Truth is the beginning of wisdom…

Archive for the ‘Environmentally Speaking’ Category

  • Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion.

  • Destroy an average of 1-3 million jobs, every year.

  • Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation.

  • Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74%.

  • Raise residential natural gas prices by 55%.

  • Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500 annually.

  • Increase the federal debt by 26%, which is $29,150 per person.

    Why would these congressmen support a bill that drives up the cost of energy and destroy jobs during a recession?
    Bono Mack, Mary (CA-45) 202-225-5330
    Castle, Mike (DE) 202-225-4165
    Kirk, Mark (IL-10) 202-225-4835
    Lance, Leonard (NJ-7) 202-225-5361
    LoBiondo, Frank (NJ-2) 202-225-6572
    McHugh, John (NY-23) 202-225-4611
    Reichert, Dave (WA-8) 202-225-7761
    Smith, Chris (NJ-4) 202-225-3765

    Notice they all serve on different committees. We all know there are dozens of different committees in the House. But what was promised to them for voting yea. Could they have been promised more influence in each of the positions? Why did these individuals vote against the wishes of the very people who put them in office? Some of that has been found in the 300 pages of amendments that was distributed in the wee hours of the morning that once again no one read before they voted.

    The final vote was 219 yeas and 212 nays. Had these “Elite Eight” voted according to their constituents wishes vs. their own potential political gain, the vote would have been 211 yeas and 220 nays. But we didn’t need all 8 to vote correctly. We only needed 4. If only 4 had voted nay, the final tally would have been 215 yeas and 216 nays.

    Speaker Pelosi stated to the House before the vote was cast, “… just remember these four words for what this legislation means: jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs. Let’s vote for jobs.” She forgot to finish each phrase, in China, in China, in China, in China. Obviously, she and all who voted to pass this legislation didn’t think very far into the future or even use common sense. Not only will the American people be taxed so much they will feel “out of business”, but our major employers will be “moving out their business” to countries that don’t even care about clean air, let alone tax upon it. It will have nothing to do about anti-patriotism. It will simply be a financial business decision.

    We are fed-up with spineless, gutless Progressives and Liberals like this. They need to be removed from office and replaced with true Conservatives. Call them and tell them.

    This cap-and-trade bill heading to the Senate will raise energy costs, increase unemployment, and weaken the economy, if enacted.

    The Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation estimates that House-approved legislation (219-212).limiting greenhouse gas emissions will hit consumers with a 60% spike in gasoline prices and a 90% increase in electricity prices, after inflation.

    David Kreutzer, a senior policy analyst in energy, economics, and climate change at Heritage, says Congress needs to hear a bigger uproar from taxpayers about the economic impact of the bill.

    “But we will also find that virtually everything will go up in price because everything uses energy, and energy gets much more expensive. So we find that the impact per household will be, for a family of four, about $3,000 per year for the first 24 years, and that’s as far out as we analyzed it,” he notes. “The CO2 caps get drawn down lower and lower and lower even beyond that, so the cost will continue to rise.”

    Kreutzer says although the cap-and-trade bill faces tougher sledding in the Senate, President Obama was able to successfully employ “arm-twisting, tradeoffs, and back-room deals” to pass the measure in the House. So Americans “can’t rest if they don’t want higher energy prices,” advises the Heritage analyst.

    Obama continues to twist things to get his way!

    Temperatures seem to be dropping everywhere but at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where Warming Or Coolingleaders are on the hot seat for burying a report on global warming. Days after the House passed an expensive Cap-and-Trade bill to reduce greenhouse gases, even the EPA’s own employees saying it is unnecessary. In a deplorable cover-up the agency hid a report disputing the threat of climate change. EPA Analyst Alan Carlin wrote 98 pages deconstructing the global warming phenomenon, only to have it concealed by the EPA’s leadership. Carlin told Fox News that his boss told him to stop working on the project, which found that global temperatures are actually cooling.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is launching an investigation into the incident, telling reporters yesterday that the EPA fears the truth. “We’re going to expose it,” he said. Hopefully, he will manage to do so before the Senate delves into a Cap-and-Trade bill that will not have any measurable effect on the atmosphere but could ship an estimated 2.5 million U.S. jobs overseas … on top of the tremendous costs to every American taxpayer.

