast," emissions' taxes would have reached upwards of $200 per ton of CO2 by 2050, forcing major carbon-emitters into bankruptcy, and a presumptive global shift to "non-carbon" energy sources.

But why not avoid the controversy altogether? Tie all carbon taxes to ACTUAL levels of warming. Both skeptics and alarmists alike would've had their wishes answered - problem solved!

"Climate justice" is about redistribution of money from consumer countries (USA) to poorer countries in South America & Africa (the UN will conference in Copenhagen until December 18 to achieve this noble goal).

In the United States, climate justice says everyone in the middle class shall pay energy taxes; providing money to the welfare leeches (in the urban areas) for their energy needs.

The House Cap 'n Trade Bill provides these energy taxes to be distributed to "historically disadvantaged" urban areas. This same wording also lies in the "Stimulus" package.

The "endangered" coal-fired plants in the Midwest would be forced to double their rates; the energy users (everyone) would effectively be subsidizing the "poor". Hence, the leeches would get free "energy vouchers" to pay for their heating & energy costs.

Farmers would be devastated: cap 'n trade levies a charge of $20 for one sheep, $100 for a beef cow, $150 per head of dairy cattle. Reasoning? Methane output. Future food prices? Up 50%!  

In wonderful Ohio - First Energy, an Akron utility, sent two energy-saving compact flourescent light-bulbs (CFLs) to customers, charging them $21 - whether they wanted them or not. The idea? - to compensate First Energy for future costs relevant to Ohio’s new law requiring utilities to reduce coal consumption 22.2 percent by 2025.

If states require utilities to reduce coal consumption, or use more expensive 'renewable' energy sources, rising rates must make up the difference - meaning less disposable income; more job losses - sending manufacturing jobs fleeing overseas to China.

In West Virginia, if the House cap-and-trade bill became law, 11,000  mining jobs would be gone in less than 15 years, according to a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers.

"West Virginia's coal production would fall 85.1 percent; electricity production by 18.6 percent by 2030." According to the study, the poor would especially bear the brunt: they spend a greater share of their income on energy than people in higher income brackets.

This ‘cap n trade’ nonsense will force a vast majority of Americans to park their transportation, not to mention the conventional energy jobs lost because of the lunacy surrounding the "restructuring" of America into a new "greener" economy.

Global warming; climate change; so-called 'dirty gasoline' automobiles...all a pretext to destroy our freedoms. 

Americans love their conventional cars, and will part with them only as a last resort.

But now that so-called global warming is in question, what happens to GM after all the money poured into developing its new, renewable-energy cars? Small cars, not only expensive and ugly, but inherently dangerous as well!

A recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that electric vehicles (and hybrids with all-electric drive mode) are three times more likely to be involved in pedestrian accidents at intersections and crosswalks.

The National Federation for the Blind has been lobbying  automakers and the federal government to address the problem by ensuring that battery-powered cars make some sort of noise that will alert the sight-impaired to their presence.

And it’s not just the blind who have to worry: even slow-moving hybrids can get 40 percent closer to pedestrians than a combustion-engine car before being detected.

This endangers runners, walkers, children and bicyclists alike, who rely on hearing to place traffic around them. Hence, once electric cars become common, far more accidents and fatalities will occur than many realize.

Now, back to that "climate change" hoax, and its incredibly negative consequences: Add up the huge financial losses. The uncertainty and anxiety to be found everywhere. The destiny of so many lives now irretrievably altered.

Jobs departed. Livelihoods endangered. Increasing accidents. Our once-convenient lifestyles...our disposable incomes...our cherished American way of life - gone for what?

Because of some phony scam? - perpetrated by a condescending, desperado group of so-called climatologists? Laughing amongst themselves; arrogantly exchanging e-mails; congratulating one another; supportive of a scheme whereby the UN would control of much of the world's wealth.

But fortuituously, it now seems very much in doubt.

Americans are some of the most civilized, rational, and intelligent people on earth. If climate change truly portended danger, we all would be in unison about fixing the problem, before it could make life on our fragile planet even worse.

When the US Olympians arrived in China last year, they were shocked at the impurity of Beijing's smog-shrouded, filthy, coal-fouled air.

And everywhere, the global warmongers shouted "SEE... it's real! We need controls!"

But climate change is all about obfuscation:

Obfuscating data to show warming in place of actual cooling.

Obfuscating science to condemn harmlessCO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Obfuscating fossil fuel producers as agents of global warming - rather than only polluters. 

John Glenn not long ago had commented that the "blue earth" image he once saw from space was now grayer - much hazier than his original voyage as an astronaut in 1962.

