TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

Truth is the beginning of wisdom…

Archive for the ‘Environmentally Speaking’ Category

It is March 31 and has the brutal winter finally come to an end in the Great Plains? With temperatures across North Dakota 5 to 10 degrees below normal all winter long. Massive snowfalls blanketing the Peace Garden State for months. Now, North Dakota is enduring an end-of-March blizzard. The people of Fargo are paying the price as the ice-jammed Red River is cresting more than 40 feet over normal flooding conditions.


So, I ask you, what is the cause of all the cold, the snow, and the ice? Global warming, of course!


According to Kate White, a civil engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability” of ice jams along the Red River, so she said.


What? Let me see if I get this. A “near-record snowpack,” along with below-normal temperatures, has led to more ice, which is acting unpredictably because of global warming?

What am I not getting here? I’ll tell you what I am getting – more proof that apocalyptic visions of global warming are driven by a particular worldview. Forget the facts … the politicians and warming-mongers are! Obama has bought into it. This is what he had to say: “I actually think the science around climate change is real. . . . If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota . . . that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.”


What part of record snow is the result of global warming?

Folks, what we have to take seriously here is the fact that our worldview determines how we see the world and how we live in the world. And we better have it correct. Despite the fact that the globe has been cooling since at least 2002, or that near-record cold and snow have plagued much of North America all year long, all the proponents of global warming can see is – well, global warming.


This is why its adherents in Congress and in the White House want curbs on greenhouse gases, potentially ruinous cap-and-trade policies, and curbs on oil exploration (at a time when we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil). And if in the near future you start paying upwards of $5 a pound for ground beef, thank those in Congress who want to tax cow flatulence as a way to combat global warming.


As the New York Times relates, renowned physicist Freeman Dyson has called “climate change an ‘obsession’ – the primary article of faith for ‘a worldwide secular religion’ known as environmentalism.” Dyson accuses the adherents of this religion of “relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee … imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth.”


But the models aren’t holding true. This is why the global warming scientists need to examine their worldview … as do those who are being sucked into the hubbub … then they need to step out of the computer lab and take a walk. But they’d better bundle up first.


This doesn’t mean we don’t take care of the earth in a balanced way … but don’t worship it! … it really isn’t your mother.

Tomorrow will be April 1 … a good day for the global warming crowd.

THE MEDIA IS STRANGELY SILENT

Posted by straight shooter on March 9, 2009 under Environmentally Speaking, Political

Scientists meet to dispute global warming theory.

Manmade climate-change skeptics are meeting in New York City for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

This conference is international in scope being opened by Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. When it comes to manmade global warming, Klaus calls that a myth. He is also an outspoken critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and says the panel is one-sided and has a political agenda.

Featured at the conference will be more than 70 scientists who do not subscribe to the notion that so-called global warming is driven by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide, one of those being Harrison “Jack” Schmitt – one of the last astronauts to walk on the moon.

The Conference is being hosted by The Heartland Institute. Dan Miller is the director of public relations at Heartland. Miller says, “What we are trying to accomplish with this conference is to present to the politicians and to the public that the debate is not over about global warming or climate change; that there is plenty of room for disagreement; and that sound science shows that the earth is not warming.” … “For much of the latter part of the 20th century there’s been a mild warming as we come out of an ice age – but the planet today is much cooler than it was a thousand years ago.”

Besides the 70+ scientists at this conference, more than 650 scientists worldwide have expressed skepticism over manmade climate change.

Bloomberg has this story, “Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor” …

A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site …”

Surprise … surprise!

Check out the Science and Public Policy Institute website.