    8 GOP Votes Paved Way For Unnecessary Climate Bill

    President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored a major victory with the House’s approval of a landmark climate bill – thanks to help from a handful of Republicans who have been deceived by the climate fear mongers who do not have science on their side.

    In Friday’s vote of 219-212, the legislation was supported by 211 Democrats and 8 aisle-crossing GOP members: Reps. Mary Bono (Calif.), Michael Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), David Reichert (Wash.) and Christopher Smith (N.J.). It is obvious these GOP members are just Liberals hiding in Republican clothing.

    What amazed me was 44 Democrats voted against the bill which was because they are either becoming educated to the truth about climate change fear mongering, or it is a tax increase issue and they want to be re-elected. Unfortunately it is probably the latter even though I wish it was the former.

    House Minority Leader John Boehner was right when he said after the vote. “This is the biggest job-killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”

    According to The Associated Press, the “cap-and-trade” legislation places the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. It requires:

    – A 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

    – An 83% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

    – That 20% of all electricity in the United States be generated by renewable sources and/or more efficient methods by 2020.

    When you add the spinoff costs to the Congressional Budget Office estimate, due to increased manufacturing, transportation, and retail costs that will be passed back to the consumers,  some estimate up to $3,000 a year  per average household.

    The 1,200-plus-page bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future … hopefully defeat … as this legislation by definition is really a national energy tax. We will have many more such taxes as long as the Obama administration is at the helm.

    Republicans need to clean up the party and be truly conservative as they are expected to be or they will not be elected in the next elections. The place to start is to get rid of these 8 who voted for this climate bill.

    As usual The New York Times passed on the opportunity to publish a great op-ed letter to President Barack Obama from Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter & Gamble. Pritchett worked for that company for 36 years, until his retirement in 1989.

    Confirmed by the Internet watchdog Snopes, here’s a sample of what Pritchett wrote:

    Dear President Obama:

    You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. …

    You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. …

    You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

    You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

    You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

    You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

    You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. …

    You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

    You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. …

    You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

    You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

    You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

    Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

    Lou Pritchett

    Thank you, Mr. Pritchett, for your love for America, honesty and willingness to risk your reputation by speaking up to this administration.

    Here are some more . . .

    President Obama:

    You scare me because so many amazing corporate and American leaders, such as Lou Pritchett, are saying you scare them.

    You scare me because after you initiate more government borrowing and bailouts than all presidents combined, you then require Congress to follow a system that is “pay-as-you-go.”

    You scare me because you really do believe that going into massive amounts of debt can remedy our economy in the long run.

    You scare me because your actions don’t reflect the federal governmental constraints and fiscally prudent principles of our Founding Fathers and Constitution.

    You scare me because you buy and run the banking, automobile and (soon) health industries with taxpayers’ money but refuse to call it socialism.

    You scare me because you claim to be a fighter for minorities and the promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness yet do not defend the unborn. What greater minority is there than those in the womb, against whom you already have enacted more pro-abortion laws than anyone since the Roe v. Wade decision?

    You scare me because you promise to defend the U.S. against all potential enemies yet pacify those harboring terrorists, fight for the rights of combative detainees, and enable the enemies of Israel.

    You scare me because your media team (including the mainstream media) seeks to label as radical or in some way penalize any opposing conservative voices … such as conservative talk show hosts, news agencies, columnists and actors.

    You scare me because your media team does not address or diminish in any way your deification before the world, epitomized by the editor of Newsweek who stated on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show: “In a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God.” (How much scarier can it get than representative statements like that in a republic that once stood for a balance among political powers and a government “by the people, for the people”?)

    You scare me . . . period!

    We keep hearing that the global temperature dramatically increased in the last century. But what does “global temperature” mean, and how reliable are the readings?

    Global temperature is measured through thousands of stations located throughout the world. The continental United States itself has 1,221 such measuring points, and supposedly they are among the most reliable in the world. But how reliable are they? Anthony Watts, blogger of Watts Up With That, took it upon himself (and a group of more than 650 volunteers) to find out the reliability. They examined 70% of the stations and the results are nothing short of stunning.