Yes; carbon pollution is real; and the world must unite that it be cleaned up:

But Global Warming is a ruse - used by fear mongers (Gore), Congressional politicians, and the UN con artists of the IPCC - to vacuum money from our pockets.

Oil & coal - like stone - are pertinent to Earth's composition; they are not fossil fuels!

Climate Change is nothing other than a leftist scam to displace our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  To weaken America until it is "equal" to the rest of the world. 

Who has proven global warming even exists? 

The Russian hackers have inadvertently defined Climate Change for what it has been all along: a left wing, world-wide, wealth-redistributionist game - to buy Democratic votes. Nothing more.

There are no accurate ways to measure global warming; nor "increasing  CO2 levels," because carbon dioxide is germane to the air around us.

The attempt to tax us into submission, and destroy the economic base of our great country - making America part of a “One World Nation - has been exposed.

Sink the Bismarck; Guns of Navarone; Longest Day; Battleground; Battle of the Bulge; Patton; Saving Private Ryan. One cannot help but be dazzled by the villainous Germans, and their ruthless efficiency. 

They wore slick uniforms; fought with unbelievable weaponry; they had an intense, precisely-organized Prussian approach to war - compared to the "laid back," improvisational method of the Americans.

The Nazis had all the best armaments. The renowned Bismarck...Tiger tanks...the 88mm cannon...the M42 machine gun...ME 262 jet fighters; V-2 rockets. Yet they lost to the Americans, with their flimsy Sherman tanks, and lumbering B-17 bombers.

Obviously then, it begs the question: How did the Americans manage to win?  

But to those who had lived through that era, they would reply, "We out-produced 'em".

Indeed; immediately after Pearl Harbor, the incredible wartime economic shift in the USA took place with amazing rapidity:

Ford and GM quickly changed over their assembly lines to producing tens of thousands of jeeps, trucks, and tanks. Arsenals in the Midwest manufactured shells and cartridges by the millions.

Boeing, North American, Douglass, Curtiss, Grumman, et al. hired hundreds of thousands of aviation workers; and by mid-1943, were turning out thousands of warplanes every month to be shipped to the ports of departure on our two coasts.

No less impressive was the remarkable wartime re-organization of the railroads, instrumental in shipping the weapons of war - plus the oil and gasoline to fuel them - running on precise wartime schedules.

But the key to it all was STEEL; and the workers who labored on 12-hour shifts - seven days a week - in the booming mills that produced it.

The Germans had their gigantic Krupp works in the Ruhr Valley. We had Pittsburgh, Gary Indiana, and Youngstown.

If one had been living in any of three major steel towns during the war, they would recall the smokey, orange-hazed night sky. Crashing noises from the mills. Train whistles blaring at night.

15 to 20 minute waits at railroad crossings were commonplace during the 1940's.

Now, trains are a rare sight; you might hear one at night. 

Nowadays, because of the scrap metal boom, most traces of the old steel mills have literally vanished. The air around Pittsburgh, Gary and Youngstown is pristine, compared to the days of steel prosperity, before the major manufacturers began shutting down.

But why - for the most part - the absence of steel making in America? Were we to fight another prolonged war, what then?

First came the incompetent Jimmy Carter of the late 1970's, who's lack of foresight started our steel-manufacturing demise.

It was he, plus his fool Attorney General, Griffin Bell, who had denied the lawsuits of the fired steelworkers, who were suing the major steel companies on the premise that by closing down their plants, it would bring not only local economic calamity, but also risk our national security (in the event of war).  

Then came Reagan...Bush...Clinton. Need we go on? 

Promises, promises. All initially promised they'd bring manufacturing and steel jobs back to those distressed rust belt towns; but after their elections, they were probably just too darn busy to get around to it...but they sure meant well.

Of course, over the past few decades, it’s been cheaper to import steel manufactured in foreign countries. 

But that doesn’t mean that America's steel industry is doomed. Many mills are actively producing high-quality specialty steels for specific markets requiring it. Demand for seamless pipe for the oil drillers has remained especially strong.

On the contrary, in the coming months & years, many economists predict heavy manufacturing is going to make a comeback in America; although nowhere near the heydays of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

But it all remains contingent on the availability of cheap energy.

Today, moderately strong world steel demand, higher global prices, a weak dollar, high ocean freight rates- all are acting as a disincentive for steel imports, with a concomitant rise in strength of our slowly-recovering domestic steel industry.

Hence, once the economy improves, an expected rise in demand portends good times ahead for US steel makers...except for one "X-factor" now ominously looming on the horizon: the bizarre environmentalism of the Obama administration - and the green fanatics looming within both halls of Congress.

And what do they have in store for us? Prosperity? Another Great Depression? Who can even explain their motives, other than ruin?