Most Recent Articles

  • Sea Level Rise The scare: An article published in early February 2009 by Jonathan Leake, the environment editor of The Times of London, said “The ice caps are melting so fast that the world’s oceans are rising more than twice as fast as they were in the 1970s.”
  • A Storm of Errors A scientific and socio-economic analysis of multiple errors of science, fact, and data in the “science” chapter of the final report of the Arkansas Governor’s Commission on “global warming”
  • Green-collar jobs – or con jobs? Environmental-union-politico alliances use their clout to promote new energy, economic vision. Will it create jobs, without impacting existing jobs, living standards and economic opportunities? The quest to be “green” has spawned countless proposals, programs, laws and advertising campaigns. In Washington, DC a “Green Jobs Advisory Council” is promoting policies for green buildings, energy efficiency, renewable energy, city infrastructure, and lower carbon emissions.
  • Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Effect on Greehouse Gases in the State of Ohio
  • Carbon Credits: Another Corrupt Currency? The real hockey-stick graphScience and Public Policy Institute

Popular Articles


So Al Gore braved the winter storm and the world’s sense of irony to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on global warming. As usual, Mr. Gore’s testimony was riddled with scientifically questionable claims and hyperbole passed off as indisputable facts: “This would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on earth … And this is within the century, if we don’t change.” As usual, Mr. Gore’s claim of a scientific consensus that, “The scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops” went unchallenged despite more and more scientists coming out as skeptics. And as usual, Mr. Gore’s standing to profit from alternative fuel technology subsidies, as he hoped to include in the stimulus, went ignored by the media and committee alike. As usual, the dissenters did their best to point out Gore’s inconsistencies. As usual, they were ignored by the media.

However, something very unusual is happening despite business-as-usual on The Hill. The American people are starting to catch on to these inconsistencies. According to new polls, those who believe this “global warming” push to be a natural phenomenon of long-term planetary trends or cycles, instead of being created by man has increased almost 10% in just a matter of months.

An interesting article came out today from the usually reliably left-leaning Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Within it, Mr. Milbank mercilessly mocks the former Vice President, repeatedly referring to him as the “Goracle” and mocking members of the committee for fawning at his feet.

Could Al Gore be wearing out his welcome not just with the American public, but even with his once staunchest allies?

One can only hope.

DEMOCRAT’S POLICIES WEAKEN AMERICA

Posted by straight shooter on October 20, 2008 under Environmentally Speaking, Political

When issue after issue are examined there is but one thought … Democrats seem to always support policies that weaken America while opposing policies that would strengthen her. Democrats consistently choose the policy that would most hurt America. Using this standard it is easy to predict which position Democrats will take on a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues.

Policies Democrats Oppose that would strengthen America:

  • Drilling for oil
  • Nuclear power
  • Lower Taxes
  • Making Life Difficult for terrorists
  • Anti-Missile Defense
  • Teacher-control of the classroom
  • School Choice
  • Photo ID when voting
  • Protect the borders
  • Environmental policies that put people first
  • Strong military

In the 1990s Democrats supported policies that would strong arm banks into giving mortgages to underprivileged people so they could buy homes. These people had little ability to pay back the loans and traditionally would have been considered bad credit risks. But through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration assured the banks that was no problem.

When a bank makes a mortgage loan these quasi-governmental agencies purchase the loan, providing liquidity to the banking system and making it possible for the banks to turn around and make more mortgage loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed by the Clinton administration to purchase these bad mortgages from the banks making them and to implement policies to pressure the banks to “liberalize” their lending standards so less credit worthy individuals would qualify for mortgages.

The stated intention was to make home ownership possible for more people. However, conservatives at the time often pointed out that this would eventually come back to haunt us as the less than credit-worthy borrowers defaulted and the taxpayer would have to bail everyone out.

That is exactly what has happened and we are now seeing the devastation these policies have wreaked on the economy. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch are either bailed out, bankrupted or bought out. And the closure of those banks is reverberating throughout the economy and around the world. There is no doubt now that the policies followed by the Democratic Clinton administration are responsible for the economic devastation we are currently witnessing.

Now let’s look at oil. Following the theory that Democrats support policies that weaken America, you will correctly predict that Democrats will be against drilling domestically for oil. Why? Because drilling for oil would strengthen America and not drilling weakens it. Relying on political enemies for our most critical natural resource is a suicidal position especially in light of the fact that our reliance is caused solely for political reasons. Our reliance on our enemies is not caused because we lack the resources. In fact, we have enough unrecovered oil reserves to supply 100% of our needs for another 251 years!