    They found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. They found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

    In fact, they found that 89% of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own location requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

    It gets worse. They observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time, also has caused them to report a false warming trend. There were major gaps found in the data records that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. They also found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and NASA caused recent temperatures to look even higher. Why measure if you are going to change the results? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of measuring? And these are supposed to be among the more reliable temperature readings in the world! Here is a file of the entire report. Read it and decide for yourself if you can trust that temperature data.

    The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

    So with ground temperature data now revealed as unreliable, what do we know? Satellite Data indicates that the earth warmed from the period of 1979 to around 1998, and that it has cooled since 2002. That is 19 years of warming, and at least 7 years of cooling … and very little else that we know for certain. On the basis of this, countries around the world have instituted disastrous and business-damaging programs like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs. Very soon the United States will consider the Waxman-Markey bill, which would enact a cap and trade program to tax us on what we exhale after ever breath we take in. They tell us the science is settled … on what? … flawed data!

    And finally, Richard Henry Lee at the American Thinker Blog asks perhaps the most important question to arise from this discovery: “But the real question is why it took a dedicated group of volunteers to find the numerous faults in our temperature record rather than the heavily funded governmental and educational institutions which are continually warning us about global warming.”

    That one isn’t hard to answer … those institutions, seeing their coffers fill up with each doomsday prediction, simply didn’t care to look.


    Posted by straight shooter on May 6, 2009 under Environmentally Speaking, General, Political Terrorism

    Just recently, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are “pollutants that threaten public health and welfare.” This so-called “threat” comes from the effects of man-made global warming.

    This ruling is the first step in regulating the very gas that makes life on Earth possible. If that sounds odd to you, it should. A lot of what is going on here has little, if anything, to do with public health.

    The EPA’s “endangerment finding” classified CO2 under the Clean Air Act as a pollutant. EPA administrator Sheila Jackson said, “Greenhouse-gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.” Her opinion of course!

    There are a multitude of scientists who would disagree. The agency’s findings came at a time when the science surrounding man-made global warming is more hotly debated, and the “man-made” part more questionable than ever.

    For starters, there are good reasons to doubt whether, in fact, the Earth is getting warmer. The data, as opposed to computer models, is telling us that the globe has been cooling for the better part of a decade. This inconvenient fact may be why the preferred expression has gone from “global warming” to “climate change” as fear mongers try to achieve a switch in wording while preventing a switch in support.

    Real history teaches us that climate is always changing. So the question becomes: What causes climate change? Again, a great many leading climate scientists insist, with ample evidence to back it up, that the warming that occurred during the 20th century has resulted from natural causes and cycles.

    Those like the Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg who insist that even if human activity is contributing to a warming trend, then trying to regulate CO2 is the wrong approach. Lomborg says that “cutting CO2 simply doesn’t matter much for most of the world’s important issues.” Lomborg says the goal should be “to do better for people and the environment.”

    Thus, we should emphasize developing technologies and alternative energy sources putting people first, and then the environment. The global warming crowd wants to change where we live, what we drive, and even what we eat. Where some things need to change we need to remember that CO2 isn’t the demon it has been made out to be.

    Britain’s Hadley Center, itself a proponent of man-made global warming, calls some of the warning messages “misleading . . . apocalyptic rhetoric.” Rhetoric, such as Congressman Harry Waxman, telling NPR that the North Pole was in danger of evaporating. Evaporating!!!? … too much time with Al Gore.

    Sadly, the biggest victims of this misleading rhetoric will be the world’s poor. As Lomborg points out, “Carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. … No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now.” Morally sound approaches to the environment must consider the plight of the poor.

    Calling CO2, a part of the natural ecosystem, a “threat” to public health brushes aside these concerns and lets the would-be social engineers get to work – work that will create serious problems now, and for future generations … if forced at the current oratory now in progress by the Obama administration.