In a time of severe recession; a real unemployment rate hovering around 16%, with no end to the job losses in sight, and ever more families seeking food stamps, Barack Obama and the Senate democrats have chosen "climate change" as their priority.

Never mind that polls reveal less than 10% of Americans even care about climate change, or the bizarre premise that the earth is warming. They feel otherwise. They don't believe it; nor can find evidence of it in their daily lives.

But those same polls reveal that the vast majority are DEEPLY worried about the economy: 

They DO see the suffering that's evident around them, as wave-after-wave of job losses keep rippling through the nation, with no end in sight.

But Barack Lunatic Obama seems to feel otherwise:

Incredibly, this vainglorious man is encouraging the Senate put “Cap-and-Trade” on a fast track to passage, so he can go to Copenhagen this December and crow heroically (to the European socialists) that the United States is now the leader in the green energy revolution- saving the world from the non-existent threat of global warming!

But as they say...misery loves company.

The European nations have ruined their own socialist economies after adopting the insipid, job-destroying, "green energy revolution" - and are mired in deep recession. So naturally, they're exerting enormous pressure on Obama to do likewise.

Hence, he is quite bound and determined to please them. He seeks glory in Copenhagen. He wants to arrive there, triumphantly waving his victorious Climate Change law to the world, proclaiming the damnation of fossil fuels for all time!

And if it sparks an inevitable downward slide of the US economy - so be it.

But we know Cap 'n Trade has nothing to do with the climate; in reality it will be the fast track to economic ruin.

Cap and Trade will tax all energy use in America, spelling disaster for the energy-intensive steel industry, let alone how it will destroy another 30-50% of what remains of our manufacturing base.

But liar Obama remains in full campaign mode, running around the country, happily proclaiming his favorite mantra about how his plan (scam) "will generate millions of new green jobs."

Sure it will.

In reality, it will generate millions of newly-unemployeds, now dependent on their monthly Obama check for survival.

Cap and trade will inevitably destroy the coal industry. It will all but level the budding recovery in our steel industry. It will put people who work as drillers and refiners on the unemployment lines.

But it will produce a great spike in the economy- in China.

As the cost of manufacturing gradually rises over this next decade, we'll witness millions of jobs fleeing offshore in the inexorable search of higher profits. The laws of economics cannot be repealed. Those countries offering the lowest production costs (energy-taxation) always emerge the victors. 

Meanwhile, the entire United States gradually becomes a massive, California-like disaster, as the radical environmentalism of the1980's that ruined that state is foisted upon the rest of the country, by none other than the mean-spirited diminutive weasel from San Francisco, Barbara Boxer- proud sponsor of the Senate climate bill.

Obama's insistence of switching to higher cost wind/solar generated electricity (and other alternatives) is less than a zero-sum game. Any green jobs created are more than offset by the loss of conventional energy jobs- hurting the US manufacturing sector which requires reasonably-priced energy to compete in the global marketplace.

Higher energy prices literally ruin the economies of scale in every facet of our lives.

Look for the doubling and trebling of our electric bills; five dollar-a-gallon gasoline; and keeping our houses at a shivering, European-like 59* at night.

And what about the inevitable spike in food prices? Or the fact that school after school will be forced to close down - or seek higher tax levies - as their energy costs skyrocket, and teachers are laid off en masse. Has anyone considered that?

And for what? Because of preventing too much carbon dioxide - a gas humans exhale  -from "poisoning" the air?

Meanwhle, what's the first thing Mr. Obama will do after returning from Copenhagen next December 19, having accepting the world's accolades for pushing through his destructive plan?

Of course; he'll go to his oval office; crank up the heat to 80*, roll up his shirtsleeves, put his feet up on the desk; light a cigarette and think..."what a country!" 

Meanwhile, millions of the newly unemployed, and millions more miners, blue collar workers, and others worried about their futures, will think..."What a president- aarrgh!"

Thanks Mr. Obama; have a Merry Christmas.

In 1970, an unknown Nasa scientist, James Hansen, literally shook the world with a startling "discovery": (quote)... "The world was warming, and the cause was greenhouse gases from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS."

But how many people knew that Hansen, supposedly a lone “NASA whistleblower”- who stood up to the mighty U.S. government - had been bankrolled by George Soros, and his liberal think-tank - the Open Society Institute?  

Never in the history of mankind has there ever been so much hype about one single issue - global warming.

(Quote) “It amazes me that so many people believe in global warming; and that it's caused by humans," said U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma - who recently chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” gathering..."This myth has been promoted by the major media, giving much attention to those who support it, but very little to those who debunk it."

Ironicallly, Inhofe's "major media event" received almost NO media attention.