For whatever seductive words Democrats use to explain their radical position that America not be allowed to mine its own natural resources, the result is predictable. Americans are now paying record prices at the pump and it’s putting a crimp in many a budget. Democratic energy policy has weakened America.

You can go right down the line on issue after issue after issue, and see that Democrats consistently oppose policies that would make America stronger and support policies that would make her weaker.

You should be asking by now, why would Democrats want to hurt America? The reasons are deep and complex, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that the ruling members of the Democratic Party do not have America’s best interest at heart.

First, a quick look at Barack Obama and his friends, pastor, wife and associates. (This can all be goggled but don’t expect to see the liberal media outlets to do much if anything with it.) But suffice it to say he associates with many people who have been quite outspoken about their disdain for America – including his wife. The closest people in Obama’s life have said terrible things about America. His pastor said America deserved 9/11. Obama first reacted to this by saying he didn’t believe his pastor had said anything that controversial. His wife says she has never before in her adult life been proud of America.

He associates and has been befriended by Bill Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist. He has the support of Louis Farrakhan (a Jew-hating anti-American), and he has the publicly-declared support of the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hamas.

Obama says it’s not fair to judge a candidate for president on those who support them. But whether or not that is true, one must ask, why do so many people who want to destroy America support Obama? What is it they see in him that engenders their support?

The Left in America, as the Left around the world has one thing in common with these people – they all believe the world would be better off without America in it. And here we come to the crux of the issue. If you believe the world would be better off without America’s influence in it – as many on the far Left do, then what is the easiest way to stop America from spreading its influence? You can’t attack America militarily and simply get rid of it. No, the easiest way to stop America’s influence in the world is to simply weaken America economically, morally and militarily. Weaken her economically so she no longer has the financial resources to spread her influence around the world. (Democrats almost always support economic policies that weaken America because they have become practicing socialists.). Weaken her morally so she no longer has the spiritual resolve to influence the world for the better. And weaken her militarily so she can’t use physical might to spread her influence. (Democrats, including Obama have called for a weaker American military and they have called for surrender in Iraq).

It should be no surprise because the Democratic Party has been taken over by the far Left wing of socialism even though they would deny it … look up the definition of socialism. And once you understand what the Left really believes and the more you understand the positions of the Democratic Party. Once you begin to understand their true disdain for the role America has played historically in the world, you will begin to understand that they do want a weakened America. Once you understand their true loathing of the influence America has around the world, you will begin to understand that they do wish to clip America’s wings.

It may sound far-fetched, but it’s the only theory that is always consistent with Democrats’ actions. You can almost predict what stand they’re going to take on any given issue simply by figuring out which stand would most weaken America.

  • Does it weaken America to prohibit the use of our own natural resources? Yes, and Democrats prohibit it.
  • Does it weaken America to demand that banks loosen their lending standards so minorities can get mortgages? Yes, and Democrats demanded it – and we are now suffering greatly from their actions – to the tune of a $850 billion bailout passed in Congress that has a Democrat majority.
  • Is it suicidal to oppose a defense system that would protect the American population against incoming cruise missiles? Of course! And Democrats oppose it!
  • Would it hurt America if we had pulled completely out of Iraq last March as Barack Obama originally insisted on? Of course. Because we stayed, we are now on the verge of having a strong ally in the Middle East. If Democrats had had their way America would have lost what now promises to be a new and brighter future in the Middle East.

You don’t realize how much he is missed until you read and remember some of the stuff he said … and stood for!

‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘Politics is not a bad profession.  If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.’ – Ronald Reagan

‘If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under >- Ronald Reagan

In another attempt to lay a guilt trip on the United States for not signing Kyoto, a UN report will soon tell us that developing nations such as China and India are reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than Kyoto Protocol standards. The implication of course is that if China can do it, then why not the USA and Western Europe? Once again, it’s America’s fault!

The UN report is an outright fabrication, even preposterous! But even more shocking is how the UN and China say they’ve accomplished this great feat.