    Posted by straight shooter on May 6, 2009 under Environmentally Speaking, General

    There was yet another recently released report casting doubt on the impacts of global warming – specifically whether or not the historically low water levels in the Great Lakes were caused by human activities. Green Groups frequently cited the lower levels as a result of human activity and a portent of things to come. Henry Payne at Planet Gore offered an assortment of news stories to claim this …

    • April, 2003, Detroit News: “A group of scientists predicted that global warming will wreak havoc on the Great Lakes region . . . the largest single concentration of fresh water in the world.”
    • October, 2003, Detroit Free Press: “The idea that warming has benefits may be a particularly tough sell to Michiganders already disturbed by what happens when the Great Lakes drop near historic lows.”
    • April, 2007, Detroit News: “Data from a new United Nations report on climate change … strengthens scientific opinion that Michigan will see other dramatic effects in the coming decades: lower Great Lakes water levels, a dramatically receding Lake St. Clair. … “
    • May, 2008, Detroit News: “A report released by an environmental group warns that unless Congress acts to curb global warming, Great Lakes water levels will drop up to 3 feet; beaches will close more often, and fish and animal populations will decline.”

    It turns out these warnings and reports were wrong …

    • A steady drop in water levels in Lake Michigan/Huron over the first half of this decade resulted from natural causes, not man-made ones, according to U.S. and Canadian researchers, noting that the past 18 months of rising waters could be an indication the lakes are headed back to normal levels.
    • Researchers working for the International Joint Commission this week released the findings of a two-year study on the St. Clair River and the amount of water running through it out of Lake Michigan/Huron. The study was launched to answer questions by lake shore residents who had watched the steady drop of water levels in recent years.
    • The study found that Mother Nature has been behind the changes under way in the last eight years. “It’s not ongoing; it has definitely stabilized,” said Ted Yuzyk, the Canadian co-chair of the study board, who added the changes have reversed in the last 18 to 24 months. “And it’s not human driven. This is more natural.”

    This was a two-year comprehensive study with no political bias except to find the truth. Sadly, and predictably, green groups were up in arms over it.

    The commission is not calling for any corrective action in the Lake Huron-St. Clair River now, which is not sitting well with members of the Canadian environmental group GBA Foundation … that funded its own study in 2004 to put the blame on human activity, and in reality was a conflict of interest.

    “The fact that this report completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing,” said Roy Schatz, GBA’s founding president, in a press release when they didn’t get their own way with their warped research to twist the truth.

    The report does not completely dismiss the enormous increase in outflow. Instead, it attributes it to a natural cause, using scientific evidence and the effects of this evidence’s impact, as opposed to manmade global warming.

    For science to work properly, it needs to be allowed to be wrong, so that scientists can learn from their mistakes. The problem with the Radical Green Movement is that it can’t ever allow for the possibility that it could be wrong. The whole movement is based on the necessity of immediate action. Then when they are proved wrong it leaves them little choice but to attack and belittle deniers; which is as unscientific a response as there is … but one that is consistently utilized.

    Carbon dioxide … which humans exhale … is now regarded as a public danger according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are now planning for this exhaled gas from the air we breathe in to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, something the Act was not intended to do when it was enacted over 30 years ago.

    Aggressive cap-and-trade measures are being debated on Capitol Hill and, if enacted, are rumored to rake in trillions of dollars for the federal government and raise the cost of living for Americans by thousands of dollars.

    Dan Simmons, the director of state affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, calls cap-and-trade the largest backdoor tax in U.S. history. “In the budget it said $646 billion. They then are telling people on Capitol Hill that it is going to be $1.3 [trillion] to $1.9 trillion,” he points out. “That will make it the largest tax increase of all time of all American history and probably all world history.”

    He says the problem with cap-and-trade is that it makes all people poorer today in order to tackle an alleged problem tomorrow. Ben Lieberman with The Heritage Foundation says cap-and-trade would usher in a permanent recession.

    “We might never really have a full recovery if we have to live with these tremendous constraints on affordable energy use,” he adds, “so we would be talking about exactly the kind of thing that we are worried about now – job losses, high energy costs — these things being exacerbated and staying that way for years and years.”

    Already happening in Obama’s spending spree packages !

    A United Nations document on “climate change” has been distributed to a major environmental conclave  that envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, that will involve trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

    Read on …,2933,510937,00.html