Hence, any scientist, following the trail blazed by Hansen, can achieve fame (and of course, a meal ticket) by coming out with an "alarming  study" about...sea levels rising by 18 inches...increasing fury of hurricanes...extinction of the polar bears...melting of the polar ice caps...disappearing land masses...etc. blah-blah.

But say we outlawed fossil fuels tomorrow - yet the polar ice caps kept melting, and hurricanes began intensifying. What then? Earth's history abounds with climate changes. And CO2 has little, if anything to do with it. 

Far-flung liberal policies - such as Cap 'n Trade - portend vast economic disruption before any PROOF of cause! Despite our great technological achievements, few Americans now possess even a rudimentary grasp of science. So the "global warmongers" continue to hold sway.

Not surprisingly, most people obligingly (idiotically) ascribe to the coming "crisis" that CO2 atmospheric emissions will evoke a calamitous climatic change, and we MUST move toward renewable "clean" energy, before it's TOO LATE.

CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere. It's essential to plants. It is neither pollutant nor  'greenhouse gas'. Car emissions comprise but a mere 0.01% of its presence in the air. The balance is almost entirely the result of the carbon cycle.

Remember the "carbon cycle" diagram in your in your seventh grade science text? Well here's a quick E-Z refresher:

Plants take in CO2 (photosynthesis); we then 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 an increase in CO2 would increase plant proliferation - which begets increasing oxygen production - which each one of us then inhales. Ergo; the carbon cycle!

Therefore, there can be no global warming due to CO2 gas. If there IS global warming, it's because the SUN is putting out more radiant energy. Got it?

CONCLUSION: man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people - a political movement led by those who seek to control the worlds' economies, and redistribute the world’s wealth through the trading of "carbon credits."

America-hater George Soros is out to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability. He is an atheist - the epitome of the fraudulent money changers whom Jesus once cast out of the temple.

In the 1990's, George Soros gained international notoriety when he risked $10 billion on a single currency speculation and shorted the British pound. He turned out to be right- and in a single day- the trade generated a profit of $1 billion; ultimately, it was reported that his profit on the transaction reached $2 billion.

As a result, he is famously known as the "the man who broke the Bank of England." And now, Soros stands to make another fortune by shorting the U.S. dollar:

There are billions of dollars in grant money being thrown around to study global warming, which is why liberal politicians keep the lie alive - to create fear - the basic driver of their power bases. 

Well, just keep rummaging through the closet; in much of the USA, July has been April, and were still anxiously a-waitin' summer - if it EVER arrives. 

Yep;  those oh-so-clever liberals had it right all along...the climate IS actually changing - our precious planet is getting COLDER.

Indeed, it was the first July Fourth in memory where bonfires (rather than fireworks) were the order of the day, to ward off perhaps the coldest 4th in our nation's history:

In the Midwest that same night, the low temperature dropped to 47 degrees. Meanwhile, you couldn't have located Al Gore with a search warrant.

Forever hereafter, it shall be known as the "Freezing 4th." In much of the Midwest and East, the weather was cloudy, drizzling, with a stiff wind out of the North - near jacket/sweatshirt temperature.

It was the coldest 4th of July on record at Norfolk, Virginia: the recorded daytime high was a searing 69 degrees; the previous record (70) was set in 1915.

It was the second-coldest 4th of July ever in Omaha...Fourth coldest in Lincoln, Nebraska. And in the cold, rainy Northwest, summer has been long overdue.

July 4th, 2009: Midwestern temperatures recorded at 2 PM were as follows...

-Chicago, Illinois: 66° F (and raining)

-Indianapolis, Indiana: 63° F (and raining)

-Erie, Pennsylvania: 69° F (sunny)

-Minneapolis, Minnesota: 69° F (partly sunny)

Yes, it was supposedly high summer. But liberals are cautioning..."extreme weather swings" are just part of the "uptrend" in global warming. 

In most areas of the country- despite the so-called 'danger' of CO2 emissions - summer temperatures are well BELOW average (according to the National Climate Data Center/NOAA); thereby confirming the fact the earth is cooling.

Conclusion? Global climate change is not as dependent on "rising CO2" as has been postulated. In fact, it's an outright fabrication, "supported" by liberal scientists at the IPCC (international panel on climate change) from the UN. 

But as the party in power, the liberals remain dangerous:

When fanaticism mixes with politics -plus scientific ignorance- it spells "problem"...climate change legislation - taxing CO2.

The answer? Fight back with knowledge. Embarrass all climate cretins! If they won't listen to common sense, use the "Socratic Method" (asking questions), thereby arriving at the truth.

QUESTION #1- What exactly, is climate change? Definition please.

QUESTION #2-  Is it CO2 accumulation? Greenhouse gas? Global warming? Climate change? Which is it? Please specify problem.

QUESTION #3 -The mystery of melting/reforming polar ice; if not global warming...what then?  

QUESTION #4- Whatever happened to the, "North Pole will disappear-within-5-years" prediction?  

Since liberals act confused by facts (and the suck-up leftist media won't reveal evidence to the contrary) just keep inquiring of them why every shred of new science around the globe predicts earth's cooling.

And who can we trust to verify global cooling? Just consult the experts - the most reliable source of all- the glaciers.

FACT: sea ice is expanding at the fastest pace ever by modern records. 

FACT: Alaskan glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years.

FACT: 90% of earth's glaciers are growing - 10% continue melting.

Naval physicists- studying sunspot trends- are predicting several decades of global cooling. And century-low levels of sunspots portend "little ice ages" may be around the corner, threatening shorter growing seasons, and possible food shortages.

Okay liberals; ready for some more "silly" facts? Try this head-scratcher...CO2 is HEAVIER than air.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural component of air (approximately 0.03%). It's colorless & odorless, and therefore, does NOT pollute.

Now let's play second grade science teacher: "If CO2 is heavier than air, it CANNOT accumulate (rise) in the upper atmosphere!" Any questions? Raise your hands." 

At the most technical level, REAL scientists find that no valid mechanism exists near earth's surface enabling CO2 to affect warming. Being heavier than air, CO2 absorbs all heat radiation available to it just above the ground.

Ergo, the major reason why "greenhouse gasses" do NOT create significant global warming is because this "relevant radiation" can interact with earth ONLY within the first few meters (10 actual meters for CO2).

Above that, heat radiation disperses equally, therefore not affecting the amount of warmth in the upper atmosphere.

Actually, the real problem with heavier-than-air CO2 is it collects in mine shafts. It also becomes dissolved in the oceans, forming a harmful acid to coral reefs (carbonic acid).

But as CO2 becomes dissolved in the sea, it does NOT warm it.

Recall when noted anti-scientist, John Holdren (a member of the Obama cabinet) said, (quote) "Drastic measures should not be off the table, in discussions on how best to tackle climate change."

Mr. Fanatic (Holdren) was proposing everything from placing mirrors in space (that reflect sunlight), to fertilizing the oceans with iron to encourage the growth of algae (to soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide).

Mr. Holdren's most crazed option was to "seed" clouds; thereby, bouncing the sun's rays back into space, so as to not warm earth's surface- certainly an idea that merited consideration for the Noble Prize for Lunacy. 

But why not actually reverse Holden's wild idea, and employ it in a way that would actually eliminate all of carbon dioxide's ecological harm? Seed the oceans!

Instead of taxing CO2 emissions via cap 'n trade laws, why not just purchase massive amounts of calcium hydroxide? (i.e. the substance used to keep aquariums clean)

Calcium hydroxide mixed with carbonic acid is a base reacting with an acid; therefore, a harmless salt (calcium carbonate) is formed- a "neutralization" reaction, thereby preventing the dissolving away of the beneficial ocean coral.

More specifically, when calcium hydroxide solution (the commercial product is known as Kalkwasser) is added to saltwater, it neutralizes the free carbon dioxide present, and converts carbonic acid to harmless bicarbonate ions, which combine to form solid calcium carbonate -- the same "white stuff" that forms coral in the first place.

"VIOLA" - problem solved. No more disappearing coral reefs.

Instead of using cap 'n trade laws to take trillions out of the economy, just tell all the looney libs to visit their friendly local aquarium shop, purchase some calcium hydroxide solution (which cleans fish tanks), and do their part to save the coral reefs - then shut up once and for all about global warming. 

The polar bear has become the poster child for global warming:

We are constantly bombarded on television (news & public service announcements) with the same file footage of that sickly, dirty, obviously exhausted polar bear cub, struggling helplessly to climb aboard an ice floe-- a victim of the "melting Arctic ice cap."

Yes; the poor, forlorn polar bears; what shall become of these beleaguered, cuddly creatures?

But these lovable animals are the only bear species that actively hunts humans for food. And left to their own devices, they could easily survive on a seasonal diet of Inuit Eskimos, or even an occasional stranded ice road trucker.

Recently a federal appeals court threw out a Shell oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea; and of course, it was all because of "concerns" about the potential harm to the polar bears.

But the real polar bear problem may be the threat to our national security; the bears have become pawns in the radical left's attempt to restrict our country's most vital economic mission-- domestic energy exploration. 

But polar bear habitats aside, one thing reamains clear-- America is a nation that runs on oil; and as the old oilmen like to say..."A country that runs on oil, can't afford to run out."

During the Bush years, administration officials maintained that drilling for Alaskan oil, and the survival of the polar bear, "were NOT interconnected.”