The fact is China is awash in unregulated pollution. The respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, recently reported that air pollution is out of control in China. “Antiquated factories billow smoke, many residents still use coal to heat their centuries-old houses, and a sharp increase in car ownership has bathed the motorways in exhaust fumes,” the report concluded. USA Today wrote in April 2007 that outside of Beijing, local chemical factories dump wastewater directly into the Feng Chan River, which is now black as ink. Nearby canals are so discolored, locals call it xiao hong he, or “little red river.”

Do you want to see if for yourself? NASA images trace the Asian plume as it propagates out over the Pacific Ocean all the way to the West coast of the United States! See it with your own eyes: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=5378

What makes the UN draft report even more outrageous is the manner in which China claims to have reduced emissions. Hu Tao of China’s State Environmental Protection Administration proclaimed at a conference in Oslo last month that China “is doing a lot” to control emissions by enforcing it’s one-child policy. The less kids … the less pollution. Is this what’s next for Kyoto? Save the earth: Kill babies!

Human rights organizations, including the left-leaning Amnesty International, say that China enforces its one-child policy through bribery, infanticide, selective-sex abortions, and even forced abortions. Gao Xian Duan, former Chinese population control administrator, testified before a US House subcommittee in 1998 regarding her participation in nationwide forced sterilizations and abortions. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9806/11/china.abortion/

This is one more reason the United States should not only abandon any attempt to sign on to Kyoto, and keep the control of emissions in the hands of America, but to abandon the UN altogether. What is a cooler earth worth when babies are slaughtered anyway? Indeed the polar bears will not only live long and prosper … they will have the earth to their own.

Obama’s Trip: Non essentials, No Flags, No Wounded Soldiers … but shopping!

Sen. Barack Obama’s international globe-hopping to the Mideast and Europe was meant to shine his credentials as a foreign policy and potential military leader (of which he has none and isn’t one) – the strong suit of his Republican rival Sen. John McCain.

Despite the media love fest following him around like groupies, Obama has yet to pull away from McCain in the polls.  Both the most recent Real Clear Politics rolling average and the Rasmussen tracking poll that coincided with the end of Obama’s trip this weekend show Obama with just a five-point lead over McCain – consistent with his numbers for the past two months.  (Press reports this weekend have almost completely ignored the Rasmussen poll to only report on a Gallup poll, which showed Obama with a nine-point lead.  Not even as good as the Newsweek poll from June, which had Obama 15 points ahead of McCain.)

With the economy, gas prices, and growing resentment about the unending war in Iraq, Obama should be pulling away in the polls … but he isn’t.

As crowds cheered Obama globally, Americans here on the homefront were left wondering if the Illinois senator wants to be their president – or the president of some other country.  (And whether the major U.S. media would at least offer the pretense of objectivity. An MSNBC poll from last week found that 47% of the public thought the coverage of Obama’s trip was “excessive.”)  Campaigning in Europe?

After Obama’s speech to an estimated 200,000 Germans in Berlin, a columnist for Britain’s Guardian newspaper began his review this way: “Barack Obama has found his people.  But, unfortunately for his election prospects, they’re German, not American.”  Who cares if Germany wants change!

Obama’s speech to the Germans left much to be desired, from an American’s perspective.

For starters, the crowd’s size was beefed up by the fact that the event was billed as a free rock concert for German citizens, with popular musical performers helping to draw the big crowd.  Scant U.S. media even noted the warm-up rock draws of reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn.

Then there was the simple stage, with the podium surrounded by three potted plants.  Missing (of course) was the American flag – nowhere to be seen.  Perhaps Obama’s staff might consider the U.S. flag offensive.

And then there was his speech, in which he proudly proclaimed he was in Germany as “a fellow citizen of the world.”

And there was the spectacle of the presidential wannabe going to a foreign land to apologize about the United States?  Obama told his German audience he was sorry about his country because “I know my country has not perfected itself.”  (This comment was made in the former seat of Nazi power.  A letter to editor published in Obama’s hometown Chicago Tribune noted the irony: “While America may not be perfect, there is no reason to apologize to the Germans, architects of the Holocaust.”)