But in the Obama era. Edward J. Markey-- Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence-- now claims that indeed, they ARE "intimately connected", and has introduced legislation to reverse Bush's “oil-first, polar-bear-second” energy policy.

Chairman Markey recently was quoted: “It is time to put the interests of an industry awash in profits aside, and consider the vast impacts the Bush administration’s foolish decisions have had on an imperiled species, and on the planet.”

Markey will continue to block Arctic oil exploration at every turn-- using the bears as his "cover story." 

In the 60’s and 70’s, polar bears were being shot, and hunted down wholesale by the thousands. Currently an estimated 1200 polar bears are  being "harvested" per year; mostly in the northwestern territories of Canada. 

If Markey and the environmentalists are so gravely concerned, why do they remain silent about the hunting? Why doesn't Markey push for a "Serengeti-type" bear habitat around Hudson Bay, where --despite the so-called warming climate-- polar bear populations are on the upswing.

Polar bears have been around for as long as time. They have survived on their own through natural warming/cooling cycles long before man became a factor. So why all of a sudden are the bears incapable of surviving now, when they have done so in the past?

And why have they emerged to become the focus of the debate about global warming?

Markey (and the the left) knows that it's a convenient way for storybook emotions to trump common sense: "Protect" the polar bears; save the environment; block  drilling-- which raises fuel prices-- and (drum roll, please), opens the way for ALTERNATIVE energy sources.

Currently, U.S. foreign oil imports are nearing 70% of our annual supply, rising at an alarming rate of 2% per year-- the same rate of decline of our aging oilfields in the Southwest and Gulf of Mexico.

At this pace, by 2019, we'll be importing 90% of our oil from abroad.

What if there was a Mideast war, and oil exports to the U.S. cut off? How would we then supply our military after our strategic petroleum reserve goes dry? What then?

Why does the $700 billion we pay to the Arabs continue to be our chief annual export? Why can't we drill offshore in Alaska; are polar bears really that important?

All we need do is look to the Southern hemisphere.

Since November of 2007, Brazil has had two mega-sized oil discoveries off the coast of Sao Paulo-- among the biggest ever made in the oil industry-- estimated between 12 - 20 billion total barrels. The first commercial oil production is scheduled to begin in late 2010. 

These discoveries literally changed Brazil's status overnight, from a net energy importer to a future exporter. Result? Do the math; 20 billion x $70/barrel = 1.4 trillion dollars of wealth that Brazil will realize over approximately the next decade, as they harvest their petroleum bounty.

Meanwhile, back in the good ol' USA, we continue to worry about polar bears, as our deficits rise, the dollar shrinks; American drivers are looking at three/four dollar gallon gasoline, and our economy continues to crater.

Chances are (within the next five years) a combination of drilling restrictions and falling oil supplies is going to make gasoline too expensive for routine use in America's 250 million private automobiles.

When news of Brazil's amazing oil strike was flashed across the country, it touched off a wild, national celebration; the Brazilians knew it would put money in the pockets of every citizen in the form of social services, government infrastructure improvements, and basically, lifting all boats on a rising economic tide of oil exports.

So why can't we use the Brazilian model? Why should we be the only country worried about polar bears, oil splls, and the like? Deepwater offshore drilling techniques-- developed by U.S. engineers-- have made the process virtually hazard free, and it's been adopted by China, Brazil, Norway, and around the world.

The National Geological Survey has estimated that there are anywhere from 90-160 billion barrels of oil north of the Arctic Circle; at current crude prices, 160 billion x $70 = 11.2 TRILLION dollars-- money that roughly equals our national debt; a total that keeps rising as we continue to borrow money from the Chinese, and then send to OPEC.

But the leftists in Congress (and the Whitehouse) are quite content to preserve this insane staus quo, and watch our standard of living slide toward that of the third world.

The more the left can deny Americans of the wealth that is theirs, the more political control they will garner, as a struggling populace must look to Washington DC to solve economic problems that wouldn't exist were it not for these power-crazed, callous liberals.

But there is a simple solution: Why don't we build a Gitmo for polar bears? Would it not be a lot cheaper than to keep importing oil, and leaving12 trillion bucks in the ground?

Given that the U.S.will continue one of the world's biggest consumers of petroleum, why should we continue to be its biggest importer of oil?

But even if there were no polar bears around in a few decades, would it really change anything? Aren’t efforts to list the polar bear as endangered (or threatened) just liberal attempts to control our lives, and put the UN (and the leftists) in charge of us all?

If the polar bears went away-- so what? Polar bears are hardly the first-- and will definitely not be the last-- of animals to become extinct; this planet could survive just fine without them.

Why should we bankrupt ourselves for 25,000 polar bears? Since when did they get the vote? With so much attention on animals, where’s the concern for people?

100 years from now, people will look upon this present time in sheer bafflement:

History will be written about how a nation-- once the envy of theworld-- literally turned against itself and self-destructed, over a dog-eat-dog environmental argument; an apocalypse of ecological insanity versus common sense-- a nation that caused its own economic downfall, because animal rights had surperseded human rights.

America is a nation that can't afford to wait around for $10/ gallon gas. We need to develop our resources now, and let the polar bears fend for themselves; there are more than enough tasty seals around to keep them happy.

The tension is palpable.

You can feel the suspense...the foreboding. Were fast-approaching the 11th hour-- (play "Dragnet" music) DAHN, ta- dun- dunt...dahn- ta-dundun- DIR-R-R-R (music fades).

So what's all the drama about? Of course; it's those dreaded, fast-rising sea levels, ominously licking away at land masses everywhere.

Time is running out!

Does anyone remember the fallout shelter-building mania that swept America a generation (or two) ago? There was utter paranoia that the Russians would, at any time, launch simultaneous thermonuclear attacks, and concerned schoolchildren were taught, "if you see a blinding flash, duck 'n cover" (your head).

Recently, a report issued from a UN climate change conference in Copenhagen stated a similar grim warning: Given the rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we should prepare for the worst-- a possible 20 foot rise in sea levels during the 21st century, triggered by global warming.

So now, we have "major risk" that many coastal areas will be inundated by the end of the century, because polar ice sheets have been (quote)... "melting much faster than previously estimated"...and..."low-lying areas in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Florida, plus certain areas in Europe, all face catastrophic flooding by the year 2100."

This of course begs the obvious question: in all recorded history, has there ever existed a NON-catastrophic flood? After all, a flood is a flood; and no one-- save Noah-- is usually prepared.

The UN conference report also stated that Britain, in particular, remains "imperiled". (Quote)..."Large areas of the Thames Estuary are likely to disappear by 2100; and cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defenses."

New flood defenses?

Well allright then; no problem. It's actually just what the worldwide economy needs-- a monumental, shovel-ready, stimulus package. Dig, baby dig!

So why not take a cue from the Dutch, and initiate a massive, comprehensive, dike construction project?

Yup; we'll show those darn, stubborn rising seas a thing or two.

Imagine...a worldwide dike-building project: the economic stimulus...the jobs created; and above all-- we'd now feel SAFE.

People would again be able to sleep at night, and no longer would children come home from school and preach environmentalism to Ma 'n Pa. We'd could laugh in the face of "climate change" resulting from our use of those horrendous, nasty-nasty fossil fuels-- no more controversy! 

It seems like the Chinese had the right idea from the git-go: Got a problem with invaders? Well, just build a great wall to stymie the rascals. But instead of inland, everyone would be building their own version of the Great Wall adjacent to their coastlines.  

Makes sense doesn't it? Turning a negative into a positive, and thwarting invasion from the seas. The unemployed now have jobs, and the world economy takes off. 

Of course, it would block coastal views, but what's aesthetics compared to saving lives? If your worried about it, just make like a submariner and get a periscope.

It can't miss!  It would spark a revival in the construction-building trades, creating yet more union employment for the jobless masses, and give them a well-deserved chance at a middle class lifestyle.

Indeed, for almost a generation now, the global warmongers have been forecasting the coming of the great coastal boogie man--worldwide rising sea levels.

But now, with the advent of the dyke (er, dike) era, we can return to our good ol' wasteful American selves, and continue to use up 25% of the world's resources, while letting those sea levels rise merrily away-- the fish will love it!

Basically, the crux of the global warming argument has been obfuscated.

An environmental threat has transformed into a "heated" political debate: we must literally "pay" (cap 'n trade) if we dare emit too much "greenhouse gas", which warms the earth, melts the glaciers, and ultimately raises sea levels -- all that calamity-stuff  jazz.

But now, with the onset of the modern dike-building era, we can just greenhouse gas-away to our hearts' content!

Ergo...problem solved, except for the environmentalists, who would be forced into seeking  a new line of work. After all, as the old saying goes...what goes 'round, comes around (etc.)

So let the oceans rise; who cares? They won't have a chance. Man conquers nature, a first in world history!

And no need for shared sacrifice, economic turmoil, or lifestyle disruption brought on by noisy windmills, ugly electric cars, or energy conservation-- thereby negating the Congressional "enviro-crats," who've been trying to jam climate change legislation down our throats, and tax us to oblivion.

Furthermore, America would retain its role as the economic engine of the world. It would be our chance to play locomotive, and chug-chug the world out of recession, as coastal countries all adopt dike-building programs of their own.

So now, with the world's economic and environmental problems in remission (and everyone busy at work again) we all could go on living happily ever after-- or at least until the next big problem comes along.

So let the earth continue to warm, and let those dreaded winter blizzards fade away. The plants and trees will proliferate, our heating bills plummet, the sea levels rise, and the marine mammals (and all those billions of schools of fish) no longer face ocean overcrowding.

And besides all the newly-carefree plant and marine life, the land animals also experience welcome lifestyle changes as never before:

No more sleepy wintertime bears; no more skinny hibernating squirrels; and birds of a feather no longer need migrate south together; all due to the resourcefulness of the Dutch, who as it turns out-- all along-- have been hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world.

Why didn’t we think of this before?

Here's a "burning" question Americans should be asking themselves: "How has climate change affected me?"  Am I choking? Boiling? Freezing? Sneezing? Sweating? Gasping? Coughing? Aching? Allergic? Paranoid? Fearful? Anything at all?

So why even consider it? Who amongst ourselves is actually aware of anything strange about the climate?

Does your air smell funny...or seem any different? Have you noticed anyone in public wheezing for their lives? Does anything-- anything at all-- seem altered about the weather? Is our children's growth being stunted; or our pets dying prematurely...or are our houses being flooded by rising sea levels?

Today climate change is being blamed for everything from drought in California to late delivery of the mail. But seriously, if we weren't constantly exposed to the ominous drumbeat of global warming, we wouldn't give climate change so much as a sniff-- or a wink.

Dangerous powerful storms, drought, melting glaciers, dying polar bears, calamitous tornadoes, apocalyptic hurricanes, tsunamies in the Far East, and anything hinting of catastrophe--all have been ascribed to the fallacy of climate change.

About the only things that have been left out are volcanic eruptions, and plagues of locusts.

Meanwhile back in Washington, the Obama administration is taking a new tack concerning the so called danger from climate change. It's now being melded into America's "newly revamped" policy of our national security.

Yes folks you heard correctly; climate change poses a threat to our national security. Oh my golly!

And how's this for their reasoning: A strategic studies report from the Institute for Public Research states..."the rise in sea levels is hugely important for the Navy, as it effects the use of beaches, piers and "facilities".

Yes indeed, Americans can sleep well, knowing that the Navy is in the process of dealing with the dreaded threat that climate change poses to our beaches and piers.

The Obama administration feels it's necessary to make a 180 from the previous administration, and has decided that it's imperitive to develop "21st-century" procedures to deal with the challenges of climate change--worlwide shortages and unprecedented migrations of adversely affected nations -- leading  to violent clashes and world war horror.

Such absurdity!

 
But for Barack Obama, obfuscating reality comes naturally . His climate change assumption reeks of fallacy-- that Americans must learn to think differently about national security--and that we have no other choices.

Obviously, the handwriting's on the wall. It can be read a mile away. Obama is going to use climate change to alter everything toward his marxist way of thinking. This includes downsizing the military; wresting control of the economy; attacking the private sector with environmental regulations, and going after every entity that uses energy--which encompasses everyone.

It's Barack Obama's personal vendetta -the war on the status quo! And it could end up as the most costly war of all time. Higher energy bills; higher food prices; 6 dollar/gallon gasoline; the destruction of heavy industry-- etcetera ad nauseum.

But ironically, the real threat to our national security may be the very thing Obama is proposing to alleviate climate change --the refusal to drill offshore --and the rising tide of importing more and more OPEC oil.

From virtual nowhere comes Obama, and his condemnation of all fossil fuels, inviting disastrous future energy shortages, including the precise kind of energy truly vital to our national security...oil. So now America's ticket has been punched: we're on our way to the wondrous world of alternative green energy --and damning demon petroleum.

On paper, Mr. Obama's ideas sound great. Obama will clean the planet; he'll curb the rise in the oceans. He'll create 5 million new green collar jobs that can't be outsourced; and no more so-called "dirty oil". 

Thunderation! Holy Moses! Let the Red Sea part-- Obama is about to lead the U.S.out of its 40 year plague from OPEC! But unfortunately, it's all fictional. But fiction has great political box office appeal these days to many Americans, who naively believe we could abandon oil, and move to alternative sources without missing a beat.

Yes Mr Obama; he makes it all sound so very easy.

But retooling America's energy infrastructure is far more complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousands—a total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle, and business in the country--let alone the military implications.

 
Or does the anti-president have some miraculous new energy source in mind? We need gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel to run our nation's cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, and fighter planes. 

Mr Obama's proposing a blue sky energy fairytale that could jeorpardize our nation-- a national security crisis during an emergency-- leaving our strategic petroleum reserve at near zero capacity, and a vulnerability to critical unforeseen events, such as a flash outbreak of war in the Middle East.