As for America’s role in saving Germany from the onslaught of Stalinist communism and the subsequent Cold War, there was nothing.

There was a rhetorical talk about the Berlin Wall coming down, but nothing about the great American sacrifice, not to mention how our military might made President Reagan’s call – “Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev” – a reality.

There was a fleeting mention of the famous Berlin airlift of 1948 that President Truman ordered to thwart the Soviet blockade that sought to starve West Berlin.

As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote, “Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America’s military might.

“Save for a solitary reference to ‘the first American plane,’ he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all.  He spoke only of ‘the airlift,’ ‘the planes,’ ‘those pilots.’  Perhaps their American identity wasn’t something he cared to stress amid all his ‘people of the world’ salutations and talk of ‘global citizenship.'”

The Hollywood-staged Obama event for a man who has yet to ascend to the presidency didn’t sit well with all the Germans.  Germany’s Stern magazine carried the headline “Barack Kant Saves the World.”  One of their columnists, Florian Güssgen, wrote: “The man is perfect, impeccable, slick.  Almost too slick … Obama’s speech was often vague, sometimes banal and more reminiscent of John Lennon’s feel good song ‘Imagine’ than of a foreign policy agenda.”

Slickness without substance seemed to be the enduring theme of his trip.  Among the little hiccups covered up by the major media, there were several gaffes on the global coronation trip.

Perhaps the most notable – and reprehensible – was Obama’s decision to cancel a visit to wounded American soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in southern Germany.  Apparently, the Pentagon informed Obama that since his visit was a political one, the hospital visit would be only open to him and his official Senate staff.  This excluded the press and campaign officials.

The Pentagon did offer to allow Obama’s campaign plane to land at the nearby U.S. air base at Ramstein.  The media also was to be accommodated there.  Without the photo opportunity and his press entourage, Obama declined to meet the wounded soldiers.  At first, Obama’s campaign claimed to the press he decided to cancel the trip to visit the troops because it was “a trip funded by the campaign,” and therefore somehow inappropriate.  (What is inappropriate about a presidential candidate visiting wounded troops?)

But the Obama story belies the fact it was only after the Pentagon closed the event to his traveling press, that Obama’s campaign nixed the event.  Rightfully, McCain noted that it is never inappropriate for a candidate or official to visit U.S. troops.

“If I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn’t visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event,” McCain said.

McCain continued the attack on ABC News Sunday show “This Week”: “Those troops would have loved to see him, and I know of no Pentagon regulation that would’ve prevented him from going there” without the news media.

The McCain campaign has been quick to pounce on Obama’s obvious slight to the troops and double-talk, airing a new commercial this weekend.  “And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops,” the ad says. “Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.  John McCain is always there for our troops.”

McCain added that Obama “certainly found time to do other things.”  One of those other things Obama did was visit Paris and hold a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, typical of an American president visiting the French capital.

Interestingly, The New York Times quoted Elysee officials that “Obama aides insisted that an American flag not be displayed alongside the French flag because Mr. Obama is only a visiting senator and not the president.”  There is no protocol preventing an American official from having the flag displayed when abroad.  (If anyone … government officials should know flag protocol.)  But, then again, I doubt if Obama and his cronies even care?

America is snubbed once again by lame excuses and lame people!

AN “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” FOR AL GORE

Posted by straight shooter on June 19, 2008 under Environmentally Speaking

Al Gore’s global warming concerns obviously are for everybody but himself . . . especially the businesses he is connected to which stands to make him a very rich man.  He has the money and will be getting more of yours . . . let me see . . . I’m sure there is no conflict of interest here!

A Tale of Two Houses

House #1

 AL GORE'S HOME

A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.  Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas.  In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American  household does in a year.  The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 a month.  In natural ga  s alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.  This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ‘snow belt’ area. It’s in the South.

House #2

    GEORGE BUSH'S HOME

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.  This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide.  The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the A  merican southwest.  A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.  The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.  Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern.  Waste  water from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern.  The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.  Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the “environmentalist” Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

 An “inconvenient truth” for Al Gore.

You can verify it at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp